Skip to main content

Disappointed with Zynga's Scramble with Friends

I'm starting to become more and more disappointed with the Zynga game Scramble with Friends (Boggle). When I first started playing about a year ago, there were only three potential power-ups on which a player could use his or her 15 tokens. Also, a person could play a maximum of two power-ups per round. Then a 4th power-up was added and for three extra tokens, a player could have a third power-up for a round. Then a premium was added, where a player could pay money (actual money) to earn a mega-freeze power-up, which gave him or her an additional minute of playing time in a round. A practice mode was now just added. For the cost of 3 tokens, a player can play a practice round. With all of these additions and the cost of each, it's starting to look more and more like Zynga is trying to almost force players to spend actual money in order to regularly compete with the best.

Now, I'll admit that I'm a great player. I've never lost. However, I'm also not going to fork over a bunch of money just to keep up with opponents' power-ups. So, if players become really motivated to beat me by way of spending actual money on mega-freeze power-ups and the like, it's going to be difficult for them to lose.

I'm starting to reach the point where I may seek other Boggle-like games on my phone, because if this trend continues, how will we be able to decide who is better than who? How would it be fair for a player to have 3 minutes of playing time compared to 2 minutes for the other?

As far as the new practice mode goes, as I wrote about the mega-freeze premium power-up in another blog, I don't think this option is worth the cost. It costs more to play a practice round than to use two power-ups in a round of an actual game. If a person doesn't have many regular opponents and is set on beating somebody, then I could understand giving the practice mode a gander. However, if a person has as many regular opponents as I do, all the practice mode will do is delay actual game-playing (due to temporarily running out of tokens) or force a person to spend actual money on additional tokens. Like I said, it's definitely not worth it. Hopefully this disappointing trend doesn't continue or else I (and perhaps many others) may have to find a different version of Boggle to play on our phones.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"