Read this article: http://fortressat.com/articles-analysis/3177-creatures-of-em...
Now about me: You wouldn't guess mine from the badges below my username, but board games started becoming a hobby when I got Carcassonne for Christmas. Apart from the usual fare, years before then I'd played Settlers once and remembered it fondly. When I got Carcassonne, I had just turned all my videogames and consoles in to a local game store for store credit because I was moving and didn't want to spend time selling everything online. The guys at the store actually encouraged me to do that instead, but I persisted and wound up with hundreds in store credit to a place selling stuff I had firmly decided I didn't want to own - smart move eh? Anyway, I have no idea why my brother-in-law figured I'd enjoy a board game - he doesn't play - but I'm grateful. Me and the wife played with everyone we could get into the table and played cutthroat together too. We've since moved on to more cutthroat material.
Both me and the wife play cutthroat and take every opportunity to screw with others. Our collection seems to affirm that, as a rule, we're not into abstract games. I more than my wife will sneer at tacked on themes, but won't turn a good game down just for that. We are also not into calculative games but embrace randomness. If a turn can be spent adding up a potential double digit point gain, and God forbid if there's more than one alternative you have to double check, I'll be groaning agony. I made [geeklist=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/157442/low-game-end-sc...
]this geeklist[/geeklist] in the hope of finding a euro I could play with europhiles that ended not on rounds or a high score threshold but a low one. The quest is ongoing.
I seek to find games that strike a good balance between luck and skill. If a game can't be won through sheer calculation, if there are swings from first to last and vice versa, it's a plus for me. A good game for me is like a good fight scene: you never know who'll win in the end. Tension and pacing are very important to me. I'm much more of tactician than a strategist. The joy for me is in "the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end" rather than in "the art of devising or employing [long-term] plans or stratagems toward a goal" (Merriam-Webster). But luck alone is no fun, it has to be mitigated luck that you can fight against with skill, preferably in direct confrontation.
Above all though, a game has to be fun-first
. I've found that that is most likely to be true of confrontational games. It's no fun to sit in silence, analyzing possibilities and counting points. It's no fun if you can't consistently imagine what's happening, if you can't picture what that terrible dice roll translates to in the game world. And I usually can't with cubes and workers.
Here's two quotes from users who've expressed similar thoughts before. Check them out!
In the games I like best, on the other hand, the flavour element is usually deeply intertwined with the gameplay. They all contain "splashy" special abilities, powers or events, and the possibility to use and (sometimes combine) these strategically. They allow for surprising moves and unexpected twists and open up multiple strategic avenues.
- Jeroen Ooghe (Jero)
Where a Euro game tends to be a set of mechanics and the competition is based on which player masters or manipulates mechanics, many Ameritrash games seem interested in giving players an opportunity for play to evolve specifically via narrative and not merely forcing them to pay attention to mechanics.
An "open" game is one in which you can't easily put a fixed numerical value on the choices on offer to determine which is best, and a "closed" game is one in which there are values, however difficult they may be to determine. [...] a "closed" game is one for which it would be relatively (and I emphasise the word "relatively") easy to write an effective AI routine.
Any game where the players consistently finish within a few points of each other if the players simply follow the rules is screwed up and frankly not worth playing. I don't care if it's "balanced". Games shouldn't be "balanced" to such a fine degree anyway because that makes everything less interesting.
- Michael Barnes
If you’re going to create a game which allows a decent amount of direct player interaction but in which said interaction must be limited in order to allow the chance of “builder” style players to win without aggression, you’ve got something of a choke point.
I began logging plays in November 2011. I quit sometime in the latter half of 2013. It was too time consuming.
My wishlist roughly reflect what I'm interested in trying out or getting. Feel free to offer me anything and ask for anything.