Ask Zandar

 
You know, until doing this blog, I wasn't aware of just how many electronic board games there actually were, but it seems they were once quite common. It's kind of a neat idea, adds something to what could otherwise be a dull experience, but I've also noticed a lot of these fall into that grey area of "is it really a board game or is it a toy with a board?". Ask Zandar seems to be one of those. But look at the box. It just oozes that same kind of otherwordly mystique that Jumanji does. Something magical, ethereal, something that, perhaps, we aren't meant to be engaging with but can't help ourselves either. The font, the painting, the overall aesthetic design. It's a thing of beauty.

Released in 1992, with a once again uncredited designer (getting real sick of that being a regularly recurring thing) for up to 4 players with a runtime of 30 minutes, Board Game Geek describes the gameplay as such:

On their turn, each player draws a question card, reads it out loud, guesses whether Zandar will answer affirmatively or negatively, waves their hand over the top of Zandar's globe (to trigger a light sensor), and listens to his answer. If they guessed correctly, they can either take a gem of their color from the pile and put it in front of them or onto the game board. If they guess incorrectly, they must return one. The other players can make a "side bet" during their turn and guess at Zandar's answer. If they are right, they get a gem of their color. If they are wrong, they must return one. The first player to place all six of their gems onto the game board wins and gets to have their fortune read by Zandar.

A pretty damn simple concept, if you ask me. In all honesty, perhaps a bit TOO simple. I kind of wish there was a bit more complexity to it, but really, what more could there be? After all, how do you really make a game out of "ask the mysterious all knowing tiny man trapped in the orb"? It kind of has to be simple because, quite frankly, there isn't anything else it COULD be. But that isn't inherently a bad thing. I mean, simplicity is often overlooked in favor of complexity, and there's a certain beauty to simplicity. It allows you to just have a good time without too much effort or complications. So let's take a closer look at the pieces the game comes with.

If I'm being extremely honest, this thing is pretty as hell. The colors alone make it pop so much, that blueish-purple mixture and of course the red base of Zandar's orb matches well with everything. It's just very lovely to look at. There's nothing worse to me than a board game that's an eyesore. You're gonna spend alot of time looking at this thing, so it better be visually appealing, and thankfully that's the case here.

 

But, as with many of these electronic board games, the overall actual gameplay leaves quite a bit to be desired. Perhaps even moreso here than say a game such as "Electronic Mall Madness" because while that comes with an entire set to move across, this is really just you and your friends asking a tiny wizard trapped in a transparent globe questions. It's extremely straight forward, with not much challenge or even much strategy to be had in how to succeed because, far as I can tell, it's about as accurate as RNG. But there's still some fun to be had, in spite of its simplicity. As I said, simplicity has never been an automatic disqualification. So on a scale of 1 to 10 on the fun factor, I'd probably give Zandar a 4 or a light 5. Granted I've never played it, but since when have internet writers ever let reality get in their way? But design wise? This thing is a 10. No question.

 

But perhaps there's more to gleam from this than we've seen just yet! Maybe we should take a chance to look at the back of the box as well. See what other information the supposedly all knowing Zandar can provide us mere mortals with.

For starters, he's pointing at the orb in his hand like a Wojack, which doesn't leave me much hope for intelligent answers, but we'll see. Also, apparently Zandar has the ability to control the weather and flicker lights? Those are pretty impressive powers for someone stuck in a glass ball. Also, I can't help but notice how generic and vague Zandar's answers are implied to be. This is the problem with "mind readers" or "fortune tellers" to begin with. Listen, I'm all for believing in the mystic and supernatural, I've got nothing if not an open mind, but there's this thing people do called Cold Reading where they look at a person and take educated guesses. For instance, if someone is say, around 40 or so, then the person asking the questions will likely tell them, "Your parents miss you" because there's a high likelihood that, at that age, those persons parents - or at the very least one of them - has died. It's emotional manipulation at its finest, an art form, really.

I just don't trust people who don't give in depth answers. If I ask if I'm going to win the lottery, don't tell me yes. Tell me when, tell me where to buy the ticket, and what numbers to pick. If I ask if I'm going to die, tell me when, where and how. I don't want vagueness. I want specificity. Goddammit Zandar, you're a hack!

All jokes aside, this is a pretty neat little game. It's got a great aesthetic, it's got good design, it's got nice color, and it's a cool idea even if its a bit...childish. I mean, I get that board games - especially from this period of time - favored heavily towards a child audience, but come on. You're really gonna ask if you're going to get the lead in the school play and not something a bit more interesting? Children are smarter and more empathetic than we often give them credit for. How about asking Zandar if your father will eventually stop beating your mother, and if he says "no", then you take Zandar's glass prison and bash your fathers head in with it.

Ironically, he'd never see it coming.