Subject: Review of SJG's Hacker game mol@jyu.fi (Mika O. Latokartano) writes: I'm considering the option of plunging into another potentially eye-opening experience offered us by the conspiracy-ridden SJG; Hackers. My worry is, that "Hackers" seems a lot like the original addiction (i.e. Illuminati). What's the word? Should I go for it, or let it pass, and still remain at least somewhat assured that the network is still safe? From: appel@soda.Berkeley.EDU (Shannon D. Appel) Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games' "Hackers" too much like "Illuminati"? You should _not_ buy it because the nits make you cut out several pages of cardboard backed pieces on your own. It was pretty clear that SJG was cutting corners to save that extra nickel, ready to pass the extra work onto you, the consumer. The game itself is fairly good, but the inherent cheapness of the design was enough to assure that I would not be buying any more SJ products any time soon. Shannon From: jmb@oclc.org (James Blight) Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games' "Hackers" too much like "Illuminati"? Having both I feel I can give you some info. Hacker is like Illuminati in that you build a network of cards. But each player can access the network through a series of "Indials". Players can try to knock each other off of different systems on the network, or help each other hack onto systems. Each players has his own "PC" that he can skip a turn and upgrade his computer with a RAM card or sequencer, a higher powered modem, or just get a new computer. Names, of course, are still amusing "Hackintosh", "HAL Inc" etc.... There are also some amusing cards you can play on each other, as in Illuminati, such as: "GET A LIFE" - you encounter a person of the opposite sex and briefly entertain the idea that there is more to life than hacking. Lose 1 turn". As far as enjoyability, I prefer Illuminati because the two times I played Hacker (my own game), I got stomped REPEATEDLY by the other players. But it was still fun. Our fave house rule is that you have to call each other by a made up "hacker name", otherwise any attempt to harass the player fails. By the way, all references to names, descriptions, and other games related materials mentioned are probably copyrighted by Steve Jackson games, so any Net Police out there knows that it's just a game..... ;-) -Jim ( aka The Happy Vampire ) |+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+| | Jim Blight | "The power of words, don't take it for granted, | | jmb@oclc.org | when you hear a man ranting, | | | Don't just read the lips, be more sublime than this, | | | put everything in context" - The Disposable Heroes '92 | |+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+| From: jxc9351@hertz.njit.edu (Blue) Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games' "Hackers" too much like "Illuminati"? >Actually, there are a lot of differences: > > - Both game uses cards, both for the "groups" to go into networks, > and for special "event" cards that can be played during the game. Hackers has FAR more special purpose cards then Illuminati. This is needed since there is no megabucks, and cards are one of the most used ways of making deals/threatening people. The other way is favors, such as letting someone "phreak" on your turn (effectively giving them part of a turn). The Hackers game doesn't have the same feeling of interaction as Illuminati. >- All the players operate on the same network, instead of each player > having separate networks. Very different from Illuminati. The network(s) are set up close to Ill., but used in a very different way. Different feel. It's good. >- All players have the same victory conditions, instead of each player > having different ones. There are some common victory conditions in > Illuminati as well, I know that. Unlike Illuminati, it's hard to stop people. (It is easy to give people a boost, though, so it plays faster then Illuminati, which isn't saying much). >- Instead of rolling BELOW the value needed, you must roll ABOVE it. > Other players cannot interfere, but can act after the hack has been > made, hitting you with a raid from some Law&Order agency. See above. >- It's much easier to win "quick-and-dirty" victories in Hacker, since > you can work up 3+2+1+1=7 hack attempts/round; with a victory > condition of 12 accounts, that would ensure a fast victory. But since > nodes can be crashed, effectively disconnecting several of your > accounts, a large player can easily be brought down to size... for a > while. I'm not sure about your math. Ameoba 200 computer + Sequencer is 5 hacks per turn, plus one in a system w/ root, and however many from special cards. > I like Hacker much better than Illuminati - it doesn't have the > paranoid diplomacy, but I find it a more playable game. Both Illuminati and Hacker have different feels. I personally like Illuminati better, but then, I like the backstabbing...erm...I mean, the diplomancy. Hacker is more of a beer and pretzels game, but you don't leave it swearing vengance on your best friend. It's fun, amusing, and can be a barrel of laughs. >- Tor Wilhelmsen >toriver@pvv.unit.no -Blue -- James M. Carstensen | jxc9351@hertz.njit.edu | "30% of wiccans are computer "Blue" | -or- cj@pearl.njit.edu | programmers...programming Programmer-at-Large | V-mail: (201)/242-6833 | leads to witchcraft." 8) From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Stress Kitty) Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games' "Hackers" too much like "Illuminati"? Blue writes: > Unlike Illuminati, it's hard to stop people. All you need is super user on a system and you can crash it. Free of charge. No hack attempt needed, no time needed. At the end of our sessions, the board is full of crashed nodes. >> can work up 3+2+1+1=7 hack attempts/round > I'm not sure about your math. Ameoba 200 computer + Sequencer is 5 > hacks per turn, plus one in a system w/ root, There are two cards where you get allies that hack with/for you. +1 per. My feel of the game... I don't really like it. Lots of numbers to float which is not my idea of a smooth running game. The endgame is long, we usually end up playing for 5 hours per game,crashing and re-working our nets. The numbers are arbitrary, sometimes high numbers giving absolutely no reason or benefit for their troubles. The NetNinja concept doesn't really work to preserve balance. There are more, but I can't think of them right now.