Clown emojis all around
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
1565 points (99.2% liked)
Games
32934 readers
877 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem here is that Baltaro does not have gambling. It just uses cards and chips as the basis for playing the game. Like Magic the Gathering or Inscryption.
Using chips is even a stretch honestly. There are some chip imagery here and there but otherwise 'chips' are just how points are called.
Exactly you never actually commit to any sort of wager or even an imitation of financial risk.
Is there betting (such as buy-in / ante) in Balatro?
Is there in MtG?
No, there are no bets, no buy in.
There used to be ante in MTG. You'd play for cards in each other's decks and were to keep them if you won the game. Plus, there were a number of cards actively interacted with the ante'd cards and added or changed what's in the ante
They also base it on poker, yeah cards can transform each other but it's still quite literally a poker game. This isn't MTG. (Which is just real life loot boxes)
But poker is only a gambling game because when you play it you "give up" something of value in the hope of winning more through playing and randomness. What makes it gambling is not the cards or the chips it's the gambling aspect. Balatro uses card and poker hands, and so does "yatzhee", but it does not use any gambling mechanic. Lootboxes on the other hand use gambling mechanic.
Which is why PEGI didn't say it was literally gambling, they said it was imagery of gambling.
Although you may be right about why they did it, I feel like imagery of gambling is not meant to be 'something that is in any way related to something that happens to be gambling', it's when gambling is shown but you're not the one gambling. If someone in game is gambling that's imagery, if a game uses cards for something that is not gambling it's not imagery.