BoardGameGeek » Podcasts & Blogs » BGWS 066 - Simultaneous Auction games

Author: snicholson
On this episode of Board Games with Scott, host Scott Nicholson takes a look at several Simultaneous Auction games, including Amun-Re, Homesteaders, Peloponnes, and Cyclades.

You can download the episode here: http://www.boardgameswithscott.com/?p=352 (or sign up for iTunes, the RSS feed, or e-mail notifications)

or watch it right here:


(note - there is a mistake in my Homesteaders rules, in that you can rebid in the same auction. It's fixed with a YouTube annotation.)
Wed May 12, 2010 11:59 am
Author: pincao
Great job Scott.
Wed May 12, 2010 12:23 pm
Author: Zlarp
Oh, neat, a new BGWS! I hope War of the Roses is in here, I'm interested in how it plays!

Edit: Aww...
Wed May 12, 2010 12:26 pm
Author: snicholson
Zlarp wrote:
Oh, neat, a new BGWS! I hope War of the Roses is in here, I'm interested in how it plays!

Edit: Aww...


(not Action games... Auction games!)
Wed May 12, 2010 12:27 pm
Author: montag66
Poor Tom!
Wed May 12, 2010 12:28 pm
Author: Zlarp
snicholson wrote:
Zlarp wrote:
Oh, neat, a new BGWS! I hope War of the Roses is in here, I'm interested in how it plays!

Edit: Aww...


(not Action games... Auction games!)


This is facepalm worthy indeed.
Wed May 12, 2010 12:28 pm
Author: snicholson
Zlarp wrote:
snicholson wrote:
Zlarp wrote:
Oh, neat, a new BGWS! I hope War of the Roses is in here, I'm interested in how it plays!

Edit: Aww...


(not Action games... Auction games!)


This is facepalm worthy indeed.


And it would never have happened if it wasn't for U.

(wokka wokka wokka)
Wed May 12, 2010 12:33 pm
Author: Zlarp
snicholson wrote:
Zlarp wrote:
snicholson wrote:
Zlarp wrote:
Oh, neat, a new BGWS! I hope War of the Roses is in here, I'm interested in how it plays!

Edit: Aww...


(not Action games... Auction games!)


This is facepalm worthy indeed.


And it would never have happened if it wasn't for U.

(wokka wokka wokka)


I just bought War of the Roses, so I guess sometimes I just read what I want to read instead of what is written. I make my own reality, so to speak
Wed May 12, 2010 12:37 pm
Author: kneumann
Great review. One point on Homesteaders:

From Homesteader’s rules:
Quote:
If a player has been overbid, then they may rebid in the same auction or on another one, or pass.
Wed May 12, 2010 12:38 pm
Author: snicholson
kneumann wrote:
Great review. One point on Homesteaders:

From Homesteader’s rules:
Quote:
If a player has been overbid, then they may rebid in the same auction or on another one, or pass.


doh! Crap. I've played that wrong all the time. Hooray for YouTube annotations.
Wed May 12, 2010 12:45 pm
Author: kneumann
snicholson wrote:
doh! Crap. I've played that wrong all the time. Hooray for YouTube annotations.
I had played Cyclades a few days before I read the rules to Homesteaders so the two differences in the bidding mechanic really stood out: That you waited until it was your turn again to bid and that you could bid on the same auction. Maybe Alex will drop by to comment on these differences (if he has time between games of Innovation )
Wed May 12, 2010 12:59 pm
Author: sysyphus
Great job Scott! Love the format. Definitely puts Peloponnes on my radar.
Wed May 12, 2010 1:09 pm
Author: Slabcity
I am really liking this format.
Wed May 12, 2010 1:14 pm
Author: Bernaar

Thanks Scott! Nice overview!
Wed May 12, 2010 2:30 pm
Author: mikehulsebus
Yeah, this new format is outstanding and really exciting (yes, I know I said that last time too)
Wed May 12, 2010 4:38 pm
Author: Walsfeo
Nice episode Scott! Can you go back to your old music though?
Wed May 12, 2010 4:54 pm
Author: snicholson
Walsfeo wrote:
Nice episode Scott! Can you go back to your old music though?


Well, when I'm not talking about "My Pretty Ponies"....
Wed May 12, 2010 5:06 pm
Author: Alexfrog
kneumann wrote:
I had played Cyclades a few days before I read the rules to Homesteaders so the two differences in the bidding mechanic really stood out: That you waited until it was your turn again to bid and that you could bid on the same auction. Maybe Alex will drop by to comment on these differences (if he has time between games of Innovation )


Thanks for sending me the link to this! I love the Board games with Scott series (Especially the 18xx XTREEM bit, that was amazing!), its very cool to see him cover Homesteaders!


The Homesteaders bid mechanic (also the same as Vegas Showdown), is a more pure form of the 'multiple simultaneous auctions where each person can win one', than is in games like Amun Re and Evo.

My first experience with this type of bidding was playing Evo, and I felt it was the best way to resolve this type of auction, except that waiting until your turn to rebid is a more pure form. (If you bid immediately when overbid, then you essentially resolve one entire person's bidding before another enters. The people at the end of the order have a lot less chance to come in and make a 'precise bid' at a certain level, to block others. Most likely when the last guy enters the bidding, lots of things will have reached a fair value already).

In Amun Re there is the twist that you cannot rebid on the same item. I think this works well in that game to try and force you to bid at the 'correct' level initially. However, it also leads to overbids really hurting you. If you are overbid on your only good option, you might be really screwed.

Vegas Showdown is probably the most pure of this type of game. The escalating costs/increasing differences between bids is important to make bidding not take forever, and to allow large bids to lock down an item quite well. I really wish that Vegas Showdown's turn order mechanic was not a simple rotation of start player. Often games are determined by who goes first when a critical item becomes cheap enough. For example: We both have $18 but not $21, Fancy Restaurant just dropped to $18, whoever goes first gets a big advantage. Or: We both have $33 but not $37, Theatre dropped to $33, whoever goes first buys it for the win. Amun Re and Homesteaders avoid this problem by having another mechanic determine future start player, so that you can influence this if it will be important.


Homesteaders is different in that there is one less item available. Essentially, there is a default reward item (advance the railroad track), available at a cost of 0, that goes to the first player who bails. The bid minimum is below items worth, but scarcity forces them to be bid up. (In Amun Re, there is also a dummy prize, it is called the Mendes Province. Well, sometimes)

People wait to rebid until their turn in Homesteaders to allow those late in the turn order to still sometimes be able to place the 'knockout bid' on the 7 or 9 or whatever. The last player doesnt enter a bidding landscape that has already had everyone go back and forth a ton of times first.

People can rebid on the same item in Homesteaders because otherwise, whoever bid later of the two people who want item X would tend to get it. The items are more restricted in their usefulness than they are in Amun Re, so this is important.

All of these games use a similar mechanic but with a twist that makes it work better for that game. (Well, except Evo, I dont know that the immediate rebid makes it better).

Wed May 12, 2010 6:28 pm
Author: ekted
It's pronounced: SICK luh deez
Wed May 12, 2010 6:42 pm
Author: snicholson
ekted wrote:
It's pronounced: SICK luh deez


Or with a hard K and a th (ki-KLA-this). Or like I said it. Or even, 'Hey, it's an attempt at humor.'

There's a whole debate on the topic over at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/513144/yugblads-quick-fi...-

Who knows, it's all greek to me.
Wed May 12, 2010 6:53 pm
Author: ts061282
Usage is King.
Wed May 12, 2010 6:58 pm
Author: Alexfrog
snicholson wrote:
ekted wrote:
It's pronounced: SICK luh deez


Or with a hard K and a th (ki-KLA-this). Or like I said it. Or even, 'Hey, it's an attempt at humor.'

There's a whole debate on the topic over at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/513144/yugblads-quick-fi...-

Who knows, it's all greek to me.


I still pronounce Agricola like Agri-Cola, because it sounds better.
Wed May 12, 2010 6:59 pm
Author: asutbone
snicholson wrote:
Who knows, it's all greek to me.


The first time I read that, I thought you said "geek".
Wed May 12, 2010 7:29 pm
Author: Walsfeo
snicholson wrote:
Walsfeo wrote:
Nice episode Scott! Can you go back to your old music though?


Well, when I'm not talking about "My Pretty Ponies"....


Connie informs me the song/toy you are talking about was "My Little Pony".
Thu May 13, 2010 2:39 am
Author: snicholson
Walsfeo wrote:
snicholson wrote:
Walsfeo wrote:
Nice episode Scott! Can you go back to your old music though?


Well, when I'm not talking about "My Pretty Ponies"....


Connie informs me the song/toy you are talking about was "My Little Pony".


Doh! Yet another error. Oh well, I'm not going to try and fix that one.

I grew up with horses, so "my little pony" was actually "my large quarter horse that kicked me in the chest and threw me across the pen".

No love for horses here.


Thu May 13, 2010 3:07 am
Author: Walsfeo
snicholson wrote:
Doh! Yet another error. Oh well, I'm not going to try and fix that one.

I grew up with horses, so "my little pony" was actually "my large quarter horse that kicked me in the chest and threw me across the pen".

No love for horses here.

I agree - not worth correcting!

The quarter horse I grew up around preferred to bite, step on your feet, and pin you against the stable wall. He was a bully.
Thu May 13, 2010 3:40 am
Author: out4blood
Alexfrog wrote:
All of these games use a similar mechanic but with a twist that makes it work better for that game. (Well, except Evo, I dont know that the immediate rebid makes it better).

Alex, here's some anecdotal user feedback. My kids and I all play and enjoy both Evo and Homesteaders.

For Homesteaders, we used to play the bid-on-your-turn method, but have since defaulted to the just-get-it-over-with method of Evo.

While we recognize the proper way to play in Homesteaders, we didn't notice it change bidding outcomes, and it seemed to double the time to process the auction for some reason. In Evo, you are bidding VPs and the genes generally all have similar levels of effectiveness, so bidding really high for that special thing you want isn't really a good idea. However, in Homsteaders, money is only useful for getting things to convert other things to VPs, so maybe we need to re-examine bidding outcomes.
Thu May 13, 2010 3:43 am
Author: clockwirk
definitely enjoying the new format. It fills the void left by The Metagamers. Except yours is 20 minutes instead of 2 hours.
Thu May 13, 2010 4:20 am
Author: alex352
Great show and good to see you are back. Still the best podcast on boardgames in my opinion simply because your analysis of games and mechanics is always interesting - even if most of the games you review are somewhat too light for my personal taste.

Please don't read the last comment as a suggestion to review other games - it was not.
Thu May 13, 2010 11:14 am
Author: willsargent
snicholson wrote:
ekted wrote:
It's pronounced: SICK luh deez


Or with a hard K and a th (ki-KLA-this). Or like I said it. Or even, 'Hey, it's an attempt at humor.'

There's a whole debate on the topic over at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/513144/yugblads-quick-fi...-

Who knows, it's all greek to me.



The pronunciation issue actually came across as a pompous poke at Tom Vasel to me, especially as you said in the piece that it is 'a video reviews' job to get these kind of things right'

How stupid do you look now? I still haven't stopped laughing.

Just get on with the reviews and forget about trying to remind us you're a 'professor' every show - you're darned good at these videos and I really enjoy your knowledge of gaming.

Another point Scott, might I recommend you include a right-to-reply section actually on your site, as it's a bit harsh on products/designers with only your comments/opinion on show.
Thu May 13, 2010 11:50 am
Author: snicholson
Thank you for your constructive criticism, Will.

I try different types of humor for my opening segment, and it's clear that this time, I didn't present it appropriately. I was trying something along the lines of the Daily Show, where they present something , make a statement about it, then do something silly. I thought the parody of pronouncing another game wrong would make it clear that it was humor, but several people didn't take it as such. I don't plan on doing another opening segment like that again. I have talked with Tom about it, however, and like me, he doesn't take himself seriously.

But comments like this...

willsargent wrote:
Just get on with the reviews...


upset me.


If you paid for this content, then I would be OK with the idea of "shut up, Scott, and just get back to work." But you didn't pay for it. One of the problems of the Television media is that people don't perceive how they pay for it, and thus see it as free. They carry this attitude over to these video podcasts as well and act entitled to get what they want.

But the thousands of people that watch the show and get the benefit aren't paying - the only benefit I can count on is my own pleasure from this.

So, I do what pleases me, and have named the show appropriately. This is why the blog is my own opinion... it does what it says on the tin - Board Games with Scott. When I started the show, I had open comments, and I had to deal with so much spam and junk that the time it took to clean wasn't worth the amount of real content that was there. If I had an open forum for every episode, I would be actively having to clean 66 different places right now - the spamming tools look for anything, not just recent posts. So, I off-load that work to BGG and do the forum here.

It should be pretty clear from the title that the show is as much about me as it is about games, and if you want someone to just "get on with the reviews," there are plenty of other personality-free reviews you can watch out there. I spend 60-70 hours a week being a professor, so that will leak into a show where I am being myself. When I play games, I don't put aside myself to just be a robot-like player, and when I talk about the games, I'm doing the same thing.

So, I'm not going to just "get on with the reviews."

Instead, I'm just going to "get on with the Scott," doing what amuses and pleases me. I'll throw some board games in there, too. You're welcome to come along for the ride, but I'm not leaving who I am at the door.
Thu May 13, 2010 1:15 pm
Author: oudknoei
snicholson wrote:
I try different types of humor for my opening segment, and it's clear that this time, I didn't present it appropriately. ... I thought the parody of pronouncing another game wrong would make it clear that it was humor, but several people didn't take it as such.


The minute you went down the "pretty ponies" path, it was obvious you were painting both yourself and Tom with the same silly brush. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, the joke worked.
Thu May 13, 2010 3:17 pm
Author: montag66
willsargent wrote:
snicholson wrote:
ekted wrote:
It's pronounced: SICK luh deez


Or with a hard K and a th (ki-KLA-this). Or like I said it. Or even, 'Hey, it's an attempt at humor.'

There's a whole debate on the topic over at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/513144/yugblads-quick-fi...-

Who knows, it's all greek to me.



The pronunciation issue actually came across as a pompous poke at Tom Vasel to me, especially as you said in the piece that it is 'a video reviews' job to get these kind of things right'

How stupid do you look now? I still haven't stopped laughing.

Just get on with the reviews and forget about trying to remind us you're a 'professor' every show - you're darned good at these videos and I really enjoy your knowledge of gaming.

Another point Scott, might I recommend you include a right-to-reply section actually on your site, as it's a bit harsh on products/designers with only your comments/opinion on show.
thumbsdown

And seriously, you've thumbed your own post? shake
Thu May 13, 2010 3:45 pm
Author: Joeyeti
willsargent wrote:
blablabla


Dude?
You just went really down there...

thumbsdownthumbsdownthumbsdownthumbsdownthumbsdown
Thu May 13, 2010 3:54 pm
Author: pacman88k
You guys *do* realize that, when it comes to whether Cyclades is pronounced with the hard 'K' sound or not, that the way the title is written on the box cover it can be either way...

The C's conveniently have a Corinthian column hiding behind it, thus sort of making it look like a 'K', right? Let's try to make a little progress with the debate and play the game already.
Thu May 13, 2010 4:32 pm
Author: Dormammu
I'm a big Tom Vasel fan, but I thought it was actually good that Scott did that, whether for humor or not. Many people may not know this word and learn to pronounce it incorrectly because they saw it on Tom's review.

You can go two routes imo: SICK-la-dees is the standardized English pronunciation, though it may be just as non-native in pronunciation as Paris or Rome or Japan or countless other place names.

The alternative is to try to learn a more authentic Greek pronunciation.

SIGH-clades is bad. I still love Tom Vasel though.
Thu May 13, 2010 5:48 pm
Author: Walsfeo
montag66 wrote:
thumbsdown

And seriously, you've thumbed your own post? shake


You can thumb your own posts? If I'da known that I wouldn't have brow-beat Caradoc until he reflexively thumbed every post I make. I'll be right back ... ninja
Thu May 13, 2010 10:04 pm
Author: alwaysjoshua
Well done, Scott! Vegas Showdown and Amun Re are extremely fun and Cyclades will definitely be purchased soon. You've also put Homesteaders on my radar.
Thu May 13, 2010 10:41 pm
Author: grafpoo
the problem with this new format is that i ended up adding three games to my want list, as opposed to the old single game...
Thu May 13, 2010 10:49 pm
Author: Bernaar
grafpoo wrote:
the problem with this new format is that i ended up adding three games to my want list, as opposed to the old single game...


A little gesture to support Scott: Make sure to mail the publisher and tell them you bought the game because of the show (with a link to Scott's review) so he will get some credit from the publishers.

Disclaimer: I don't know Scott personally and I don't benefit from this post in any way, other than making Scott happy so he will continue making nice videos for BGWS. :P
Thu May 13, 2010 11:23 pm
Author: willsargent

I know this isn't directly related to the thread, so apologies in advance, but I note this with the previous comment about 'making sure we mention Scott's piece to the publisher' - I assume this is to curry future favour for [cough] review copies...

I'd find it useful to know how many games 'featured' by Tom Vasel and Scott are paid for out of their own pockets, and how many are 'donated' by companies.

In my experience as a videogame reviewer for UK print magazines, we often found ourselves becoming too soft on poor games because we'd been given them for free. We really had to use some tough love on bad products, with only ever the dear readr in mind.

I think this is a really valuable piece of information for folk about to lash out £40 on a game like Homesteaders or cycle-days, the former still not having the clearest rules in the world as made clear by Scott's various mistakes. I'm afraid I want my rules to be gin clear at this price.

Scott was quick to mention that his blog works in quite a different way to 'old' media, and that it's 'for free' but IMO it's exactly the same, with the same level of responsibility and the same levels of influence.
Fri May 14, 2010 12:17 pm
Author: Joeyeti
Will,

I would not be worried about review copies getting a warmer response from Tom (or Scott, if he gets them). If they like them, they say so. If not, they throw them off the roof.
Fri May 14, 2010 12:58 pm
Author: grafpoo
i'm jealous, too, that they get all these games for free, but i don't go posting about it ... d'oh
Fri May 14, 2010 1:45 pm
Author: snicholson
willsargent wrote:

I'd find it useful to know how many games 'featured' by Tom Vasel and Scott are paid for out of their own pockets, and how many are 'donated' by companies.


If it matters to you, then assume that I got everything for free. Here's why - I get cash donations and store credit for my videos, and I use those to supplement what I get from companies.

I've probably gotten 50 free board games this year so far, and none of them have been featured on a show.


Quote:

In my experience as a videogame reviewer for UK print magazines, we often found ourselves becoming too soft on poor games because we'd been given them for free. We really had to use some tough love on bad products, with only ever the dear readr in mind.


Please don't assume your magazine's ethics are my own. I would imagine your print magazines also took advertisements from some of the same companies that produced games, and you asked people to pay for the magazine, so it is a different ethical and commercial space - you needed to get money from the dear readers to stay in business. I don't have that same need.

I am not soft on a game because it was free. I apply the same level of non-coverage to games that are free as to games I pay for that I don't like.

I do not create videos to sell games for publishers.
If I did, I would be charging a heck of a lot more than a free game to make them.
Fri May 14, 2010 2:08 pm
Author: Walsfeo
willsargent wrote:

I know this isn't directly related to the thread, so apologies in advance, but I note this with the previous comment about 'making sure we mention Scott's piece to the publisher' - I assume this is to curry future favour for [cough] review copies...


There are many reasons to want game companies to know what we (reviewers/podcasters) are up to. In some cases it may be so they'd consider putting us on their review lists, but it's also a way to open up a dialog with the manufacturers possibly to score an interview or even get the scoop on upcoming products.

Even if it's all about the review copies, podcasters generally invest so much time and money in creating these shows it'd be cheaper and faster to get another job and just buy the damned games and not tell you what we think of them.

willsargent wrote:
I'd find it useful to know how many games 'featured' by Tom Vasel and Scott are paid for out of their own pockets, and how many are 'donated' by companies.


Just assume all of them. It's not true, but I play lots of games I didn't buy. Some of them were donated, others were gifts from friends, and others I played at a local game day. A better question would probably be has each reviewer tested each game five or ten times before reviewing it.

willsargent wrote:
In my experience as a videogame reviewer for UK print magazines, we often found ourselves becoming too soft on poor games because we'd been given them for free. We really had to use some tough love on bad products, with only ever the dear readr in mind.


Actually, I've noticed more people defending sucky games they paid for, because they don't want to have wasted money, than veteran reviewers going soft on games they were given as review copies. We discussed this in On Board Games a while back.
http://onboardgames.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=203340

willsargent wrote:
I think this is a really valuable piece of information for folk about to lash out £40 on a game like Homesteaders or cycle-days, the former still not having the clearest rules in the world as made clear by Scott's various mistakes. I'm afraid I want my rules to be gin clear at this price.


You are right - if the rules are not clear the reviewer should make mention of that. However, even the clearest rules will not prevent players from playing the game incorrectly, and the more complex the game the more likely there will be operator error.

willsargent wrote:
Scott was quick to mention that his blog works in quite a different way to 'old' media, and that it's 'for free' but IMO it's exactly the same, with the same level of responsibility and the same levels of influence.


The bottom line is - if you don't review with integrity people will not value your reviews. There are several podcasters I quit listening to because they sounded like their opinions were paid for by the companies that provided games or even financial benefit.

Why did I quit listening? Because their show had no value to me. I recognized what they were and quit listening.

BGWS offers lots of value, not only does he show you enough about a set of games to let you know what Scott finds interesting about them, but he shows you enough to let you know if you will find the games worthwhile.

Fri May 14, 2010 2:20 pm
Author: willsargent
All fair points, and well put sir. I've also said in all most posts to Scott that I really value his work - his reviews have been very useful to me in the past and I really like the cross compare system he uses now.

I was just trying to redress the balance about the smarta** swipe on pronunciation - it was the fact that he got it qrong too that really tickled me. Also, Scott says he's upset about comments about his sarcasm which is even funnier than the backfiring joke in the first place. If you're gonna take shots at people making mistakes baby, you've got to take a little bit back in my book. The fact that he has to write a 200 word reply trying to dress it up as humour beggars belief. I thought he was using BGG as a new moderated forum for comments/praise/complaints etc...

This isn't to say I really value Scott's work, which I do, I just think he's a bit caught up in his own world of academia. I'm a libran, unfortunately, which means I always dive in to redress the balance...

[that's libran, not librarian...]
Fri May 14, 2010 2:49 pm
Author: unfathomable
willsargent wrote:
I'd find it useful to know how many games 'featured' by Tom Vasel and Scott are paid for out of their own pockets, and how many are 'donated' by companies.


Scott does talk about this in the disclaimer toward the end of the video. I remember seeing this disclaimer multiple times in his recent video reivew. I agree with you that I appreciate seeing this explicitly mentioned.

willsargent wrote:
The pronunciation issue actually came across as a pompous poke at Tom Vasel to me, especially as you said in the piece that it is 'a video reviews' job to get these kind of things right'


willsargent wrote:
I was just trying to redress the balance about the smarta** swipe on pronunciation - it was the fact that he got it qrong too that really tickled me.


For what it's worth, thoe whole thing didn't strike me as "pompous poke" or "smarta** swipe" at all.
Fri May 14, 2010 3:46 pm
Author: Bernaar
willsargent wrote:
All fair points, and well put sir. I've also said in all most posts to Scott that I really value his work - his reviews have been very useful to me in the past and I really like the cross compare system he uses now.

I was just trying to redress the balance about the smarta** swipe on pronunciation - it was the fact that he got it qrong too that really tickled me. Also, Scott says he's upset about comments about his sarcasm which is even funnier than the backfiring joke in the first place. If you're gonna take shots at people making mistakes baby, you've got to take a little bit back in my book. The fact that he has to write a 200 word reply trying to dress it up as humour beggars belief. I thought he was using BGG as a new moderated forum for comments/praise/complaints etc...

This isn't to say I really value Scott's work, which I do, I just think he's a bit caught up in his own world of academia. I'm a libran, unfortunately, which means I always dive in to redress the balance...

[that's libran, not librarian...]


Just get on with your, ehhh... not making video reviews... and forget about trying to remind us you didn't like Scott's little joke every post. :P

If you think Tom and Scott are too soft, well, don't rely on their opinion. If you think that this should change, go make your own video reviews. It's so easy to criticize. Even if they are a little too soft because they got the game for free, does that matter? You still can watch the show and see how the mechanics work and make up for yourself if this is a game for you. So I don't understand what the thing is you try to balance here other then your own feelings of injustice? I also don't understand what you want to accomplish by the comment about him being caught up in his own world of academia?

All in all, I had the need to respond to your post not because I am against criticism or negative feedback (on the contrary), but because I don't see how you are helping him or the show by saying the things you do. It could just be me, but I found your posts to have a negative undertone, and I can imagine that is something that upset Scott. Like you said, you like the show, and I believe that a good way to show that is to give criticism in a respectful way. I hope you find my feedback a little bit useful. ;)

Fri May 14, 2010 4:05 pm
Author: willsargent
Hi Jae, I really must give you 2/10 for your body language and observational skills...

Check the video again in slow motion - Scott's pupils dilate with excitement, and a small amount of froth gathers in the side of his mouth as Tom takes to the floor...

The table in front of Scott also rises by an inch as Tom's total lack of knowledge of Greek verse is made clear for the world to laugh and point at in their millions. [At this point Scott is near climax, as he prepares to lecture the world on pronunciation - the man can hardly wait to shake his head at this f**wit...]

Staying with slow motion, Tom now leaves the stage, unaware that children and old women are pointing and scoffing as he leaves the studio and walks the mean streets of South Korea desperatley trying to make amends for his ill-planned verbal outburst.

Sticking with the slow-mo, Scott's eyes then roll in self-satisfaction as he tries to kiss the dog after kicking it with a weak attempt as self depreciation. "Just like Idot Boy over there, I once mis-pronounced a game name, but I do it deliberatley because I'm dead clever - feel the power of my microbadge!"

Wow, absolute classic p** taking in my book.
Fri May 14, 2010 4:16 pm
Author: Walsfeo
Apparently somebody doesn't get the joke, and wants to make sure nobody else enjoys it either.
Fri May 14, 2010 4:48 pm
Author: Rastak
Walsfeo wrote:
Apparently somebody doesn't get the joke, and wants to make sure nobody else enjoys it either.



For what it's worth, I thought it was pretty funny and didn't think he was trying to be demeaning.
Fri May 14, 2010 4:54 pm
Author: bippi
Walsfeo wrote:

BGWS offers lots of value, not only does he show you enough about a set of games to let you know what Scott finds interesting about them, but he shows you enough to let you know if you will find the games worthwhile.


Truth!

Boardgames aren't like movies or videogames or... anything really. You need a review to figure out what the game is, period. Not if you'll like it.

I know that chances are the talking dog movie that comes out this weekend is going to include certain things, and is going to basically be what it is. I can read a review on it if I want... but by-in-large, I can find out most of what I need to know just from the previews.

How would you make a commercial for, say, "Ra"? I don't think you could do it for under 5 minutes and a video explanation. Great idea for a video series though.

Case-in-point, Galaxy Trucker has a pretty good video review on it from obsessed board gamers (which, where did they go?!). I actually was less likely to buy it after seeing the review because I know it's going to get zero play at my house. Looks cool. The guy was excited about it. However, learning about the game... it's just not for me.
Fri May 14, 2010 5:12 pm
Author: Frohike
Fantastic format; keep it up! My 6-year-old loves discussing game mechanics and he was riveted to your past 2 eps, seriously.

Also, you've now convinced us to put Catacombs and Cyclades in our queue. laugh
Fri May 14, 2010 6:58 pm
Author: Walsfeo
Rastak wrote:
Walsfeo wrote:
Apparently somebody doesn't get the joke, and wants to make sure nobody else enjoys it either.



For what it's worth, I thought it was pretty funny and didn't think he was trying to be demeaning.


At the beginning I was kinda shocked, but as I watched on it was pretty clear that he was poking fun at himself as well as all video reviewers (and fans thereof) who take themselves too seriously.

edit to say: so apparently he was poking fun at me... all of a sudden this isn't so funny. shake
Fri May 14, 2010 7:25 pm
Author: MarkEJohnson
Nice show. I didn't get why you called them simultaneous auction games, though. Is it because all players participate in the auction together (though in turns) before the other phases of the game take place? Not the sort of simultaneity that we see in Merchants of Amsterdam, the open auction type in Modern Art, or numerous in-the-fist (blind bidding) auctions.

Edit: fixed typo
Mon May 31, 2010 8:44 pm
Author: snicholson
MarkEJohnson wrote:
Nice show. I didn't get why you called the, simultaneous auction games, though. Is it because all players participate in the auction together (though in turns) before the other phases of the game take place?


I used this term because the games have several auctions that are being carried out simultaneously. When a player has an action, they have 3-4-5 auctions in which they can place a bid, all of which are running simultaneously. They all start and end at the same time.

There's nothing wrong with your interpretation of the term, either. It's the question of what is simultaneous - the player's actions, or the execution of the auctions.

As in with any form of study, you hit a point where you just have to agree upon what terms you will use to describe something so you can move beyond semantics. We aren't at that point with board game studies, so there will be confusions.

Mon May 31, 2010 8:55 pm
Author: Bolger
I'll just add my praise to this new format. I have already watched this twice, and that is rare. The single game video review still has an important place, but I must admit I enjoy watching this comparative format more.

Just a few ideas for future episodes, if I may:
Games that use dice in interesting ways
Euro/wargame hybrids (Shogun, Chaos in the Old World...)
Negotiation games
Push-your-luck games

Anyway, great job. thumbsup
Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Author: EndersGame
I'm glad to have come across this episode!

I've just posted a GeekList which attempts to list all games that feature the mechanic of simultaneous auctions. It already includes the games Scott mentions, as well as some others, but I'd welcome more suggestions, or comments on the existing entries, which you'll find here:

Simultaneous Auction Games
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/171539/simultaneous-au...

Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:42 pm
Author: EndersGame
Given Scott Nicholson's appreciation of simultaneous auction games, it's no surprise that he designed one of his own!

Going, Going, GONE!



In this game, while the auctioneer counts down from 10 through zero, players simultaneously bid for five auction lots by quickly placing cubes (representing `bucks', the game currency) into the plastic cups corresponding to each auction lot. The real-time countdown and simultaneous play ensures a fast, frantic, and fun auction game.



It's a very lively and accessible game, and it's great to see Scott bringing his own wealth of experience to this genre! For more details about this game, see the review I just posted:

Ender's Comprehensive Pictorial Overview: Scott Nicholson's fast, fun, light, and noisy party game with simultaneous auctions

Thank you for your many and excellent BGWS episodes, Scott, and your wonderful contribution to the boardgame hobby in this way. And now thank you for adding a great game of your own!
Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:12 pm