RJD
United States
Quad-Cities
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure why people are so hung up on randomness. Its just one part of a well made game, not the whole thing, and, if an AT game is considered too random, then it's often not considered one of the better ones anyway. Completely chaotic stuff like Tales of the Arabian Nights are not your average run of the mill example and not indicative of how they all play. If a game is a "luck fest", AT players usually have no problem saying so.

If I had to describe Ameritrash, randomness isn't the first thing that would come to mind. Theme and direct conflict are, only then followed by varying levels of chance

@BahdMufu. thumbsup If I could, I would thumb your post many, many times. laugh
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harald Torvatn
Norway
Trondheim
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
truekid wrote:
Harald wrote:
paulclarke339 wrote:
Harald wrote:
paulclarke339 wrote:

In both AT and Euros with randomness the game state will change randomly between your turns. You then make a decision on your turn. The difference is that in a Euro you typically know the (immediate) outcome of the decision, in an AT game you typically do not know what effect your decision will have. I hope I am being clear.

Since the outcome of your both your decisions and the randomness is to is to change the game state, I fail to see the difference. In both cases, decisions change the game state, then randomness change the game state, then decisions change the game state, then randomness change the game state......


You make a decision
Euro: Outcome is certain
Ameritrash: Outcome is unknown

Suppose I play a game, and take the "first player" action, hoping to be first to the "family growth" action. After I do that decision a card is turned over to determine which new action is aviable that turn.

It turns out the new aviable action is not "Family growth" but some other action which had no importance to me. Deciding to take "first player" indeed succeeded to make me first player ( a certain outcome), but because of randomness following after that decision, it failed to do what I really wanted it to do: to be the first player to do "family growth". So part of the outcome was certain, but part of the outcome (the reaaly important part, and the reason I made that decision) was not.

If there is later randomness in a game, that radomness plays a part in the outcome of decisions, even if decisions usually (in all kind of games) have a part of their outcome which is certain.

Therefore it is meaningless to say that in some games decisions follow randomness and in other games randomness follows decisions.

You're conflating the results of an individual action with the hopeful results of an overarching strategy.
I dont think hoping that the card that will soon be turned up is "family growth" is more overarcing than hoping the die that will soon be rolled when you announce an attack is a hit.
truekid wrote:

Input (action): Move troops into opposing space.
Output (direct result): Roll dice, perhaps take the space, perhaps not.

Input (action): Take the start player action.
Output (direct result): You will get first pick next turn.

You could just as well say:
Input (Action): Attack that space. Output (direct result) the unit will attack that space.

Why would Your "direct result" in the agricola be what happen before the randomness which follows, but in the attack example, your "direct result" includes what happens after the randomness?

It all depends on what you consider direct, which makes that distincion useless.

truekid wrote:
I'm not trying to make the "euros do one/ameri~ does another" argument, but people are definitely misinterpreting the concept of when randomness occurs and the impact it makes on decisions.
The possibility of the next action flipped being family growth certainly have an impact on decisions.
truekid wrote:
It's like the chaos-theory butterfly... the direct result of it flapping its wings is that it flies a little further; the direct result is NOT that a hurricane happens around the globe a week later.
If the games rules makes a hurricane a reasonably likely result of flipping a butterflies wings, then I may decide to try to make a hurricane, and use the flipping of an butterflies wings as the way to make that hurricane. My decision then, is to try to make an hurricane, which may or may not succeed in making one. As a side effect, that action may cause a butterfly to fly further. But my decision was to try to make a hurricane, and if I succeed it is difficult to not view that success as a result of that decision. Direct or not, I dont know, and dont care, I try to make decisons which have the results I want, regardless of how long it may take them to do that.

truekid wrote:
Moreover, oversimplifying and saying "decision changes game state, then randomness does" in unending sequence is oversimplifying... it ignores the how, where, why, what, and when.

It is not doing any of those things. It is just says that it is meaningless to say in a general way whether decsisons follows randomness and randomness follows decisions.

It is meaningless bacause of the undefinedness of what is a direct result of a decision: Se your own "input-Output" exampla above: in the start player action Example, you stopped counting direct effect just before some randomness, in the attack space example, you stop counting just after some randomness. You could just as well have done it the other way round.

truekid wrote:
For example, you could take the start player marker as the last action in a round in Agricola because you know that wood is going to jump to 6 and you will be guaranteed to be able to take it. Yes, randomness occurred after the decision, a card was still flipped, but since it was not tied to the results of the action, it did not impact your intended overall strategy. Whereas in Risk, the randomness is inescapably tied to the action.
Clearly, almost all games has actions which has guaranteed results. (Even risk has that, you dont have to attack somone.) Also, much randomness in many games has little impact.
truekid wrote:
To say that it is meaningless to say when and where and how randomness occurs is to basically ignore all forms of game design considerations in both board and video games.
I agree completely, and want to point out that I have never said anything like that.

What I have said is that randomness and decision generally follows each other, so it is meaningless to say that one follows the other.

But, looking at individiual decisons and individual randomness, it is clearly an important game design consideration to decide which randomness is to be before which decision.
truekid wrote:
Player motivation, intentionality, and average potential results of actions (which all change dramatically depending on where the randomness occurs) are huge factors in both game design and game play.
Agree completely.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Van Zandt
United States
South Ogden
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
PlayTMG.com
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Quote:

You're conflating the results of an individual action with the hopeful results of an overarching strategy.
I dont think hoping that the card that will soon be turned up is "family growth" is more overarcing than hoping the die that will soon be rolled when you announce an attack is a hit.

Then we're at an impasse, because they're completely separate events, you just choose to mentally group them as inseparable based on your theoretical overarching strategy, even though I cited an example of how they can clearly be separated.
Quote:
truekid wrote:

Input (action): Move troops into opposing space.
Output (direct result): Roll dice, perhaps take the space, perhaps not.

Input (action): Take the start player action.
Output (direct result): You will get first pick next turn.

You could just as well say:
Input (Action): Attack that space. Output (direct result) the unit will attack that space.

for example, here, again, you're intentionally misunderstanding. the attack IS rolling the dice. the result of the action is directly tied to the dice roll, not only did it cause it, it will always cause it, every time you take that action, and the results will always be uncertain every time you take that action because the dice are a part of it. none of these statements are true about taking the start player action in relation to the card flip.

Quote:
truekid wrote:
Moreover, oversimplifying and saying "decision changes game state, then randomness does" in unending sequence is oversimplifying... it ignores the how, where, why, what, and when.

It is not doing any of those things. It is just says that it is meaningless to say in a general way whether decsisons follows randomness and randomness follows decisions.

It is meaningless bacause of the undefinedness of what is a direct result of a decision: Se your own "input-Output" exampla above: in the start player action Example, you stopped counting direct effect just before some randomness, in the attack space example, you stop counting just after some randomness. You could just as well have done it the other way round.
no, because the action is inescapably tied to the randomness in Risk. You cannot take the action without the randomness both occurring and impacting the outcome of it.

Quote:
truekid wrote:
For example, you could take the start player marker as the last action in a round in Agricola because you know that wood is going to jump to 6 and you will be guaranteed to be able to take it. Yes, randomness occurred after the decision, a card was still flipped, but since it was not tied to the results of the action, it did not impact your intended overall strategy. Whereas in Risk, the randomness is inescapably tied to the action.
Clearly, almost all games has actions which has guaranteed results. (Even risk has that, you dont have to attack somone.)
yes, almost all games have actions with guaranteed results, including Risk. However, Agricola has only actions with guaranteed results, and Risk requires you to take actions with uncertain results in order to win. Agricola does have static random effects which are separate entities from the action. This does not mean that they are not sometimes a consideration when taking actions, but it does mean that you can play the entire game without them being a consideration. Taking the action does not cause the randomness. The randomness in Risk is the exact opposite.
Quote:
truekid wrote:
To say that it is meaningless to say when and where and how randomness occurs is to basically ignore all forms of game design considerations in both board and video games.
I agree completely, and want to point out that I have never said anything like that.
except that you said:
Harald wrote:

It is just says that it is meaningless to say in a general way whether decsisons follows randomness and randomness follows decisions.
which is EXACTLY what this quote says. when and where and how in relation to the decision is STILL when and where and how- and is, in fact, frequently the most relevant when and where and how, especially as far as this conversation goes. It thus HAS meaning, and this meaning is relevant to players and designers.

I'm not going to argue further. There's a clearcut distinction with demonstrable and measurable qualifiers, with implications both from the player and designer motivation ends, and you choose instead to see "meaningless" and "useless". It's meaningless and useless only if you don't understand the meaning and don't understand the use.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TS S. Fulk
Sweden
Örebro
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe you shouldn't use Risk as the AT example. Pity a game most people think of as a luck-fest vs. Agricola isn't very fair.

What about Dorn or Feudal? Both AT and both with certain outcomes (although there are hidden cards in Dorn, nothing is hidden or random in Feudal).

Then there are games like Ghost Stories. If you play it "correctly" you roll the dice to save tokens, not take out a Ghost. The main goal of taking out a ghost should be certain and the randomness is just to see how many resources you need to spend to do that. The randomness of the cards just add variety, like in Agricola, and you can react to them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
mbmbmbmbmb
tssfulk wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't use Risk as the AT example. Pity a game most people think of as a luck-fest vs. Agricola isn't very fair.

What about Dorn or Feudal? Both AT and both with certain outcomes (although there are hidden cards in Dorn, nothing is hidden or random in Feudal).

Then there are games like Ghost Stories. If you play it "correctly" you roll the dice to save tokens, not take out a Ghost. The main goal of taking out a ghost should be certain and the randomness is just to see how many resources you need to spend to do that. The randomness of the cards just add variety, like in Agricola, and you can react to them.


The best examples of an AT game are probably Twilight Imperium 3 and Descent.

A shame really, because there's very minimal dice throwing in a game of TI3.
The theme, much more than the luck factor, is what determines the nature of an AT game or a Euro game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
I'll think of something witty to put here...
mbmbmbmbmb
deedob wrote:
tssfulk wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't use Risk as the AT example. Pity a game most people think of as a luck-fest vs. Agricola isn't very fair.

What about Dorn or Feudal? Both AT and both with certain outcomes (although there are hidden cards in Dorn, nothing is hidden or random in Feudal).

Then there are games like Ghost Stories. If you play it "correctly" you roll the dice to save tokens, not take out a Ghost. The main goal of taking out a ghost should be certain and the randomness is just to see how many resources you need to spend to do that. The randomness of the cards just add variety, like in Agricola, and you can react to them.


The best examples of an AT game are probably Twilight Imperium 3 and Descent.

A shame really, because there's very minimal dice throwing in a game of TI3.
The theme, much more than the luck factor, is what determines the nature of an AT game or a Euro game.


TI 3 is the Eurofied version of Twilight Imperium. It borrows it's central action selection mechanic from Puerto Rico.

The Ameritrash archetype should contradict the Euro archetype.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
If you're reading this thread, you might be interested in the newly-relaunched Game Genome Project guild, an attempt to come up with a comprehensive and coherent classification system for board games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RJD
United States
Quad-Cities
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
paulclarke339 wrote:
deedob wrote:
tssfulk wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't use Risk as the AT example. Pity a game most people think of as a luck-fest vs. Agricola isn't very fair.

What about Dorn or Feudal? Both AT and both with certain outcomes (although there are hidden cards in Dorn, nothing is hidden or random in Feudal).

Then there are games like Ghost Stories. If you play it "correctly" you roll the dice to save tokens, not take out a Ghost. The main goal of taking out a ghost should be certain and the randomness is just to see how many resources you need to spend to do that. The randomness of the cards just add variety, like in Agricola, and you can react to them.


The best examples of an AT game are probably Twilight Imperium 3 and Descent.

A shame really, because there's very minimal dice throwing in a game of TI3.
The theme, much more than the luck factor, is what determines the nature of an AT game or a Euro game.


TI 3 is the Eurofied version of Twilight Imperium. It borrows it's central action selection mechanic from Puerto Rico.

The Ameritrash archetype should contradict the Euro archetype.



I believe BahdMuFu already covered that aspect.

BahdMufu wrote:
If BGG posters decide an Ameritrash game has tried hard enough they will tell you it is really a Euro.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
I'll think of something witty to put here...
mbmbmbmbmb
UnluckyNumber wrote:
paulclarke339 wrote:
deedob wrote:
tssfulk wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't use Risk as the AT example. Pity a game most people think of as a luck-fest vs. Agricola isn't very fair.

What about Dorn or Feudal? Both AT and both with certain outcomes (although there are hidden cards in Dorn, nothing is hidden or random in Feudal).

Then there are games like Ghost Stories. If you play it "correctly" you roll the dice to save tokens, not take out a Ghost. The main goal of taking out a ghost should be certain and the randomness is just to see how many resources you need to spend to do that. The randomness of the cards just add variety, like in Agricola, and you can react to them.


The best examples of an AT game are probably Twilight Imperium 3 and Descent.

A shame really, because there's very minimal dice throwing in a game of TI3.
The theme, much more than the luck factor, is what determines the nature of an AT game or a Euro game.


TI 3 is the Eurofied version of Twilight Imperium. It borrows it's central action selection mechanic from Puerto Rico.

The Ameritrash archetype should contradict the Euro archetype.



I believe BahdMuFu already covered that aspect.

BahdMufu wrote:
If BGG posters decide an Ameritrash game has tried hard enough they will tell you it is really a Euro.


Oh, TI 3 is certainly not a Euro. I would describe it as c.90% Ameritrash/Wargame with a few Euro ideas (c.10%), though I only played it once (a partial game) about 2.5 years ago, so my recollection may be fuzzy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cornelissen
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Excuse me for not reading all the posts, but I first and foremost question the credibility of the OP because of his repeated reference to "Eurogame" and "Ameritrash." Why not simply remain term-neutral and use "Eurogame" and "Amerigame" to build a case?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Largo68 wrote:
Excuse me for not reading all the posts, but I first and foremost question the credibility of the OP because of his repeated reference to "Eurogame" and "Ameritrash." Why not simply remain term-neutral and use "Eurogame" and "Amerigame" to build a case?



Because they are the most popular terms, and I freely use both without any negative connotations for either. I can easily see why fans of either genre might appreciate and prefer games in their respective style, and the point of the original post is to share that perspective. By better definining these terms, we can remove any prejudice, confusion, and ambiguity surrounding them.

There are some on this thread, for example, who believe that ameritrash games are all about theme, but in my original post I have demonstrated that a good ameritrash game has many other traits that may be preferred by fans of this genre.

Obviously no game fits in either camp, as the TI3 discussion highlights, but I do believe this dichotemy is still useful in describing, in a broad way, the preferences of a particular player or group. So the question should never be 'is this game Euro or AT?' so much as 'would this game appeal more toward Euro style groups or AT style groups?'

As for my credibility, I know of no other recent post that has tried as hard as I have to give both genres a fair shot and to make them both sound appealing and different.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
lordrahvin wrote:

There are some on this thread, for example, who believe that ameritrash games are all about theme, but in my original post I have demonstrated that a good ameritrash game has many other traits that may be preferred by fans of this genre.


But are there any Ameritrash games that don't have a strong theme? If we're looking for a defining characteristic...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
lordrahvin wrote:

There are some on this thread, for example, who believe that ameritrash games are all about theme, but in my original post I have demonstrated that a good ameritrash game has many other traits that may be preferred by fans of this genre.


But are there any Ameritrash games that don't have a strong theme? If we're looking for a defining characteristic...


Oh, you're definitely right about that. I am looking for as many defining characteristics as we can generate. Theme is definitely one of them and is already on the list in the original post.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank La Terra
Australia
flag msg tools
Largo68 wrote:
Excuse me for not reading all the posts, but I first and foremost question the credibility of the OP because of his repeated reference to "Eurogame" and "Ameritrash." Why not simply remain term-neutral and use "Eurogame" and "Amerigame" to build a case?



What the hell is an "Amerigame"???
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
mbmbmbmbmb
Mr Skeletor wrote:
What the hell is an "Amerigame"???

Basically the same thing as Eurotrash, only the opposite.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Dunford
Canada
Kemptville
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been trying to figure out this whole "Euro" vs "Ameritrash" thing myself. The OP makes several general defining features that usually apply... but there are some exceptions and, of course, many ambiguous cases. The defining characteristic that I use is whether the game relies more heavily on strategic or tactical decisions. This is consistent with many of the general rules (e.g. randomness occurring before or after a decision), but seems to work even in some ambiguous cases.

Ambiguous example #1: The Resistance.

I think most would agree that Mafia/Werewolfare "Ameritrash": They have player elimination, direct conflict, are heavily thematic (especially when expansions and variants are played), involve deceiving other players, the side that is winning is often clear before the end of the game, and the game itself ends after a certain event has occurred (either the spies have been eliminated, or the spies have a lock on eliminating the non-spies).

However, The Resistance has no player elimination, no luck involved (besides initial set-up determining which faction players belong to), a victory-point based goal after a predetermined number of rounds, and a loosely pasted-on arbitrary theme. Despite all those "Euro" characteristics, The Resistance is clearly tactical, as decisions require constant re-evaluation of ever-changing conditions. A preset strategy will almost certainly fail, especially with repeated plays of the game. Thus, it fits best with its "Ameritrash" predecessors.

Ambiguous example #2: Pandemic.

Pandemic has a strong theme, a heavy built-in luck factor (player draw deck with swingy cards that can help or hinder; random infection deck that determines which cities will be hit), unique character abilities (player asymmetry), several ways to lose (game can end at almost any moment), and is very tense throughout the game. Sometimes the decks can be stacked against you resulting in an unwinnable game.

While the game requires some tactical decisions (e.g. dealing with a heavily infected city immediately after an epidemic), a predetermined algorithmic strategy will generally optimize a team's probability of winning. That is, there are optimal strategies involving maximizing effectiveness of special abilities to prevent outbreaks in each geographic region, establishing research stations in key areas, moving around the map efficiently, finding the best time to use special cards, and collecting and accumulating card sets without wasting cards. The luck factor plays no bigger role than in Dominion or Agricola (in my opinion), and the game is often a matter of executing a strategy - regardless of how tense the game may still be, and how likely (or unlikely) a win is in a given board state. Thus, I consider it a Euro game.

Feel free to disagree or suggest examples that contradict this definition.
3 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
I'll think of something witty to put here...
mbmbmbmbmb
iNano78 wrote:
The defining characteristic that I use is whether the game relies more heavily on strategic or tactical decisions. This is consistent with many of the general rules (e.g. randomness occurring before or after a decision), but seems to work even in some ambiguous cases.


I prefer whether the game relies more heavily on chance and ganging up or on decision making.
Euros will (in general) be more rewarding of both tactical and strategic decision making skills than Ameritrash games.

I prefer even more whether you are killing things or not killing things (within the context of the games narrative).

Quote:
Ambiguous example #1: The Resistance.

I think most would agree that Mafia/Werewolfare "Ameritrash": They have player elimination, direct conflict, are heavily thematic (especially when expansions and variants are played), involve deceiving other players, the side that is winning is often clear before the end of the game, and the game itself ends after a certain event has occurred (either the spies have been eliminated, or the spies have a lock on eliminating the non-spies).

However, The Resistance has no player elimination, no luck involved (besides initial set-up determining which faction players belong to), a victory-point based goal after a predetermined number of rounds, and a loosely pasted-on arbitrary theme. Despite all those "Euro" characteristics, The Resistance is clearly tactical, as decisions require constant re-evaluation of ever-changing conditions. A preset strategy will almost certainly fail, especially with repeated plays of the game. Thus, it fits best with its "Ameritrash" predecessors.


Werewolf and the Resistance should probably come under party games (short, simple rules, large groups, lots of noise).

I find other hidden traitor games difficult to categorise, perhaps they need a (sub)category of their own. They're often thematic but don't need to be - One could argue that Werewolves is a pasted on theme - it could easily be rethemed to Mafia, Cylons, James Bond etc. Some have random elements, some don't (after dealing loyalty cards, for obvious reasons). I agree that WW leans towards AT and the Resistance leans towards Euro.

Quote:
Ambiguous example #2: Pandemic.

Pandemic has a strong theme, a heavy built-in luck factor (player draw deck with swingy cards that can help or hinder; random infection deck that determines which cities will be hit), unique character abilities (player asymmetry), several ways to lose (game can end at almost any moment), and is very tense throughout the game. Sometimes the decks can be stacked against you resulting in an unwinnable game.

While the game requires some tactical decisions (e.g. dealing with a heavily infected city immediately after an epidemic), a predetermined algorithmic strategy will generally optimize a team's probability of winning. That is, there are optimal strategies involving maximizing effectiveness of special abilities to prevent outbreaks in each geographic region, establishing research stations in key areas, moving around the map efficiently, finding the best time to use special cards, and collecting and accumulating card sets without wasting cards. The luck factor plays no bigger role than in Dominion or Agricola (in my opinion), and the game is often a matter of executing a strategy - regardless of how tense the game may still be, and how likely (or unlikely) a win is in a given board state. Thus, I consider it a Euro game.

Feel free to disagree or suggest examples that contradict this definition.


Pandemic is a co-op, which is it's own category. IF I had to choose between Euro and AT, I'd go with Euro (though a random Euro, like Settlers), based on:
Not killing stuff
No player elimination
Family game
Novel mechanics
Managing resources that can be used in multiple ways (Ameritrash would probably have you rolling dice to see if you find a cure)
Plays in a reasonable amount of time
Not overly nerd-themed (though very thematic for a Euro)
Wooden components

Quote:
The luck factor plays no bigger role than in Dominion or Agricola (in my opinion)


I think there is far more luck in Pandemic than in Dominion, and far, far more than in Agricola.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's worth contrasting Pandemic to its more AT derivative Defenders of the Realm. As Paul suggests above, there is die rolling, monster killing, a fantasy theme, and plastic sculpts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
The defining characteristic that I use is whether the game relies more heavily on strategic or tactical decisions.


Hmm. I can't speak for AT games because I don't know many, but Euros span the whole spectrum from almost entirely tactical to almost entirely strategic.

I really think the defining characteristic has to do with the way theme is integrated into the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BoardGameGeek » Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming
Re: What is the difference between Euro or Ameritrash? My system of classification.
qwertymartin wrote:
I really think the defining characteristic has to do with the way theme is integrated into the game.


I've got to disagree. BGG has won the approval of many Ameritrashers by popularising this definition, but I think this obscures other important elements. Ameritrash is firmly focused on pulp themes: sci-fi, fantasy and horror, larger-than-life interpretations of history.

Cosmic Encounter was designed from its mechanical goals, and has its theme pasted on with implausible flavour text; nevertheless it's nowadays regarded as classic Ameritrash, probably due to its negotiation, bullying and treachery.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ronnie
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
Just what is it that you want to do? We wanna be free. We wanna be free to do what we wanna do. And we wanna play games. And we wanna have a good time. That's what we're gonna do. We're gonna have a good time. We're gonna have a party!
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
Everyone has a differing opinions on the differences between AT and a Euro game...and all of them are right.


This is logically not possible. If 2 people say contradictory things they can't both be right.

I think you made a really good point when you said "I know it when I see it." AT and Euro's are real categories that have meaning but which are difficult to define. Few rules are hard and fast when describing them but in general we know which is which after we play a game a few times.

Ratatoskr72 wrote:
My two cents:
Ameritrash = Broken
Euro = Boring


So true. I often think something is AT if I had a good strategy but seemed to only lose due to dice rolls or bad card draws. Generally speaking when I lose a Euro I know why and I can see how to improve.

fateswanderer wrote:
Ameritrash is firmly focused on pulp themes: sci-fi, fantasy and horror, larger-than-life interpretations of history.


True. It saddens me that there are not more fantasy themed euro's...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
the liberal unsavory type
mbmbmbmbmb
Redward wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
Everyone has a differing opinions on the differences between AT and a Euro game...and all of them are right.


This is logically not possible. If 2 people say contradictory things they can't both be right.


That's only correct if we were talking about concrete facts. There are no set definitions for these terms. Back when Euros were called "German Games", someone made up the term "Ameritrash" to make fun of the crappy games put out my mainstream American game companies. Later, fans of games with lots of bits and conflict adopted the term and made it their own.

Don't get obsessed with trying to objectively categorize things using terms that really only have subjective meaning.

Quote:
I often think something is AT if I had a good strategy but seemed to only lose due to dice rolls or bad card draws. Generally speaking when I lose a Euro I know why and I can see how to improve.


Euros are often very simplistic that way. I enjoy the challenge of playing well when I can't predict exactly what will happen. All I ask for is that good decisions increase my chances of doing well. I'm happy after playing a good game whether I win or not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
mbmbmbmbmb
D6Frog wrote:
My classification system is quite detailed...

Ameritrash = Good
Eurogame = Bad


That's similar to my classification system, only uses different words:
Good game = Good
Bad game = Bad
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
the liberal unsavory type
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon wrote:
D6Frog wrote:
My classification system is quite detailed...

Ameritrash = Good
Eurogame = Bad


That's similar to my classification system, only uses different words:
Good game = Good
Bad game = Bad


My main categories are:

Games I Like
Games I Don't Like

Whether a game is good or bad is a separate and somewhat less important way to divide things for me. There are some "Good" games I don't like and some "Bad" ones I do.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ronnie
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
Just what is it that you want to do? We wanna be free. We wanna be free to do what we wanna do. And we wanna play games. And we wanna have a good time. That's what we're gonna do. We're gonna have a good time. We're gonna have a party!
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
Redward wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
Everyone has a differing opinions on the differences between AT and a Euro game...and all of them are right.


This is logically not possible. If 2 people say contradictory things they can't both be right.


That's only correct if we were talking about concrete facts. There are no set definitions for these terms.


I see what you are saying but still stand by what I said. Two contradictory statements can't both be correct. They can both be wrong, one can be correct and the other incorrect, or they can seem contradictory but not be. That is based around the Law of Non-Contradiction.

For one thing people have said that AT=good and others have said that AT=bad. Obviously those statements are not both true. If one had said AT=I like the game and another said AT=I don't like the game then those statements do not contradict and could both be true.

On the other hand you are right that these are very subjective terms. Saying that everyone is right isn't really true and doesn't solve anything (IMHO). The best way to deal with debate regarding subjective issues is to remember... 1. that it is difficult to know the truth, 2. that I could be wrong, 3. to be humble (again, IMHO).

Perhaps I am just soap boxing against my pet peeve... whistle


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.