Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Factors that Contribute to a Good Game (Opinion Piece) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Factors that contribute to a good game is a very important topic in my opinion. Here I list what I think makes a good game. I realize there is some bias in my rating system and I try to explain what they are. However, I also think some of these are universally accepted as factors that contribute to a good game. Please add your opinions, or challenge mine.

Favorite Categories or bias: There is always an element of subjectivity when rating games. These are the categories or mechanics that I tend to prefer. Other people may prefer other themes or categories, and this is totally subjective. Negotiation, Abstract Strategy, bluffing, and deduction. My favorite mechanics include: trading, secret unit deployment, bidding, and simultaneous action selection.

LUCK AND SKILL: I generally prefer games where the best player(s) will almost always win. Therefore I usually prefer minimal luck, though sometimes luck can also be a good thing when players have to think of ways to use the luck element to their advantage.

EXP:In "Magic of the Gathering" players must carefully design their decks to fit resource constraints. The decks must usually have a combination of cheap, medium, and expensive spells to win. Too many expensive spells in a deck will leave room for your opponent to destroy you with cheap spells before you have a chance to play, or on the flip side, a deck with only cheap spells may not be enough to win when your opponent brings out his monster expensive spell. The best designed decks will win nearly every time, even though there is considerable luck involved in what cards you draw.

EXP:Carcassone as a multi-player game as well as Ticket to Ride have too much luck for my taste. The poorer player can easily win by getting better draws, as long as he/she has a basic understanding of the strategy. Risk is really bad in this regard.

DEPTH, MECHANICS, and REPLAY: I also prefer games with not only a large strategic horizon, but also lots of tactical options, in other words, a deep game. When I've discovered the optimal strategy for a game the first or even 10th time I've played a game, then it probably won't cut it for me. I like replay-ability, and a "deep" game is necessary to be re-playable. After a hundred plays of a game, I shouldn't have entirely figured it out all the strategies and tactics. Sorry, simple games that don't need any thought don't do it for me--they aren't educational either and I think games that challenge a person to think should be rated higher.

EXP:Settlers of Catan is an excellent game, but we've all basically figured out the optimal strategies so we don't play it as often. The expansions are good and they add to the depth. Taj Mahal has a good strategic horizon and tactical play, but it's also solved (there is only one strategy), so I probably won't play it much either.

EXP:Chess, Hive, Magic the Gathering, and Agricola are very deep games that I haven't even come closing to solving all the strategies and tactics. I will come back to these games because there is always more to learn. Chess and Hive do well in my ratings because of their very strong replay-ability, even though the mechanics are essentially dry.

PLAYER INTERACTION: Although I really like abstract strategy games that others might find dry, such as chess, hive, and zertz; I'm also a big fan of heavy player interaction games. The categories or mechanics that increase player interaction the most include negotiation, bluffing (also secret unit deployment), deduction, trading, bidding and simultaneous action selection. Games with these mechanics also tend to be deep (there is a lot of strategy/tactics in negotiation, bluffing, trading, and bidding) and increase tension, increasing their replay-ability (the same way chess increases its replay-ability with its depth of strategy/tactics) and overall appeal.

Mechanics such as secret unit deployment and simultaneous action selection also tend to reduce luck (they remove the need to use dice), which I already said is important in a good game. They also take out some of the inherent advantages/disadvantages in a game. For instance, in chess, a turn-based game, the player who goes first has an advantage at very high level of play. Having a game based on simultaneous action selection would eliminate this problem.

EXP: Things, beyond balderdash, El Grande, battlestar Galactica, the Resistance are all good bluffing games. Using deduction to figure out who is a cylon or a traitor is one of my favorite mechanics.

ARTWORK AND THEME AND COMPONENTS: I like good artwork and theme. A game can really be hampered by boring components than don't mean anything. Abstract games are particularly prone to have this problem.

EXP:Yinsh has a very bland board and components, which is why I find Zertz more fun. Magic the Gathering has incredible artwork, improving the appeal of the game greatly.

TEDIOUS CALCULATIONS: There are some really good "mathy" games. However, I don't feel the need to have many games where people that are strong in math will almost always win. For instance, Caylus, Power Grid, Torres (all good games) are all games where the person who is best at math will win, if not a lot, perhaps almost every time. It's okay to have one or two games in your collection like this, as they can be good. However, it also gets very dry, even though there is quite a bit of depth to these games.

A good game must have lots of thinking, but games like this create a problem of bad analysis paralysis, since it doesn't really help you think creatively or in pattern recognition, but rather just tedious calculation. There is a difference between smart and fun thinking and tedious calculations. To eliminate/mitigate this problem, you need mechanics like auctioning, bluffing, and/or negotiation. Have multiple conditions for winning, or a scoring system that is NOT based only or primarily on points, can also help solve this problem.

EXP:El Grande is a game where someone who is good at math will have a distinct advantage, but people who are good at bluffing, negotiating, etc. might win and that adds to the richness of the game.

TOO MANY WORDS: I'm also not a fan of games where someone who is really good at verbal games and things will always win, like Apples to Apples or Time's Up or buzzword. Spice things up by adding other elements.

EXP:beyond balderdash requires the players to write definitions that are basically bluffs to get people to vote for your answer. This isn't just being good with words, it also trying to understand and out-psych the other players.

NOVELTY:There has to be something about the game that makes it different from other games I've played. For example, there are hundreds of games like Puerto Rico, making and selling goods, constructing building games. I only need one Puerto Rico. I only need one whatever...

EXPENSE: Some games like magic the gathering or heroscape are too expensive. You can easily spend $1000's dollars on these games. This is very bad when players who spend more money also win more often, though this is good for the game developer. That is why I can not rate Heroscape or Magic the Gathering very high...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Libertore
United States
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Nice post... I too look for these things in making a game fun and exciting. ..
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucas Smith
Germany
Munich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good ideas!!I find the "hard facts" also important:

number of players (2p is cool, should obviously be playable with 3,4,5(,6,7..),

duration (long games aren´t bad (I love 18EU for ex.), however more players will like durations between 1 and 2 hours) I´m not sure about this one though...

price (a "middle rated game" for 29$ is better than one for 99$!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an awesome post worth quoting:

jokersmiley wrote:
Interesting questions! Let me try to answer the first one, by standing on the shoulders of giants (the previous posters) ... "1) What attributes, qualities or properties of a game do you, as an individual, feel makes for a 'well-designed' game?"

Executive Summary

A well-designed game needs to satisfy the Golden Rule Of Fun ("The game is maximally fun for all players in the target audience, within the design parameters"), while avoiding traps which can ruin that fun as embodied by the Design Hygiene Factors. Note that the Design Hygiene Factors are necessary but not sufficient - a game's design could be technically elegant, thematically integrated and tick all the boxes, but if it's not fun, it is not a good game, let alone a well-designed game.

A well-designed game does not need to be very original (though if it is, and it influences many game designs subsequently, then it could be termed a "Significant Game") Finally, a well-designed game that is maximally fun across all players, groups and design parameters is a "Grail Game", which is about as common and achievable as, well, the holy grail.

Golden Rule Of Fun

"The game is maximally fun for all players in the target audience, within the design parameters". The design parameters consist of the Four Dimensions of Fun for the game's target audience, and Situational Requirements that vary according to the audience's need.

What is considered 'fun' depends greatly on the target audience for the game, and therefore may vary on four key dimensions, which are:

1. Outstanding Inter-Player Dynamics: The game should quickly, sustainably and consistently produce the dynamics, player interactions and in some cases, emotions, which are considered most fun by the players - which could vary from brain-burning zen-like concentration (Go, Chess) through to feeling of satisfaction from developing your board position in a 'multiplayer solitaire' (Puerto Rico, Agricola), through to bartering, negotiation and alliance forming (Genoa, Bohnanza, Diplomacy), creativity (Dixit), shared role-playing-like immersion in a fictional milieu (Arkham Horror, Battlestar Galactica), to out-and-out trash talk and duking it out to generate a memorable narrative (Nexus Ops, Risk Revised)
- This is sometimes called the intangible 'spark' by game designers - you could have all the mechanical/ mathematical elegance properties of the game right, but if there's no 'spark' with its intended audience, it is dead in the water. In movies one could distinguish between a technically well-made film which has beautiful cinematography, literate script and impassioned acting, etc. but if it doesn't have that 'spark' it will never be a great classic.
- You can tell when a game has the 'spark' by observing what the players do after the game is played: they post-mortem analyze it, they think about it constantly after they go home and what they could have done better, and/or they immediately ask "when can we play again" and look forward to their next play (or even better, they simply play again!)

2. Meaningful Decisions: the players should feel they are making interesting, meaningful decisions that affect the outcome of the game. Exciting decisions, if possible. The key difference between games and passive entertainment such as film, books and music is the ability for players to make choices that affect play - so if they aren't interesting, meaningful and exciting, ingesting passive media would be a better use of your time!
- Whether these should lean towards 'strategic' type decisions (e.g. I will be an animal farmer in Agricola - i.e. which of the "multiple paths to victory" will I take?), or 'tactical' style decisions (e.g. I better take that pile of 6 wood, then figure out what to do with it later - i.e. implementing a path to victory, but with an eye out for opportunistic moves), or a blend, depends on the players and what they find 'fun'.
- Also, this implies that generally players should be able to easily calculate (or intuit) who is ahead at any point in play, or in some other way tell what is a good move that progresses their position. Otherwise any given move is not meaningful decision and only a 'shot in the dark'.

3. Retention of Attention: players should be engaged consistently during the game, and never become bored waiting for something interesting to happen while other players take their turns. This usually means short (or distributed) player turns, and no player elimination - two of the hallmarks of today's euro games - but not always! For a brain-burning game, longer turns are OK (since the other players are deeply thinking about their next move while waiting), and for a short duke-it-out game, player elimination is par for the course - and if you're knocked out, you're not waiting long for the game to end. (The exception here are low-engagement games that are designed to played almost 'on auto-pilot' so that the participants can multi-task, e.g. watch TV at the same time)

4. Fair Balance and Consistently Elevated Tension: Generally, players of roughly equal skill and knowledge of the game should have an equal chance of winning the game from the beginning (though the sides may be asymmetrical), and have some at least some chance of winning even when put in an inferior position during play.
- Whether or not roughly equal skill' encompasses a narrow ('exactly equal') or wide ('not really equal') range of skill depends on what type of 'fun' the players are looking for: a narrow range is called for in a brain-burning game (i.e. the better player will almost always win), while a wider range is needed for a social 'beer and pretzels' activity (i.e. the brand new player has a meaningful shot at winning).
- Two common techniques to cater for a wider range of skill are luck/ randomness and catch-up mechanisms. It should be noted though that these can be looked upon as 'pet hates' by some gamers (see below), even just a smidgen of luck or a hint of catch-up!
- In any case, soon after it is clear who the winners and/or losers are, the game should gracefully end - to provide some occasion for the winner to gloat and enjoy their superior position, but also mercifully to cut short the losing players' agony.

In addition, "Situational Requirements" are design parameters which can change depending on the player and group, and their particular needs at a specific time and place. These include:
- range of supported player counts (e.g. only ever 3-4 players ever show up to my gaming group vs. it can range from 2 to 8 or more ...)
- player age/ mental ability
- duration of each game (whether long or short, including predictability in game length)
- effort the players are willing to put in to become conversant with the game and its theme ("accessibility")
- number of times the players would like to be able to replay the game in the future ("replayability", which can be introduced via variable player powers, asymmetric sides, randomized setups, scenarios, expansions, etc.)

Design Hygiene Factors

If followed, these principles don't necessarily make a game more fun per se; but if they are not implemented well, they could ruin the game experience and leech out its fun:

1. Professional Presentation: aethestically pleasing and functional bits with an easy-to-use "user interface", well-written and clear rules

2. Elegant Rules and Components: as simple as possible, producing the smoothest possible gameflow given the "fun" requirements for the game. Streamlined setting up and tear down times. Cut all complicating rules, mechanisms, actions, or components - without leaving behind any glaring rules 'holes' or ambiguities. Cue the obligatory reference to Occam's Razor.

3. Thematic consistency (if there is a theme): the theme reinforces the mechanics/ rules, and vice versa. This helps players remember the rules and smoothe the gameplay; and for players for whom theme is a key component of 'fun', helps the theme to come alive.

4. Avoid or mitigate "pet hates": e.g. and this is by no means an exhaustive list:
- hidden trackable information (e.g. players' cash balances in an auction game)
- excessive randomness (luck) or chaos (unpredictability from players' actions)
- overly repetitive tasks (e.g. too many die rolls)
- kingmaking (a losing player can decide who wins)
- opaque and/or complex victory conditions and VP formulae
- reducibility to math such as stochastic NPV calculations (which encourages analysis paralysis)
- collectability (which gives advantage to the player with a bigger wallet)
- etc., etc.

Tolerance levels for these "pet hates" can vary greatly by player and by gaming situation. It should also be noted that many of these "pet hates" are unavoidable if a game is aiming for certain dynamics and design parameters, e.g. a multiplayer game which encourages meaningful negotiation interaction betwen players will always have somewhat of a "kingmaker" issue.

Originality and Well-Designed Games

A well-designed game does not have to be very original - it could be a rehash of existing mechanics, rules, components, themes and ideas into a coherent whole as long as it fulfills the Golden Rule of Fun without falling foul of the Design Hygiene Factors. In fact, most well-designed games are in this category.

The rare game which introduces an original player dynamic or mechanic so surprisingly and successfully that it inspires a fresh wave of game designs which explore the bold new idea is a "Signficant Game" to be cherished and studied by the designer game hobby. It doesn't have to be very first (e.g. Verräter and role selection) but it has to be the first broadly successful, well-designed game (e.g. Puerto Rico).

Parting comment on "Grail Games"

Within this framework, a "perfect" or "grail game" is a game that is fun for the widest range of design parameters for a player - i.e. if it is maximally fun, across all types of fun that the player might want to experience across all games, for a wide player count, etc. The "grail game" (which satisfies all players across all design parameters) does not exist. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this website's storage capacity is too low to contain.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find that the more games I play, the harder it is to come up with a recipe for what makes a good game (that I'll like). Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, sometimes it's less. So I have to evaluate the game on the whole. Although sometimes it's easier to point out a single that kills a game for me. But for other games I might be more tolerant of the exact same thing, so again, it depends.

And I think most players are the same, but perhaps don't realize it yet. The OP rates Settlers as their 4th highest rated game, a game which goes completely against "Therefore I usually prefer minimal luck". But he also said the key element is that "I generally prefer games where the best player(s) will almost always win." So perhaps that mitigates the luck in Settlers. But then he also says "Carcassone as well as Ticket to Ride have too much luck. The poorer player can easily win by getting better draws." This is expressly not true. Better players at these games almost ALWAYS win. Certainly as much as in Settlers. In Settlers we used to joke (when we still played) htat the game was decided after setup was complete. People would literally be willing to resign at that point.

The OP has only rated 32 games. I expect this opinion will evolve significantly over the course of exploring more games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucas Smith
Germany
Munich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NIce post, you quoted!

[q="Mezmorki"]
4. Fair Balance and Consistently Elevated Tension: Generally, players of roughly equal skill and knowledge of the game should have an equal chance of winning the game from the beginning (though the sides may be asymmetrical), and have some at least some chance of winning even when put in an inferior position during play. [q]
This means - for me- that there shouldn´t be to much randomness!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
smithlucas wrote:
NIce post, you quoted!

Mezmorki wrote:

4. Fair Balance and Consistently Elevated Tension: Generally, players of roughly equal skill and knowledge of the game should have an equal chance of winning the game from the beginning (though the sides may be asymmetrical), and have some at least some chance of winning even when put in an inferior position during play.

This means - for me- that there shouldn´t be to much randomness!


The important thing about randomness is to recognize how it is implemented and how skill plays into mitigating it. I don't think many people would say that the Poker World Champion was just the player that randomly won the most. It is heavily skill based, despite the basic game mechanics being about as random as you can possible get.

So, randomness in the right context and setting can certainly still yield a skill based outcome of winners in the majority of game sessions provided the game gives you the right tools to mitigate random effects.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The thing with Settlers of Catan is that the people I play with it are all excellent at the game. They all understand the strategies very well, and when everyone is playing optimally, much of what makes the difference to who wins comes down to luck (who gets to place their settlements on what tiles, dice roles, etc.). Settlers of Catan is a great game because the best player usually wins, though it is not so obvious like chess, where the best player always wins. Settlers also has high player interaction, and rates high on the other factors I listed.

I agree/disagree with Carcassone. I think the better player wins in a two player game almost every time. However, in a three or more player game there is a lot of luck in what tiles you draw. Similarly with Ticket to Ride, there is a lot of luck in what routes you draw, as well as train cards. I like Ticket to Ride a bit more than Carcassone as a multi-player game, because the better player will probably be revealed after 5-10 games (add up the scores of 5-10 games and see who has the highest). While that is also true for Carcassone, it is perhaps a little bit less so.

I made this list to help myself and others select new games. Of course, people will have different opinions than me, or agree with me, but still chose games that they just enjoy.

Finally, I agree/disagree that the number of games necessarily dictates how good you are at discovering what makes a good game. There are like 100 games that are like Puerto Rico. Maybe I play each one of them, but I've really only played 1 game. I think a variety of games matters more, and I think I've played a pretty good variety of games, though I definitely have only scratched the surface in terms of all the wonderful possibilities. There are so many games though, I don't really want or need to play them all. I just need to find those games which appeal to me the most, and plays those games most often, which is the purpose of having a list of "Factors that Contribute to a Good Game" in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leonard Moses II
United States
Hixson
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A good surface feel (probably gameplay mechanics), good art, and a theme that I want to think about makes me want to spend the effort to learn a game. Those are prerequisites for me. Why shouldn't I have fun throughout that process? With as many games as there are, I can. I was wrong about Traders of Carthage, but maybe I have overestimated how wrong. I'm not sure yet. And I enjoy that.

In other words. I don't need or want it deep, unsolvable, and in retrospect of a high quality, if it isn't there for me some in the shallows. And there are so many games that really aren't there as much for me initially as the ones that are. Or maybe I don't like their initial impression. One of the two. I don't care which.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice quote.

Some of these things I took for granted, for example, fair balance and # of players.

Other things about this post added in significant ways to mine. For example, a game should be emotionally compelling in some way to the gamer. I guess this is the most subjective element in deciding a good game. I listed the mechanics/categories which tend to be the most emotionally compelling to me, for example, negotiation.

I think simultaneous action selection is a good mechanic for retention of attention, because there is no down time for players--they'll need to be thinking about their turn because it always IS their turn.

I liked this, "So, randomness in the right context and setting can certainly still yield a skill based outcome of winners in the majority of game sessions provided the game gives you the right tools to mitigate random effects." Thank you Oliver.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucas Smith
Germany
Munich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mezmorki wrote:
smithlucas wrote:
NIce post, you quoted!

Mezmorki wrote:

4. Fair Balance and Consistently Elevated Tension: Generally, players of roughly equal skill and knowledge of the game should have an equal chance of winning the game from the beginning (though the sides may be asymmetrical), and have some at least some chance of winning even when put in an inferior position during play.

This means - for me- that there shouldn´t be to much randomness!


The important thing about randomness is to recognize how it is implemented and how skill plays into mitigating it. I don't think many people would say that the Poker World Champion was just the player that randomly won the most. It is heavily skill based, despite the basic game mechanics being about as random as you can possible get.

So, randomness in the right context and setting can certainly still yield a skill based outcome of winners in the majority of game sessions provided the game gives you the right tools to mitigate random effects.

Yes! I don´t see Poker as a random - dependent game! m,aybe if you only play 1,2,3 rounds, ok, but in the long run the more skilled players win (asd you said correctly). "If I (as a player) can play with the random elements , it´s ok, if the random elements play with me, it´s not"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
Quote:
Settlers of Catan is an excellent game, but we've all basically figured out the optimal strategies so we don't play it as often


Key point that I think affects MOST euros, and sheds light on the
very philosophy of expanding and overburdened designs. It is a really
really difficult thing to provide a game like Chess which is both
simple and provides great depth. Earlier euros were essentially fairly
simple games, which could grant an illusion of depth, simply because
they weren't heavily studied. They fall by the wayside, as it becomes
clear that there really is a fairly limited space to actually support.

So now, euros are throwing off the elegance that once was their hallmark,
in favor of designs which give a broader range of choices (something many
pre-euro style games were doing). The problem (for me) is the basic impetus :
these are being designed with complexity for complexity's sake. To try
and avoid the quicker learning curve for optimal strategies. Older games
had emergent complexity, wherein they were actually trying to simulate
complex processes with abstractions rather than building interesting games
around a theme. The difference is telling. The new games are probably more
balanced, and focus on bringing lots of important decisions forward, but
lack the deep connection to the subject matter, making it more difficult
to approach from a common sense stance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
ATURN wrote:


EXPENSE: Some games like magic the gathering or heroscape are too expensive. You can easily spend $1000's dollars on these games. This is very bad when players who spend more money also win more often, though this is good for the game developer. That is why I can not rate Heroscape or Magic the Gathering very high...


It's easy to build a metagame around MtG. Indeed, people
doing just this is probably the root of the modern deckbuilders.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly Bass
United States
Venice
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The group itself really contributes to make a game good or bad. Actually, I'd say that one person can really make or break a gaming experience.
Sometimes it's refreshing to play a game you know well with another game group. Not only is the tone different, but occasionally you'll be surprised at a whole other set of strategies that they've created to deal with each other's style of play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think, Enrico, that it depends how the theme is implemented. "Hive" does a pretty good job of melding abstract mechanics with theme. I feel like I'm actually playing with bugs trying to surround a queen bee. Other games the theme feels very much out of place or non-existent, such as "Through the Desert." Through the Desert isn't bad. I think you're right though, starting with a theme instead of complexity/abstraction may end up being more accessible and intuitive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Funny thing is, I generally only enjoy playing games with my friends. Playing games with people I don't know well usually isn't as much fun for whatever reason. I like to play chess, but playing chess at chess meets or chess clubs wasn't as much fun as playing with friends. I hope everyone isn't like me in that regard--you should play with people you don't know. I think it's because to me, board games are a social thing, and if you are playing a person, but don't get to know that person (like at chess meets), your interest lies really only on the game. This is not true for me--the interest is half in the game half in the people.
1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
ATURN wrote:
I think, Enrico, that it depends how the theme is implemented. "Hive" does a pretty good job of melding abstract mechanics with theme. I feel like I'm actually playing with bugs trying to surround a queen bee. Other games the theme feels very much out of place or non-existent, such as "Through the Desert." Through the Desert isn't bad. I think you're right though, starting with a theme instead of complexity/abstraction may end up being more accessible and intuitive.


'theme' unfortunately is pretty meaningless to me. It is definitely
NOT what I'm talking about with real processes if Hive is some
sort of example of the word (and I think it does apply here).

Hive has nothing to do with any real processes. Usually, when the
word 'theme' enters a conversation, the game involved doesn't either.
So, there is no real world knowledge which can be applied to help
understand what is happening in the game. The theme here is nothing
but some (ludicrous) setting and mood.

Hive feels like about as much a non-abstract as Chess does,
and for me, Chess is pretty much an exemplar for the class.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
General Norris
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
A game is good if what is sets to do is interesting and does it well.

Art is not constrained by bullet point lists.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think, darkestoceans, that what you are describing is the subjective part of rating board games. I found that the game "Yinsh" and "Go" to be extremely deep, but what was on the outside (the components) were too bland, boring, inaccessible. That's probably just subjective though. Yinsh and Go are rated higher on geek than chess or hive, but I prefer both chess and hive because I can relate to the pieces.

A game can't just be shallow either. If I really like the artwork and/or theme, but I've solved the game--I might keep it just for the brilliant artwork but I won't play it anymore.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
General_Norris wrote:
A game is good if what is sets to do is interesting and does it well.

Art is not constrained by bullet point lists.


Nor necessarily by intent. A game can be good for properties
that it wasn't even designed for.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leonard Moses II
United States
Hixson
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But you are smarter than me probably and I solve very little thankfully, but have a great time. You also cannot solve a game as easy with a pinch of luck if you cannot see through the luck, unless at the existence of any luck you say ah ha bad game. And how is that luck working? How much is there? If you don't know how that pinch of luck works and are not sure exactly how much is there low versus medium have you solved it?

Or do you prefer no luck games that are hard to solve due to options and complexity alone? I think that both kinds are fine just so long as there is still confusion. I find so much confusion to enjoy even sometimes in the 2.0 weight range particularly with a little luck thrown in to make things harder to see through.

Sure if I am not misled enough by luck or a true gap in my skills versus optimum strategy in a game then I punish it with my ratings or rankings over time and the game ages and is older. But I also punish games that do not seem fun to learn. On the first play. If I feel like I do not have good decisions to make a la wasabi or kingdom builder then yeah I lean towards selling the game.

Oh and try Luna if you can find it cheap enough sometime. It makes my head hurt. Clockwork like fun with lots of thinking to do and some luck. I think you could play it 100 times and still work on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
darkestoceans wrote:
You also cannot solve a game as easy with a pinch of luck if you cannot see through the luck, unless at the existence of any luck you say ah ha bad game.


Knowing the probabilities is sufficient to be able to always
make the statistically 'correct' choice. Hence card counting to reduce the luck.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Turner
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Smarter than you? I'm not sure. However, I do that know that birds of a feather generally flock together. The friends you have probably like the same kind of games that you do, as well as the same depth. I bet you don't really enjoy playing simple tic-tac-toe, because you know what the solution to that game is.

I like games with a significant amount of luck and games without any luck. Luck isn't the only thing I make a judgement on, however, I know for sure that enjoy games where it takes SKILL to win. Sometimes managing luck can be part of that skill. However, if a game has too much luck, then it just a game of chance, not skill. In other words, you might as well forgot the game and just roll dice to see who gets the highest values, which is pointless.

I'll look into Luna.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.