Game Review: Such a Thing?
By Greg J. Schloesser
February 4, 2010
Designer: Urs Hostettler
Publisher: Valley Games
Players: 2-10
Ages: 10+
Playing Time: 30 minutes
Rules Language: English
Price: $20
Links: 
I’ve always been a big fan of party games. I’ve spent countless evenings with friends playing untold numbers of party-style games, most of which are designed to elicit laughter and good conversation. While I have the reputation of being a staunch “European-style” gamer, I’m still eager to play a fun party game.
Such A Thing? by designer Urs Hostettler – published in Germany by Abacusspiele as Ein solches Ding – challenges players to think of something that fits a number of different specifications and descriptions. Each player continues to add to the description until one player is challenged to “name such a thing,” at which point they will be put to the test.
Players each receive nine cards. Each card will list a statement, such as “Is needed for me to indulge in my hobby” or “Hardly ever leaves the area where it was built or created.” A card is revealed from the deck, and play begins. The start player plays a card to the table and thinks of something that fits the specifications of the card. In turn order, players can either add card to the set or challenge the previous player to name “such a thing.” If challenged, the last player to play a card must name something that meets the specifications of all of the cards played.
If the player successfully names an item that meets all of the specifications, the challenger must draw three cards from the deck. The existing cards are discarded and a new round is conducted. If the player is unsuccessful in naming an item that meets all of the specifications, he must draw three cards, and a new round begins. Play continues until one player successfully depletes his hand of cards, thereby winning the game. Thus, being forced to draw cards is an impediment to this goal.
What I have just described is “The Chain” version. The rules contain a half dozen other variations, each with their own twist. The main mechanism, however, remains the same.
Party games are supposed to be lively. Such a Thing? is no such thing. It is much more contemplative, as players study their cards and the cards that have been played to the table, attempting to think of an item that will meet the specifications. This can take time – a lot of time – and it is time where nothing else happens and no one else is involved. The result is constant periods of dullness. “Dull” and “party” are not a good match.
Another problem is that when a player names an item he feels meets all of the specifications, there is little excitement or incredulity. There is no “Wow!” factor. The game simply continues. Often, there is dissent amongst the players as to whether the item actually does meet the specifications, which requires some discussion and a vote. Again, however, this fails to generate any excitement.
There is a version in the rules known as “Speed” that does somewhat eliminate this downtime. Three cards are revealed, and the first player to successfully name an item that satisfies all of the specifications receives a point. Play continues until one player accumulates seven points. This version is certainly more fast-paced, but it is also frustrating for the folks who aren’t as quick-thinking.
My biggest complaint against the game is that it simply isn’t fun. There is no excitement, no laughter, and very little interaction. It fails as a party game at its very foundation. Party games are supposed to be fun. Such a Thing? is no such thing.
Posted by Greg Schloesser on Feb 4, 2010 at 05:00 AM in Game Reviews, In-Depth / 1409
Want more posts like this one?
to Boardgame News to keep the game goodness flowing!Comments:
To comment, you must register with BGN.|
I have only played the German version, and agree that it is a much more challenging game than the typical party game. Call it a “party game for gamers who do not like party games.” I enjoy the challenge and excercise in creative thinking, but I will have to agree with Greg that it has a downtime problem, and with competitive people (which seems to be the game’s target audience), disagreements can stall the game further. It would help if players were able to announce each turn what they came up with, but that removes the opportunity to bluff, which is part of the strategy of the game. Posted by Jeff Allers on Feb 4, 2010 at 08:09 AM | #
|
|
Good analysis. I believe that “party” games should be fun, lively, light, and keep everyone involved virtually all the time. I’m not much into party games myself, but we do play Apples to Apples fairly often, because it is one of the few games my teenage granddaughter will play with the rest of the family. So, I do watch for games I think she would enjoy. AtA is certainly a lot more fun than Such a Thing, based on your description. I definitely will not bother to buy this one. Posted by Gerald McDaniel on Feb 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM | #
|
|
We got a reasonable amount of play out of a very similar game released in the early 90s called Perpetual Notion. (The game was uncredited; hopefully, Hostettler got some renumeration from it.) PN was more elaborately produced and players had 28 cards to choose from (which were arranged in a rack). The clues were also shorter and a bit more generic. Whatever the reason, we quite liked this game. It was fragile to be sure and just didn’t work with some groups. But if the players played with reasonable speed, it could really be fantastic. The laughs and interaction came from the left turns that a newly played card could inspire. Some of these new ways of thinking were truly ingenious; others were, shall we say, overly creative and were voted down. As long as the group was good spirited and not overly competitive, the game could be a lot of fun and inspired some very clever plays. So there’s a more positive spin on a similar game. Posted by Larry Levy on Feb 4, 2010 at 02:43 PM | #
|
|
"Fun” is, of course, relative when it comes to games. I would not be opposed to playing the game again “with the right crowd,” but it would not be my first choice to bring to a party. On the other hand, the couple with whom I played the game liked it so much, I gave them my copy, and have heard that it has become one of their favorites. (I retained the smaller “Noch Ein Solches Ding” in my collection in order to give the game another opportunity:) Posted by Jeff Allers on Feb 4, 2010 at 03:16 PM | #
|
|
Such a Thing isn’t a traditional party game. I like to think of it as a word-based version of reverse-Richochet Robots (think about it...). I’ve had great fun with it with my kids, and it *does* cause discussion, laughs, even high 5’s when people are on the same wavelength. Just the other day when we played there were about 7 clues, I had it pegged as “The Statue of Liberty” while both my kids were thinking the Eiffel Tower, and both of them worked for slightly different reasons. The fact they were both created by French folks at about the same time period was amusing as well. It’s also a lot of fun to play wild and bluff, saying “oh, this totally works” when you put down a card and you have absolutely no idea what that thing could be, and then watch other people do the same, hoping it gets back to you so you can challenge. The only thing I don’t like about the game is that it should be called “no such thing” but then again, I blame the Canadians for that… :) Posted by Ted Alspach on Feb 4, 2010 at 03:26 PM | #
|
|
Our experience with this has been the opposite - it’s not always a game for belly-laughs (although the team of trained midget ferrets did pretty well) but we’ve had a lot of fun. I’ve taken it off the list of games to take to my kids’ school because of the easy smuttage factor, but I’d say that Such a Thing was one of my preferred party games. Posted by Melissa Rogerson on Feb 7, 2010 at 01:58 AM | #
|
|
I bought this on Melissa’s recommendation, and had the same experience as Greg. We got bogged down in a discussion about whether chemically produced light used electricity. However, that’s Just Us. My son played it with a couple of less serious guys and had a great time. We found that to make sure the game terminated that the player who drew 3 cards should start the next round. Posted by John Farrell on Feb 8, 2010 at 11:37 PM | #
|
Next entry: Gone Cardboard: Reiner Knizia's Callisto Released by University Games
Previous entry: Board 2 Pieces February 4, 2010
