Carcassonne Central
Off Topic => Other Games => Topic started by: Decar on December 28, 2017, 07:46:27 AM
-
I thought it might be an interesting topic to look at the top 5 things you look for in a game:
Here's my top 5, at least at the moment:
1. Play time (generally no more than an hour)
2. Intuitive mechanics
3. Depth of Mechanics - ie: can the core mechanic handle expansions or adaptations?
4. Does it work well at 2-player, how does it support more players?
5. Manageable/Mitigating Uncertainty (random events, dice rolls, landscape-discovery)
What are your Top 5 things that draw you into a game and make you stick to them?
-
Great thread idea!
I am quite picky about certain things regarding games and my opinions in this thread might not be in the line with the majority. To demonstrate this, I just looked at the BGG top 50 and I have only played four of the games and only own two of them (7 Wonders and 7 Wonders: Duel).
That said, I would have two of Decar's top 5 things in my top 5 as well:
Intuitive Mechanics: Oh, definitely. When I was first expanding out of Carcassonne a couple of years ago, I came across a lot of games where I found the mechanics to be unintuitive to my eyes. Maybe that's because Carcassonne seems so intuitive. I tend to go for light to medium weight games, I dislike unnecessary complexity and I like games to be accessible to everyone.
Play time: Up to 60 minutes is also a sweet spot for me, although I can go to 90 minutes if the game is good enough. If I'm having a game session, I'd always rather play more shorter games than fewer longer games. To hijack this a bit, I don't like the term 'filler' game to refer to a 15-20 minute game. I don't see these games as games just to play between longer or more 'real' games; I can enjoy a good filler just as much as any other game and would gladly play a few fillers in a row.
I'm going to list two others and 'save' my fifth one to see what some other people say! :green-meeple:
Theme: This is my No. 1 and a tough one for me to explain given my (perhaps) peculiar views, but I'll try. In general, I see board games as an extension of my normal life and other hobbies, so I like themes to fit into that. I spend a lot of time travelling and engaging with history (via books, podcasts and MOOCs), so historical and cultural themes are what I like above all. On the other side of that equation, I don't watch any TV/movies anymore and I'm not interested in sci-fi, space exploration, zombies (sorry Dan) or any of that stuff. And therefore my point of view is: if I choose not to engage with these themes in any other aspect of my life, then why would I want to play a game about them? This does limit me a bit, I suppose, but luckily there are so many games with themes that suit me that it's not an issue.
A related point here is that even though I say theme is very important to me, I don't actually mind if a game is 'thematic' or not; or in other words, so-called 'pasted on themes' don't bother me as long as I like the theme. I have some abstract games in my collection (e.g. Santorini, Medina, Biblios) with pasted on themes and in all cases, what drew me in was the theme even though the theme might not be that 'present' in the game. Some may call this confusing theme with art, and that might be a valid point. But basically, if Santorini (to pick one example) was called Sarajevo and the theme was about snipers climbing to the top of a building to get in position to shoot their enemies, I wouldn't have had any interest in it whatsoever, even if the gameplay was identical.
Artwork/Components: I like a game to have a really nice table presence, and this is also a good way to draw in other people or give someone a great first impression about a game. Sagrada is a recent example of a game that just looks beautiful on the table. If it was exactly the same game with non-translucent dice and less interesting window tile things, then I wouldn't have been nearly as drawn to the game. I recently got the really nice medieval reprint of Battle Line. The original game (ancient Greek theme) has dreadful art so I didn't consider buying it even though I like the designer and thought the game itself looked interesting.
-
Decar, another nice idea for a thread and would agree and appreciate both the previous submissions.
In my reviews I tend to start by listing the most important game aspects I look at. These items are always laid out on Board Game Geek at the top of the page.
I tend to roughly place them in the following order and I might have snuck in a couple of extra choices.
Game weight/complexity and player count: The first will give me an idea right of the bat how likely this is going to get to the table. Sadly the more complex the less likely I can get others to join in. My sweet spot, according to the BGG standard, is anything under 3.5/5. Under that, I fairly confident this has a chance of hitting my groups. I’m sure I have a few over this rating and they nicely decorate the wall of shame :( As mentioned player count is very important, both the design minimums and ratings. If a game is designed for 3+ I tend to move on unless there are extraordinary aspects to the game. Same with user ratings, a game should at least be recommended for 2 players. Thankfully, since I started the game group at work this has opened this up, (we have 4 regulars).
Mechanisms / Designer: Mechanism might have a slight edge here unless I’m already familiar with the designer. I am instantly drawn to some game mechanics over others. If I’m familiar in advance of the author that will be a strong hint on whether this game might be for me.
Theme and components: Generally I am fan of a strongly thematic game. Even though many games truly have pasted on themes I still find the setting important. I sometimes find it a challenge to get past a theme and just focus on the mechanic. Set a game in Steam Punk and I’m out, set the exact same game in fantasy, sci-fi, farming or history and that works for me :D I wanted to pick up on jungleboy’s thoughts of components, as a stand-alone feature this not a game breaker but the better the components the more likely I am to buy the game.
User comments (on BGG) and reviews: I often look at the user comments straight away as well. Lots of these comments are short impressions and can be somewhat candid. After looking at those, I move onto to more formal reviews.
Over all game ratings: Another major nod here to BGG. These give a fair idea of what the gaming masses think of the game. I look at both the overall board game rating and the segmented rating for; Thematic, Strategy, Family, abstract, etc.
Though this wouldn't be in the top five I wanted to mentioned another aspect that I am drawn to and that is sandbox games. These are games that can be lifestyles in themselves and can be built on. This is a big reason I like Carcassonne, one can add components and many expansions. One can also, relatively seamlessly, add mods such as fan expansions without totally breaking the game while adding interest and replayability.
-
Great reponses so far :(y)
Bgg's weight metric is a useful one for me too. I rarely find we have the energy to breach a 3/5 in our household. It's often hard to judge games that haven't been released yet when the metrics on BGG are skewed or only filled in by fans of the game. But it works well for mainstream and released titles.
-
Well my 5cents are in:
My "game group" revolves around a (still not but getting there) non-gamer wife with short to none attention spam for rule explanation, a 5yrs (almost 6) daughter still learning how to gracefully lose and a 2yrs (almost 3) toddler who just like to hang around the table.
While the topics have no specific order the buy/not-buy will be defined on how they interact with each other:
Theme - Personally I'm not much into horror so even if I had a more mature "game group" anything with zombies, cthulhu or monsterish stuff would have to score high on the other topics to make the cut.
I somewhat avoid to double the themes on games but buying a game just because it as a "friendly", "new" or "exquisite" theme doesn't always work.
Art work - Friendly art work will always create a proximity to the game especially when you play with kids. Some games are also obliged by its own theme to have an above par art work so if they don't they will probably don't make the cut.
Game weight/complexity/fun factor - Any game that takes too much time to learn, explain or where I can't play while teaching the base rules usually won't get any table time, anything with hidden written stuff is also, as you can figure, difficult to put on the table.
If the fun factor is high it can override the weightiness/complexity since it will drive the desire to keep learning/playing it.
Play Time - We usually play on evening, after dinner, when the kids start to slow down or in order for them to slow down but if it takes too long they will get sleepy and start screwing around.
Again theme, art work, fun factor can boost their attention for a few more minutes but I would say that anything beyond 30m to 45m is already pushing it.
Cost - Again a question of balance, if the game is to expensive but I'm sure all the other attributes are spot on I might go the extra pound on it but if a see that it won't get much table time or is to much complex for my "game group" I wont spend a dime.
Heldentaufe - Teens fighting monsters on dungeons... theme might sound off but completely nailed it on the art work and fun factor, kids love it.
Martians - Story of Civilization - Bought it mainly on the space/mars theme and the art work and scenario mechanic looked great. It's so f$$#$ complex that I want to sell it.
Dream Home and "Slide Blast" - Friendly art work, not that complex, fun, simple theme. Bought are family favorites.
The 7th Continent - Way too heavy for the crowd and I knew I would want to play it solo, crazy long play time, impeccable art work, slighlty on the Lovecraft theme, expensive as s$%&. Overall impression....
...
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/c/cc/Shut_up_and_take_my_money.png/revision/latest?cb=20130806134317)
-
I have to start off by saying how much Theme doesn't matter to me. If I really think about my favorite games, none have a theme that is interesting to me, let alone most people. Do you want to build a town in medieval France? How about opening up a gem shop trying to lure long dead European nobles? Want to compete to see who can court the Princess from The Tempest? Want to plant bamboo so a big fat Panda can walk around and eat it? How about curing diseases all over the world? (Actually this one does sound pretty fun). We just bought Patchwork and I just kickstarted a game where I get to be a museum curator! :(n) I suppose theme can be a big turn off (someone gave me a Dr Who game that I will never open for example), but I can't imagine it being something that takes a mediocre game and makes it good. A great game with a bad theme is still a great game. It is amazing how many of those I have.
Ok now I will get off my soap box and give my top 5:
1. Interesting new mechanic / an old mechanic with a new twist. I already have a couple of set collection games. In order for me to buy a new one, it must do something unique. For example, Century Spice Road is a great game, but I have other games with the same mechanic, so I won't buy it.
2. End game - How long does the game go on after a player has won? If we are playing to 100 points, fine, but don't make us play to some other goal when everyone knows the first to 100 wins 99% of the time. Games where you can put players out are fine as long as they end soon afterward. It stinks being the Russian player in Axis and Allies if the Axis players succeed in Operation Barbarossa. You could be waiting with nothing to do for hours! For games where players aren't kicked out, can they become king makers because they are so far behind in points? Games like Ticket to Ride prevent this by having hidden objectives and nobody really knows the true score. Other games don't bother.
3. Ease of use - This includes 2 aspects. A) How long does it take to learn or teach the game. B) How long does it take to set up the game. Gloomhaven looks amazing, but I realize that I have no interest in putting out and eventually cleaning up all of those components. Any game with complicated rules is also a non-starter. A game should take less than 15 minutes to explain and less than 10 to set up.
4. Player count - At most, we will have 5 players. Most of the time, we will only have 2 or 3. Why on Earth did we buy One Night Ultimate Werewolf? :-[
5. Portability - If we like 2 games equally, we will usually go with the smaller of the two. We like things that take up less shelf space and are portable. That is why we have Sushi Go and not the larger party edition. This isn't a major reason to acquire or avoid a particular game, but smaller games are more likely to get purchased.
-
called Sarajevo and the theme was about snipers climbing to the top of a building to get in position to shoot their enemies,
This does sound pretty good. Though I'd call it 'Enemy at the Gate' and set it in Stalingrad...nothing like a movie tie-in to shift games.
-
Thanks for your input Mike, interesting thoughts as always!
I suppose theme can be a big turn off (someone gave me a Dr Who game that I will never open for example), but I can't imagine it being something that takes a mediocre game and makes it good. A great game with a bad theme is still a great game. It is amazing how many of those I have.
Of course, objectively, a great game with a bad theme is still a great game. But I personally will get much more enjoyment of a game whose theme I like. Just after I posted my answer upthread, I listened to the latest podcast by Joel Eddy of Drive Thru Review. I can't remember the exact context, but he referred to the atmosphere of a game and I believe by this he meant a combination of art and a non-thematic theme or something of that nature. I quite like this term because I think it is a useful way to describe my feelings. So I think I would very much enjoy the atmosphere of Azul, for example, because the art/components are nice and it's a Portuguese azulejo theme which suits me as a resident of Portugal, even if the game is basically abstract. If it was another theme that was less pleasing to me, and the tiles were cardboard chits etc, then I wouldn't like it as much, even though the gameplay itself would be identical. I still like to think about and describe games in terms of what you do, within the theme, in the game - not what mechanisms it contains - so the theme is still the first thing that grabs my attention or puts me off even if I know nothing else about the game.
1. Interesting new mechanic / an old mechanic with a new twist. I already have a couple of set collection games. In order for me to buy a new one, it must do something unique. For example, Century Spice Road is a great game, but I have other games with the same mechanic, so I won't buy it.
Definitely agree there.
I think the appeal about Century: Spice Road (having just received it but not played it yet) is not that it introduces new mechanisms - you're right, it doesn't - but that it takes certain mechanisms like deck-building, resource conversion and shifting market acquisition cost and implements them together in a very simple way. I was just talking with Dan while he was in his PJs about how we both dislike the term 'gateway' because it implies that the end goal should be to quickly move on to complex games, and we don't think that's necessarily true. But I think Century: Spice Road does fit that 'gateway' tag well because it introduces what can be quite complex mechanisms in a very accessible way.
-
So I think I would very much enjoy the atmosphere of Azul, for example, because the art/components are nice and it's a Portuguese azulejo theme which suits me as a resident of Portugal, even if the game is basically abstract. If it was another theme that was less pleasing to me, and the tiles were cardboard chits etc, then I wouldn't like it as much, even though the gameplay itself would be identical. I still like to think about and describe games in terms of what you do, within the theme, in the game - not what mechanisms it contains - so the theme is still the first thing that grabs my attention or puts me off even if I know nothing else about the game.
The FLGS had a demo out for Azul. I didn't get a chance to try it, but the workers said it was a good game. I will check out some reviews and see if it is for us. We have no family or other connection to Portugal, but like I said up-thread none of that matters. ;)
I get what you mean by atmosphere. I just don't think I feel that way about any of my board games. I have never worked on railroads, civic planning, the CDC, etc so I can only guess at how it would feel to do those things in real life. I like games as a means of escape, so I may avoid themes and atmospheres that I am accustomed to.
-
Game weight/complexity and player count: The first will give me an idea right of the bat how likely this is going to get to the table. Sadly the more complex the less likely I can get others to join in. My sweet spot, according to the BGG standard, is anything under 3.5/5.
I also like using this and my sweet spot is probably between about 2.0 and 3.something. Although I feel that the BGG complexity rating can be misleading sometimes because users aren't asked what they mean with their rating. Some users interpret complexity as ease of teaching and complexity of rules while others think it's about depth of strategy. That has led to a game like Tigris and Euphrates having a complexity rating of 3.53 (the heaviest game I own) but being called a potential gateway game by Joel Eddy because it's actually fairly easy to teach and grasp, but difficult to master.
-
Regarding the discussion of theme/atmosphere and its importance, an interesting game to use as a 'case study' is Century: Spice Road (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/209685/century-spice-road), with its theme of trading spices along the silk route. The publisher, Plan B Games, also produced Century: Golem Edition (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/232832/century-golem-edition), which is exactly the same game but with a different theme and artwork. In Golem, players travel the golem caravan route delivering crystals.
Some BGG users much prefer the Golem game and are disappointed that the two sequels to the game won't have a Golem edition. There is a discussion here (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1907906/snooze-theme) where people talk about their preference for one over the other. It's interesting to see how people are passionate about liking one theme or the other even though the gameplay itself is identical, showing that atmosphere is important to them, as it is to me.
(My own preference is for the spices theme because it just fits my theme/atmosphere sweet spot and Golem doesn't. I know many people are sick of themes about spices, trading in the Mediterranean etc, but I still like them.)
-
It also explains why you dont like Space games jungleboy......no atmosphere....
-
Wow there is a Golem edition? I will be definitely buying that for sure! ::) :(n)
Let's say I seriously REALLY LOVED the Golem theme and wanted to buy this game. I would still buy the Spice Road edition even though I don't care for the theme because it is compatible with future games.
If the themes were flipped Jungleboy, would you still get Spice Road even though it wouldn't work with future games?
I did enjoy reading the comments. There are a lot of people, like Jungleboy, who are all about the theme. There was a Dirk in there too:
"No remorse. This abstract game is just about getting some coloured stuff, converting stuff to different coloured stuff and spending stuff on things. I love it and don't give a second thought to the theme or pictures. I don't need a playmat either." ^-^
-
I blame the Millennials! Seriously, maybe this is a generation thing or just the subjective nature of ‘art’.
I’m not drawn to the Golem theme in anyway but had that been the only version I would likely have (grudgingly) bought it.
Clearly the Spice ‘theme’ is more popular and the publisher has good business sense.
Though that playmat is just soooo lovely. (Yes, I'm sure that is very subjective as well!)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/33/2e/07/332e07bf69fbe52195306bf622b82aad.jpg)
I wants my precious ….
I just can’t justify the cost, (over $50 CND) and I’m still miffed that the Canadian based publisher charges in U.S. dollars, Grrrrrr. Anyway I sure they would have just scaled the price up accordingly.
Decar …. Talk about a groaner pun! … I loved it ;D
-
If the themes were flipped Jungleboy, would you still get Spice Road even though it wouldn't work with future games?
Yes, I'd say so. I didn't know anything about the gameplay of the next two games when I became interested in it, so in my view it stands alone as an accessible (read: gateway) and smooth game with a pleasing theme. The fact that there are two sequels is a really nice bonus though, especially since they can be combined.
-
Though that playmat is just soooo lovely. (Yes, I'm sure that is very subjective as well!)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/33/2e/07/332e07bf69fbe52195306bf622b82aad.jpg)
Hmm, it looks like the final playmat might be a bit different. From the Plan B website (https://www.planbgames.com/en/home/16-century-playmat.html):
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171230/d5f113d3b7931159faf573f3cdff5e6b.jpg)
-
Some interesting design choices!
I think the spices on the left of the earlier version and nicer than the newer one, they stand out more. But overall I think the visuals are more prominent in the newer one.
I wonder if they'll make a golem playmat ;D
Some other things which may or may not be mentioned:
- Engagement (without feeling overwhelmed)
- Being able to try before you buy / rules available / print and play?
- Turn times
- Table Talk
- Tactility
- Table presence
- Setup time
- Racial/Gender/Other inclusivity
- Symmetry / Asymmetry.
- Drama
- A hook
- System Depth
- Visible Progress - ie: city building
Hopefully, that will give others the chance for their cognitive juices to run.
Or at least give some other topics to discuss ;D
-
I was just talking with Dan while he was in his PJs about how we both dislike the term 'gateway' because it implies that the end goal should be to quickly move on to complex games, and we don't think that's necessarily true.
I wonder if the Gateway is intended to be between the world of non-boardgamers to the vast realm of boardgaming. That these games are a successful way of introducing people into the hobby; rather than implying gateway games are used as stepping-stone or a hoping-point, which people must visit before moving into bigger more complicated things.
-
Though that playmat is just soooo lovely. (Yes, I'm sure that is very subjective as well!)
Hmm, it looks like the final playmat might be a bit different. From the Plan B website (https://www.planbgames.com/en/home/16-century-playmat.html):
What's strange is I copied the image from the website and it saved as a different image(?). The image you show is the proper one!
-
Some interesting design choices!
I think the spices on the left of the earlier version and nicer than the newer one, they stand out more. But overall I think the visuals are more prominent in the newer one.
I wonder if they'll make a golem playmat ;D
Some other things which may or may not be mentioned:
- Engagement (without feeling overwhelmed)
- Being able to try before you buy / rules available / print and play?
- Turn times
- Table Talk
- Tactility
- Table presence
- Setup time
- Racial/Gender/Other inclusivity
- Symmetry / Asymmetry.
- Drama
- A hook
- System Depth
- Visible Progress - ie: city building
Hopefully, that will give others the chance for their cognitive juices to run.
Or at least give some other topics to discuss ;D
Decar, more good ideas here.
I just finished 2 games of Agricola (revised edition with the Mrs.) and we both struggle with the game to some degree.
What I'm getting at are these tight games where every decision can be a bit agonizing (at least for some). I had my best ever game at 43 points but it is still a bit of a slog. I do like the game but it's not exactly a relaxing experience.
So ... another factor might be Brainburnyness.
This might be closely tied to the complexity level but not always. I have some games that are tightly designed that are not that complex.
Agricola - 3.39
Agricola - All creatures Great and Small - 2.35 (is still a tight game of challenging decisions).
Cinque Terre - 2.37 (surprisingly brainburny) but I love it.
Then look at the highly rated Caverna (reported to be a more wide open sandbox experience), has an even higher rating of - 3.79.
I even think Ticket to Ride (1.87) can be a tense experience, (mostly how competitive the players are). We dusted this off last week with the girls and it was reminded how tense the map can get with 4 players.
I see where game intensity can be have a varying appeal. I have to admit I like the tension but past a certain point it can be less fun!
-
I think I know you're talking about. I have to say, I've not managed to play many games that cause this, at least upfront. I think it often happens in worker placement / activation games the most. When you have to try to determine what the best course of action is, several turns in advance can be a real headache. But I don't mean that in the same way that chess allows you to see in advance. It's more of a subtle equation, multiplying resources and working out how best to use them. Multiple simultaneous equations all colliding at just the write time. It seems to occur a lot in Uwe Rosenberg games! I hear a Feast for Odin punishes even more than Agricola does and it's usually very unclear how badly you'll do. Even patchwork manages to do this by penalizing players, it's quite hard to get a positive score some days!
I would say that brain-burn can definitely be an issue for us. My wife reports that having worked all day, the last thing she wants to do is continue to have to think too hard. Sometimes having clear and present options is the best way to go, even is tactically it's not. I would say that was some of the appeal of Ginkgopolis recently, the best move is well and truly hidden, so making a reasonable move now is easier to decide. This usually means you can take a reasonable option in front of you, but other players can spend more time strategizing. Usually if that results in a close finish it means the game is unbalanced, but often it can simply be because one player can't 'see the wood for the trees', they're lost in a maze, rather than taking it steady. :(y)
-
I do think tension is key in a game it just depends on where our comfort level gets breached.
Again, maybe one could use a similar similar scale to complexity (but different).
Maybe it can be more clearly defined as the 'level of decision making' rather than game intensity.
If I took a stab and mostly my opinion.
Agricola might be somewhere a 4+/5
Marco polo 4+/5
Cinque Terre 4
TTR - 3/5 (?)
Agricola - All creatures 3+/5
Century: Spice Road 2/5
So I might be in that 3.5 region of comfort. I can push 4+ but it's less 'fun' for me.
Bah mostly just thinking out loud ;D
-
called Sarajevo and the theme was about snipers climbing to the top of a building to get in position to shoot their enemies,
This does sound pretty good. Though I'd call it 'Enemy at the Gate' and set it in Stalingrad...nothing like a movie tie-in to shift games.
Would totally buy/back both.
Regarding BBG or any other ratings I don't pay them much attention.
I like games because I like them, not everybody else and statistics can be broken, especially internet based ones (check how Gloomhaven got to #1 by a lot of people changing their pandemic ratings to 1).
Heaviness is subjective and highly affected by your game group, I mainly play with kids but everybody has that "slow game" friend.
-
Difficult question. I definitely like relaxing, brain burning or speed/reaction-pressure games alike. I like particularly elegant design in games with a focused goal, but there are still some true "point salad" games with abstract resource to VP conversions (which I would not call "elegant"), like in "Castles of Burgundy" or "Great western Trail", which I still enjoy very much.
I also don't mind game length, as long as I feel the time frame is appropriate filled with true choices. "Ticket to Ride" or "Betrayal at the House on Hill" are by no mean very long games, but I'm not too fancied to play them. The first one can get really frustrating in times, when you have several rounds in a row have no other vial choice then taking two cards from top of the deck, yet always only get cards in the wrong colours. The second can some times turn out a great experience, but the first part of the game is not really a game. Feels more like setup, because the game really plays itself with no real choices for the player. And potentially this phase can take 45 minutes or more, and one or two rounds after the haunt is triggered, the game already ends. That can lead to a very miserable experience. So I think, most important for me is, that the game immerses me with choices, what to do.
-
I’ve enjoyed reading about what others have mentioned as being important factors for them when looking to buy a new game so I thought I’d mention some of the things that are important to me, for your consideration. It was quite difficult putting my finger on exactly what it is about specific games that make them so irresistible, but I’ve done my best!
Artwork is always a factor. I can enjoy games regardless of my feelings towards the art, but if the game is unknown to me, bright, colourful artwork always helps towards making a good first impression. It isn’t always about the art in the most obvious form either though, as I’m more a fan of the humble meeple than I am of either old or new edition tile artwork (so much so that I had my Dan meeple created in the classic meeple shape).
Theme is also quite important, although I’m usually more likely to be turned off by a boring theme than I am turned on by an exciting one. Themes I particularly enjoy are City Builders and Zombies, so a game that involved both would be off to a good start as far as I’m concerned!
Whilst the artwork and theme of a game could be viewed as being quite cosmetic, the mechanics of the game certainly aren’t, and this is something else that can draw me to a game even if the artwork and theme don’t really do it for me. This was certainly the case for Carcassonne anyway as I was drawn to the elegance and simplicity of the gameplay far more than anything else. But I’m not picky in this respect either as I’m open to more or less any type of game. The one thing that turns me off though are overly complicated rules or added complexity for the sake of added complexity. Less is often more, and games that do this through intuitive mechanics and simple rules are often the ones I tend to like best (hence why I usually prefer to play Carcassonne without expansions).
This might seem like a bit of a strange thing to be drawn to, but I do tend to admire games that are particularly compact. Mint Works is probably the most compact game I own and as much as I love it, there isn’t much that draws me to it in terms of theme or artwork. Other games that I like for this reason are things like Flip City, The Great Heartlands Hauling Co, some of the Tiny Epic games and… Carcassonne (after repackaging into a mini biscuit tin)! Conversely, I don’t like many games that come in huge boxes for seemingly no reason.
Finally is the play time. I don’t mind game dragging on for hours on end, but in most cases this is usually because we chose to throw in dozens of expansions or were playing with newer players who needed the game explaining to them as we went. I prefer games to be relatively short, perhaps about 30 – 40 minutes per game, which is another reason why Carcassonne scores so highly for me.
I wouldn’t say that any of these aspects is any more important than any of the others, but if I see a game that gets a tick in 3 or more of these boxes than it’s likely going to end up on my wish list sooner or later!
-
Nicely put Dan. Zombies aside, I think our interests match up fairly well so it's not a coincidence that we were both drawn to Carcassonne so much. Although as discussed many years ago, I love mixing the game up with expansions and find the base game a bit too unexciting by itself.
As an aside, last night I dreamt that I was playing the 'Board Game Geek Board Game' but it was too heavy and complicated and I didn't like it (and was losing badly when I decided to quit). Then later I accidentally dropped a stack of board games including that one down several flights of stairs and all the boxes opened and the components spilled out everywhere.
-
5. Manageable/Mitigating Uncertainty (random events, dice rolls, landscape-discovery)
No one has followed up on this so I'll have a go.
Firstly, I have no problem with luck being present in a game, unlike seemingly most of the BGG crowd who often think that having a luck element in a game is the worst thing in the history of the world. (I guess they haven't been to IKEA lately.) I read a weird debate recently on the BGG forum for Endeavor (I think) where someone is trying to say that there's too much luck in the game because random token placement as part of setup, in his view, constitutes luck. Thankfully most people are disagreeing with him.
Back on topic, sure, in a game like Carcassonne, when luck goes against you, that's not the greatest feeling, but on the flip side, when you draw the one tile you desperately need, that sure is pretty amazing.
As Decar said, mitigation, especially for dice rolling, is important, such as re-roll chits in games like Alea Iacta Est or the Institute for Magical Arts. In other games where the luck element is not as blatant as rolling dice, I see being able to mitigate the luck yourself through your own decisions as a kind of 'skill'. So in Carcassonne, that means trying to put yourself in a position where you can utilise lots of different tiles on any given draw and aren't reliant on one rare tile to come to your rescue and bail you out. If I feel like I played well enough to win but luck went against me and I lost, I'm OK with that. Maybe that's what it comes down to in the end.
-
Interesting thoughts Jungleboy, I'm not a particular fan of games that present all their information in front of you. Essentially such a game is a puzzle. Ultimately, you could find the best path in front of you. It is often seen in abstract games, knowing that the first/last player will lose if both players play perfectly. This is the case in noughts & crosses or connect 4, but a lot of games are really about solving that puzzle, which happens in all games in the gipf series, but also Chess & Go as extreme examples. Thankfully, that puzzle solving is way beyond me, but there's no pretense. You know the game is a flawed puzzle, but good luck working it out.
It can happen in higher-player-count games too: where you need to read your opponents moves, but then the game becomes judging what the best risk to take is. Asking questions like: Do I score 10 points now and hope PlayerB doesn't do XYZ? Or should I get 7 points now and assume he does. My issue with these sorts of games is that they hide the puzzle and call it a game.
An alternative is to introduce something random, a little bit of chaos. However too much chaos means either play could win regardless of the events and decisions made. Just like Snakes and Ladders. Being able to mitigate means trying to understand the odds, or count the tiles, or know the risks to determine a suitable strategy which should allow you to progress, score points achieve a goal.
I rarely get the chance these days, but sometimes setting yourself a challenge within a game can be just as rewarding. Just like saying: can I trap a player's meeple before they score 10 points, for example. Sometimes that's more important than winning the game overall. Even winning a single player-interaction can be more rewarding than the summation of the entire game.
-
More good points, jungleboy and Decar.
I go along similar guidelines with luck aspects of games especially with mitigation mechanisms. That’s balances makes for a great game.
Thinking long these lines took my mind to another aspect and that is variability in games. I especially enjoy games with a variable set up or variable boards along the lines of Kingdom Builder for a quick example or Carcassonne for that matter.
Whether it is the chance for a different board or even card combinatios that come up in a game, these add interest and challenge.
I might actually enjoy more games where you have to deal with issues on the spot rather where you need a strategy all mapped out. I probably have to consider this more and it’s probably a measure of both that I enjoy.
Regardless, variability would be another big one for me.
-
Whether it is the chance for a different board or even card combinatios that come up in a game, these add interest and challenge.
I agree 100% Franks. Card variability and combination is rather common, but the lack of different boards annoys me greatly. I can't believe some games still come out with blank sides of game boards. If you are a company making any type of board, you should make a flip side for variability. Different point values, locations, or totally different game play are all current things found in some games. If Imhotep wouldn't have double sides, I think we would have been sick of it by now. A game like Pandemic Iberia should have another side featuring another region like the Ticket to Ride games have. Same game, same components, how much more can it be to make another side of the board?
-
I certainly dont like games with infinite variability. It makes me think the game designer has little to know idea that their game either comes with limits or has rules missing.
Kingdom builder is a great example of lots and lots of permutations of starting position. But the uncontrol nature of play really makes that interesting. DXV seems to do that with dominion too. The game starts with a clear victory path. But the sequence of hand draws totally messes it up. But you still have a good strategy to follow.
I have to say shadespire is doing this really well for us at the moment. The strategic placement of the boards and objects offset against the random nature of power cards with the added bonus of a couple of different factions means it's scoring highly here (but not infinite).
-
I started waffling and forgot to say: imagine if Carcassonne had double sided tiles :D
-
If you are a company making any type of board, you should make a flip side for variability. Different point values, locations, or totally different game play are all current things found in some games.
I certainly dont like games with infinite variability. It makes me think the game designer has little to know idea that their game either comes with limits or has rules missing.
I'm not sure if you are both talking about exactly the same thing here, but if so, I'd have to agree with Mike (dirk2112). Just to hash it out a bit more and see if we're all on the same page, take two similar games by the same designer: Navegador (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/66589/navegador) and Concordia (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/124361/concordia). In both games you're taking one action per turn from a series of options, travelling by land/sea and trying to create colonies, acquire/spend resources/money etc.
Navegador has essentially no variability and no real growth for an expansion beyond promo stuff. The roundel that determines actions is fixed, the colonies all produce the same resources from game to game (i.e. the South American colonies produce sugar, the West African and Southeast African colonies produce gold and the rest produce spices) and there is a fixed, one-sided board. I happen to like the game a lot as it is, but the lack of variability means that you could figure out an optimum strategy and just repeat it every time you play.
In Concordia, a deck-building element changes your available actions game to game, the colonies are randomly seeded with different resources each game, and the base game comes with a double-sided board (therefore, two maps). There have been four expansions all containing another double-sided board (and, in fact, three of those four expansions have only contained a new board and nothing else) so there are now 10 different maps you can play on with different features/elements. The unhinging of the designer (Mac Gerdts) from the roundels that he was previously using and were 'restricting' him and the deck-building element in particular widely are seen as helping to make Concordia an improved version of Navegador. So while all of our opinions about stuff like this are subjective, it seems pretty clear that Concordia is the better game. And I say this as a fan of Navegador.
And while on topic...
If Imhotep wouldn't have double sides, I think we would have been sick of it by now.
I read that the expansion will have a C and D side for all the locations, so that'd be great.
-
What Nick (Jungleboy) said!
Also, Concordia has been on my list of games to try. For whatever reason the 2 FLGS don't have a demo copy :(
I haven't played it yet, but there is a Legacy game called Charterstone. It comes with 2 sides of the board too so that you can buy a "refill" pack if you wish to do the legacy aspect again. That is a GREAT idea. I wish the 2 Pandemic Legacy games did that. I am not sure I am going to buy Charterstone. We are knee deep in worker placement games.
-
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. Certainly not disagreeing: infinite-replayability is a marketting term. It's often used when a game has some to lots and lots of replayability and variability....ive yet to see a gmae that's infinite...i assume they're still printing the prototype.
-
I look in the title for the word "Carcassonne" :)
-
Also, Concordia has been on my list of games to try. For whatever reason the 2 FLGS don't have a demo copy :(
It seems to be between print runs at the moment, but still possible to acquire in certain places.
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. Certainly not disagreeing: infinite-replayability is a marketting term. It's often used when a game has some to lots and lots of replayability and variability....ive yet to see a gmae that's infinite...i assume they're still printing the prototype.
Got it now, thanks for clarifying!
I look in the title for the word "Carcassonne" :)
In this case I don't recommend Cardcassonne for you. ;)
-
Re: game themes. If theme doesn't matter to you, then that's great for you because it gives you a wider pool of games to potentially enjoy. But hopefully you can understand why I wouldn't want to play, or even look at, a game like this:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180114/88c8fd1c6a867f9b156f84cc1bed213b.jpg)
-
I was going to bring that to our next meetup ;D
Besides HATE is an acronym for: Happy Artisans: Trading Empires