Unless you often browse online for kids’ games, you’re unlikely to know about Bananagram, a Scrabble knock-off my mother bought the family for Christmas. She buys a new game every year, and usually it’s a card-game — something easy to learn, easy to play, and low-stress. This year, we didn’t get a card-game. We got Bananagram.
I’ll say this for Bananagram: it’s worth posting about. Not because it’s good, though. Bananagram earned a post because it’s a perfect example of what can go wrong when developers don’t think games through.
In theory, Bananagram works. It takes the letter tiles from of Scrabble, chucks out the board and gives everyone their own play-space to make words in. It seats 2-8 players, and everybody plays at once, so games take ten minutes instead of hours (as in Scrabble). Each player starts with about twenty tiles. Whenever any player runs out of tiles, they say “Peel!” and everybody takes another tile. If any player gets stuck, they can toss one tile back into the tile-bag and take three more out. The game ends whenever any player says “Peel!” and another player is unable to take a tile; the player who said “Peel!” is then declared the winner.
That sounds fine, in the abstract. Actual play is a different story, and reveals some fatal design flaws. Here are the two biggest:
- The game doesn’t reward players for succeeding, it punishes their opponents; and,
- The game — a word game – doesn’t rewards players for completing long or interesting words.
The first problem is only a problem because Bananagram is supposed to be light and easy fun. Don’t get me wrong: I’ve enjoyed games that don’t reward their players. I’ve even enjoyed games that punish everybody indiscriminately. Those are serious games, though–games for people who don’t want a morning after.
Bananagram should not be one of those games.
The second problem is a lot more serious. A game that looks like Scrabble needs to either play like Scrabble or clearly not play like Scrabble. Bananagram might look like Scrabble-lite, but don’t be fooled: it isn’t a modern word game. It doesn’t reward long words, or interesting words, or words that use up those irritating Qs and Js.
In Bananagram, there is no difference between a four-letter word and a fourteen-letter word. Every player has the same win-condition, and it doesn’t change depending on the words they’ve made. Whoever says “Peel!” and runs the bag out of tiles, wins.
And there it is: Bananagram is a word game that doesn’t need words. It would work just as well with colored tiles. This is a kids’ game dressed up as a word game. Don’t be fooled. Break out the Scrabble instead. I guarantee you’ll be feeling more erudite in no time.
Addendum: My fellow schmuck, the right hon. Genghis Philip, has pointed out to me that Bananagram — or speed-Scrabble, as he calls it — is a “party game,” and as such I’ve somehow missed the point. His theory is that, no matter how bad you are at Bananagram, you’re bound to win sooner or later. He’s right: one lucky pull near the end and you go from losing badly to winning it all.
I don’t think I’ve missed the point, though. I think Bananagram has missed the point of party games. Party games are supposed to be fun for everybody, the whole way through, regardless of how well you’re fulfilling the game’s win-condition.
Do you enjoy putting tiles next to each other? Because that’s all Bananagram has to offer. Is Bananagram a word-game? Only superficially. Is it a true tile game? Not a good one — because arranging tiles isn’t much fun on its own. True tiles games are fun because they allow strategy and depth. Bananagram has the worst of both worlds: the thrill of tile placement and a winning-doesn’t-matter style that trivializes every part of the game, start to finish.
Genghis Philip
Gordon Levine
I think I’d make the argument that good-nature competition is the point of speed scrabble; though if Bananagram is meant for kids I don’t get that. As far as party games go, I’ve always assumed they were meant to get energy flowing and banter going. I think speed scrabble does that, but what that would mean for little kids, I dunno. They seem to be wellsprings of random energy anyway.
Funny. I remember playing this exact game at in the Whitney lounge. Except it wasn’t called Bananagram, it was called Gorilla scrabble. Otherwise the rules were the same, and the tiles used were just scrabble tiles without a board.
I also agree that Bananagram – or Gorilla scrabble – isn’t a very good game. It felt pointless. I suppose it was a social experience, but I’ve had more social fun playing Settlers of Catan with groups of strangers.
I’m actually amazed they made a separate ‘game’ out of this – its like, I don’t know – taking the board away from Risk, making the game about throwing soldiers at other people’s soldiers, and then calling it Bananarisk because whoever has the last soldier standing yells “Peel!” Nevermind the pointlessness of it – how in the world do you manage to get people to buy something which has the same pieces as a game they already have? They’re selling people a rule-book.
I think the answer is that people playing games are not always looking to play a good one. They’re just looking for something to do.
Bananarisk may be the greatest accomplishment of this blog to date.
My theory about why Bananagram came into my life is its packaging. It’s a giant vinyl banana stuffed with Scrabble tiles. Where Scrabble looks stodgy and Oxbridgey, Bananagram looks accessible.
Once again, the consumer has been duped by potassium and flashy advertising.
You’ve missed the big reason that I prefer bananagram to scrabble (other than the incredible boredom that is waiting ten minutes for someone to think of their word) – you play with words FLUIDLY.
Unlike in scrabble, if I felt like it, between yells of “peel” I could hypothetically speaking destroy my entire “board” of words and rebulid it with different ones. Nothing is set in stone. I’ve never actually destroyed my whole boards – but “guile” becomes “guide”, “is” has no trouble becoming “oasis”, whatever. It allows me to actually play with words – not necessarily huge posh words, but still words – in a way that Scrabble does not. Yes, you’re paying for a ruilebook if you already own a scrabble – but it’s a whole different concept. The “peel” keeps the adrenaline and sense of urgency which Scrabble so spectacularly lacks. It’s about fifty times more fun — and yes, as Gordon pointed out, Scrabble looks stodgy and Oxbridgey (that’s because it is) whereas Bananagram looks accessible (which it is). Gordon thinks it’s a downsite that “cat” gets you as far as “phenotype” – I don’t. Scrabble is educational, Bananagram is fun.
Yes, if you’re looking at it in terms of who wins then it’s seriously flawed, but none of the people who enjoy bananagram are obsessed with winning. The person who gets the most admiration at the end coudl just as easily to be the one with the long or weird words, or with an intricately interconnecting set of words, rather than the person who won. Unlike scrabble, you don’t just win and end it all – you get to display a creation entirley your own, and admire someone else’s.
“The person who gets the most admiration at the end coudl just as easily to be the one with the long or weird words, or with an intricately interconnecting set of words, rather than the person who won. Unlike scrabble, you don’t just win and end it all – you get to display a creation entirley your own, and admire someone else’s.”
It sounds to me like you’re building another game on top of Bananagram. There’s nothing wrong with that — but the game you’ve built, where the win-condition is creative and social instead of “whoever runs out of tiles,” isn’t Bananagram. It’s probably better than Bananagram, because the game you’re describing actually values “the long and weird words.”
Good point about the fluidity of the game, though. It wouldn’t work for Scrabble, unfortunately, but I’m sure it’s Bananagram’s biggest silver lining.
Banagram rules state that you check the winning person’s words to see if they’re all acceptable (you may use any disctionary), and if any of them are not in the dictionary they are declared a “rotten banana”, their tiles are rerturned to the central pile and everyone else plays on.
Which means that even if people don’t sit around going “Ooh, quixotic” (like my brother and I just did, playing bananagram), your board will be looked over and people admiring the longer words is a fairly natural transition. And it’s not a “win-condition” per se – that’s the point. Everyone is meant to end the game feeling pretty good about themselves and the thing they just built.
first off, i just wanted to see if anyone else in the world made the connection that this is a waste of money if you own a scrabble board. Congrats Matt Smith.
But anyways, I think you are too hard on this game. You can sit around and pontificate about whether or not it rewards big words enough, but I know that every time I’ve played speed (or gorilla) scrabble, we always look at people’s words and say “nice word” at the end. I think people that are limited completely by the rules of a game need to remember that games are for lots of purposes (fun, creativity, learning, social interaction, etc) and add or take away rules as they see fit to make the game more fun. You can’t turn a totally shit game into a winner, but if there’s something like this that you have minor quibbles with, just play it differently.
Schmuck (pejorative), an insulting term for a stupid person or dimwitted fool or an unwanted guest.
Insted of being a critic in an area you do not specialise, why not try inventing something and leave the kids stuff alone if you as an adult will like to play more grown up games i.e.(strip poker).
No Nick, you’re right. It is absolutely outside of our rights and specialties to criticize a commercially available game that adults often play or attempt to press-gang their fellows into playing. And certainly, neither of the two Schmucks who write for this blog, nor the one who specifically made this post, have spent any time examining, debating, and testing what makes games enjoyable.
Oh. Wait. That thing we do? Yeah. It’s criticism. And areas we specialize in? Game design is one of the few things toward which I’d wager our critical skills have been put to thorough use. You are simply ignorant and wrong. Moreover, your “invent something” argument is trite and juvenile: the purpose of this specific blog is not creation. It’s -deconstruction-. Now, deconstruction can be put to good use in redeveloping ideas, but deconstructing is still what we do. In other venues, my fellow schmuck is an artist (a writer, and a good one). I, myself, am an unashamed critic and an -awful- artist, in any venue where that title might be applied.
And, for the record, Schmuck actually means Penis, per the original Yiddish.
Got that?
Penis.
I have two stepdaughters, ages 10 & 12, that both struggle with spelling. One of them got Bananagram for Christmas and we have had loads of fun playing it since. I have been very impressed with their enthusiasm and the wide range of words they have come up with. The speed of the game keeps them interested and easy portability means they can take the game anywhere without feeling silly. Scrabble is best for adults but I definitely give Bananagram two thumbs up for the kid crowd!
I am 35 and play it with four people and we love it, although I can see how it would wear thin. What a wonderful alternative to slow and boring scrabble. The game is adaptable, too. Yell peel and everyone takes a drink, no two letter words allowed for the winning player, make up your own point system and tally points for the best out of five games, whatever.
Best is the informal fun, you dont feel like you lost/won cause it is just a silly game to pass time with friends. This can be a good thing when playing against competitive people.
We received the game for Xmas and love it? We have a 7 and 9 year old and it is a great game for kids to play: they get to work on vocabulary, you are not sitting around for 20 minutes for someone to take a turn, and we find that they come up with much bigger/more interesting words. Also the fact that you are not stuck with a word once you play it – being able to change words or completely start over if you choose!
Additionally, you note that when no one can no longer grab tiles the the winner is declared? Maybe they changed the rules but our game states that the winner is declared when the first person USES all their tiles and all the center tiles are gone and they say Bananas! The words also have to be verified.