Game Review: Match Me If You Can!

By Steve Bennett
July 23, 2008

Publisher: BAM Games, LLC
Designers: Robert Pais and Michael Wynschenk
Players: 3-6
Ages: 12+
Playing Time: 45-60 minutes
Rules Language: English
Price: $25

My guess is that most people access a game by comparing it to a game they know: ”Upwords is like Scrabble, but in three dimensions instead of two.” Sometimes such comparisons work by helping you understand the game on some basic level so that you can begin absorbing the nuances and differences. Sometimes such comparisons fail as you enter the game with false expectations for how it is played or for how enjoyable it will be.

I bring this up because upon learning about Match Me If You Can!, the new game from BAM Games, I figured it was like Scattergories except that instead of trying to come up with unique answers, you’re trying to match the answers of the Match Leader. There’s more to it than that, but if you had to give a quick summary of Match Me If You Can!, that would be it.

Scattergories is a hit at my house. If I need to bribe my two teens to play a game with the missus and me, agreeing to play Scattergories is usually the baksheesh of choice. I’m always on the lookout for games that have a similar feel to Scattergories, but sadly, Match Me If You Can! does not scratch that same itch for us.

The game is played with a Match Leader, a rotating “active” player. On a turn, the Match Leader turns over a card from any of the six category stacks. The card will be framed in one of three ways:

• Make a list ("List movie villains.")
• Rank four listed items from best to worst ("Rank the following animated movies from best to worst: The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., The Lion King, The Polar Express)
  
• Pick three entries from a list of five (Pick three of the following female TV personalities: Diane Sawyer, Meredith Vieira, Katie Couric, Kelly Ripa, Oprah Winfrey).

All the players, including the Match Leader, have 60 seconds to write down their answers. The object is to write down answers that correspond to the Match Leader’s responses. Despite this being an interesting enough premise for a party game, this is where it all broke down for us.

Using the examples above, my list of movie villains might be Cruella De Vil, Hannibal Lecter, the Joker, Humungus, Lex Luthor, Frollo, the Wicked Witch of the West, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Worthy villains all. Humungus, the bad guy in The Road Warrior, might be a bit obscure, but the others should be pretty well known across a wide spectrum of movie fans.

The problem is that in order to score points, a player has to match three names with the Leader. With an unbounded set of possibilities, it’s way too easy to grab at slightly different variations from that boundless set. Another player might come up with Lecter, Blofeld, and then Dr. No, Darth Vader, Senator Palpatine, Freddie Krueger, Leatherface, and Norman Bates. Again, worthy villains all, but with only two matches against the other list, no points for either player. This kind of thing happened a lot in our games. You’re supposed to try to think like the Match Leader, but the universe of possibilities is too great.

With the “Rank 4” questions, you score only when your four items are ranked identically to the Match Leader’s – and even then, you score only one point. More often than not, it’s a guess on the part of the players.

The “Pick 3” questions are even tougher to score. In order to score a single point, all three picked names have to match. In the example above, on what basis am I, the Match Leader, picking from the listed female TV personalities? The ones I like the most? That list would be one name long. The ones I think are most popular? Most influential? The “Pick 3” questions lack the clarity needed to guide the players. In the end, we’re comparing my random choice against your perhaps random, perhaps reasoned choice.

I believe the Rank 4 and Pick 3 questions were introduced for two reasons: one good, one bad. On the plus side, they can be friendly debate starters: “You honestly think The Lion King is better than The Incredibles? Your mama must have dropped you on your head when you were a baby!” Okay, maybe not that friendly. We had some of this going on in the games I played.

On the negative side, the “Rank 4” and “Pick 3” questions appear to be an attempt, perhaps subconsciously, to address my concerns regarding the limitless number of potential answers to the “Make a List” questions. The unnamed designer will therefore feed the players four or five items, but must then build the game play around that meal. Even if I’m wrong about the reason for introducing these questions – and I probably am – my criticism of each question type is valid.

The game is played to 20 points, and the Match Leader scores any time one of the other players scores, up to a maximum of four points per turn. In our games, though, the Match Leader never amassed more than a single point on a turn, and all too often scored no points, making the games interminable. Instead of taking the 14-16 turns the designer probably envisioned, my first game hit 20 turns while all four players were still in single digits, at which point we quit. It took me a long time to get the game back to the table, and when I did, with two new players and two “veteran” players, the results were almost as bad.

I can imagine fixes for the scoring, such as awarding points for having the most matches with the Match Leader. This allows you to play a specific number of rounds, then declare a winner, and while there’s probably a downside to my solution, it does eliminate the possibility of game taking forever.

The game also includes three types of Strategy Cards: Skip Turn, Choose Again, and Change Category. After a question is read, any player, including the Match Leader, may play a Strategy Card, and once played, the card is removed from the game. The Strategy Cards felt like they had been suggested by a consulting firm that knew a little about games but knew nothing about this game because they felt completely inorganic to the basics of the game.

It’s not fair to say I hated this game as I didn’t – but I also don’t expect to play it again because I have too many other games I enjoy thoroughly. I hoped for more, but as presented Match Me If You Can! felt like it was gussied up with multiple “game-like” elements in order to make it seem more like a game. I was reminded of the pretty high school girl who wore way too much makeup to make her appear more adult and desirable, when in fact, the makeup simply obscured her natural appeal.

I like the idea of debating questions such as the best album of the 1970s. (Quadrophenia, by the way, not that there’s any debate of that certainty!) And my daughter is always doing things like giving me lists of four ice cream flavors and asking me to rank them in order of preference. The idea behind the game is good, but in the end, the execution left me feeling disappointed. Match Me If You Can! is too long and doesn’t justify the time expenditure.

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

"Quadrophenia, by the way, not that there’s any debate of that certainty!” no doubt. Posted by Lee Fisher on Jul 23, 2008 at 08:11 AM | #

"Hope” by Klaatu. But only if you are partial to Art Rock. Posted by Frank Branham on Jul 23, 2008 at 09:29 AM | #

Steve, Eye to Eye is a similar game that probably plays much better.  Unfortunately, it’s from SimplyFun, which means it’s hard to obtain without inviting the Amway lady into your home, and it’s kind of overproduced, so it isn’t cheap.  But if you can find a copy on Ebay, I think it would be worth snapping up. Posted by Larry Levy on Jul 23, 2008 at 09:53 AM | #

I’ve not seen Eye to Eye, Larry, but I’ll keep an eye out for it, so to speak. Thanks for the tip. Posted by Steve Bennett on Jul 24, 2008 at 02:06 PM | #

< Back Home