Top 10 non-top 200 games being played in January 2009
- Mike JonesUnited States
FloridaYeah it's here! Really it's right here.
Dropping out were Apples to Apples and Bang! falling to 19 and 13 respectively.
One thing I dislike about some people's monthly lists, is after a while they stop explaining their reasoning behind them. So, if you've read mine before (or you don't care) you can skip on to the list now. But, here's the full why:
I'd like to thank Charles (czrdup) again for writing script for me so I didn't have spend 30-45 minutes copying and pasting. He actually went an extra step and did a full report this month. I guess he doesn't have many exams to grade. (OH and now I guess he's unemployed) It's the Smith and Jones show.
IMHO, some games are good because others say they are good. And so get more play; "all these people are playing this game, let's play it". While other good games sit around with little notice because they aren't being talked about. So, a last year I decided to start looking at those games that are getting played a lot that AREN'T part of the top 200. You may ask why top 200 and not 100? Or for that matter 300? 'Because'.
IMO, if a lot of different people are playing a game, it must have some value to someone somewhere. That's not to say that the Top 200 AREN'T good games or there aren't games out there that are good that aren't getting any play. I'm just trying to show some games out there that different people are playing 'because they are fun' and not just because they have the best press. Over the past couple months, I've gotten a couple comments about 'well these are on BSW (or what not)'. To that I have to say "ah but you have heard of [them].." Again, I'm not saying there aren't MORE good games out there.
I've also had a suggestion about adding weight to longer games. A complaint is that these are short (filler) games because people are more likely to play shorter games. Well, isn't that the point? Showing some games that people in your group might be willing to play. Plus, I'm doing it on number of users playing it, not number of times. IMHO The length of a game does not measure enjoyment. For my gaming tastes I get more enjoyment playing 3-6 different games in the same time the other table is playing one game of TI3.
Obviously, expansions skew this. It's just going by how they were logged. So, if someone logged Niagara while others logged the game under spirits, it's just got Niagara.
So, here's some 'good' press for games that may not be showing up on 'top lists'.
I'm allowing additions, but let's keep it to those games that are good (to your group), get played a lot on BGG (you decide), but aren't ranked in the Top 200.
My HM are games that look interesting that just stay under these 10 or that I've played recently and are just outside the top 10. I've also added a Top500 HM and Top1000 HM. The most played (by different users, not number of times) that is ranked higher then 500 and 1000 and not on this list already.
I've added a few more items recently. While I don't think that time equates to good, I've added a weight factor based on the est. time for one game. It still doesn't use total play time. I don't want some games like Diamant that can be played 10 times in a sitting to have anyone more weight then one game.
I've also added based on actual game weight. Games greater then 2, 3 and 4 lists. But these and the time weighted lists will be listed as one item. With the 'most' interesting one representing them.
I must say each month I've gone ahead and picked up a few games off of this list and for the most part have been VERY pleased. Most people in the group are buying the top games and I've been adding to the game library by adding these gems. The lone exception really was Poison. I some how thought there would be more to that game then counting to 13.
- [+] Dice rolls