Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » BoardGameGeek Related » BGG General

Subject: Quadrigames - One game, Four games or Five games? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
(Mr.) Kim Beattie
United States
Rocklin
CA
flag msg tools
Embrace your inner geek!
badge
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SPI published a number of "Quadrigames". Each quadrigame package included four games.

How should these games be listed in the BGG database?
Just list the Quadrigame title?
List the Quadrigame title and the individual games?
List just the individual games?

The issue is further confused by the fact that in some cases SPI re-packaged and sold individual quadrigame titles as separate games.

The current procedure at BGG seems to be to list the Quadrigame and each individual game as a separate entry into the BGG database. But this has not been consistent. In one case, individual games making up the Quadrigame have been removed from the database. Other Quadrigames don't have all individual games listed. (Granted that this may be a function of the users submitting the games, but what should the BGG policy be on the issue?)

From a collector's point of view, how should the games be listed? Just list the Quadrigame as owned or list the individual games as owned or both?

And what about other multi-game packages? Should the individual games making up the package be listed separately? The Anthology Game Stonehenge comes to mind. Also Four Lost Battles. Should the individual games that make up these packages be added to the BGG database? I'm sure there are other examples.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Benjamin
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quads have separate maps and counters (and usually a few specific rules): separate games.

Gettysburg '77 has the same map but completely different rules and counters: separate games.

Knizia's Rome: 3 separate games.

Separate games should have separate listings regardless of a common box, period!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(Mr.) Kim Beattie
United States
Rocklin
CA
flag msg tools
Embrace your inner geek!
badge
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a collector, I tend to agree.

Certainly the current BGG database is not consistent about this. (But again, that's a function of how the database is built and not any one's "fault".)

Should the "umbrella" title get an entry into the database?

Each individual game can be played, but unless the rules offer some sort of "campaign game" that combines the individual games, the "umbrella" title can't be played itself. Should this make a difference?

From the collector's or merchant's point of view, the "umbrella" title is a separate entity and should be listed as such.

An example would the Anthology game "Stonehenge". The game is currently listed in the database under that title. The five games included in the box all share the same components (board, pieces, etc) but have different rules. Should these games be listed individually?

Another example: a standard deck of cards. Should each game that uses a standard deck of cards be listed in the database? (Many already are: Poker, Bridge, Spades, Hearts, etc.) But should all card games be listed? And if not, why some and not others?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pɹɐɥɔᴉɹ
England
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Careful. There is a minefield around here.
badge
BANG!! Don't step on the mines!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kimbo wrote:
The current procedure at BGG seems to be to list the Quadrigame and each individual game as a separate entry into the BGG database.

See my recent geeklist http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/21584 for full details...

kimbo wrote:
I'm sure there are other examples.

Look at A Book of Sandhurst Wargames for a non-SPI example of the 1/4/5 question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(Mr.) Kim Beattie
United States
Rocklin
CA
flag msg tools
Embrace your inner geek!
badge
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
riks wrote:
kimbo wrote:
The current procedure at BGG seems to be to list the Quadrigame and each individual game as a separate entry into the BGG database.

See my recent geeklist http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/21584 for full details...

I remember that Geeklist. Nicely done. A good example of games where some individual titles have database entries and some do not. (Note the the entries for individual games of Napoleon's Last Battles have been removed from the database for some reason.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pɹɐɥɔᴉɹ
England
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Careful. There is a minefield around here.
badge
BANG!! Don't step on the mines!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kimbo wrote:
The issue is further confused by the fact that in some cases SPI re-packaged and sold individual quadrigame titles as separate games.

This, for me, is the key issue. Many of these games were sold seperately. Therefore they should be listed seperately.

Some other SPI wargames were also sold individually and in related sets. Two that spring to mind are the Starforce Trilogy (StarForce 'Alpha Centauri': Interstellar Conflict in the 25th Century, StarSoldier: Tactical Warfare in the 25th Century and Outreach: The Conquest of the Galaxy, 3000AD) and the War of the Ring Trilogy (War of the Ring, Gondor and Sauron). In my opinion they should all be individual entries. Also note that in these cases the combined sets DO NOT have their own entries.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pɹɐɥɔᴉɹ
England
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Careful. There is a minefield around here.
badge
BANG!! Don't step on the mines!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kimbo wrote:
(Note the the entries for individual games of Napoleon's Last Battles have been removed from the database for some reason.)

Eeek! soblue I do not think that this was a good idea. shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(Mr.) Kim Beattie
United States
Rocklin
CA
flag msg tools
Embrace your inner geek!
badge
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
riks wrote:
kimbo wrote:
(Note the the entries for individual games of Napoleon's Last Battles have been removed from the database for some reason.)

Eeek! soblue I do not think that this was a good idea. shake

Yeah. I don't know if the removal was a mistake or by design, but it got me to thinking which led to this topic thread.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Benjamin
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Stonehenge description looks like 5 separate games, not just 'scenarios' to a single game (as might be the case with some abstracts which could be considered 'game kits').

These game distinction are more obvious for 'historically' based games but, overall, a few more listings aren't going to damage anything. The standard deck card games I'm aware of on BBG all have significant followings as distinct games with many having international standards and competitions/ratings. But again, a few more minor listings don't really matter, it's the collapsing of distinct games into a single entity that is bothersome to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Gregory
United Kingdom
Manchester
Manchester
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On the one hand it should be possible for each distinct game to be rated and logged as played. On the other, the marketplace and ownership side of things should be connected to the box.

This requires a separation of the game from the box in the database, and then a connection to be made between them. Sounds straightforward, but it is probably a nightmare to split out existing content.

If the box *is* separated from the game in the database, should it then be possible to distinguish between a German box and a US box of the same game? (Certainly it's possible to have a different opinion of one than the other, and possible to own one/both/neither).

But then, is a 2nd Edition ruleset a different game to a 1st Edition ruleset? Where do you stop splitting things?

It is a tough call.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geni Palladin
Switzerland
Basel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see another problem when games from Quad games were sold separately also and did not get a BGG entry:

Let's assume that I had bought one of these separate games somewhere. I surely would visit BGG to see more details about the game and perhaps mark it as owned also. If only the Quad title is in BGG, I would think, that the game is not there yet and .... maybe I would write a description for that game and enter it as "new game"!

Since the title is not on BGG, the chances to get a new game entry are relatively high, I think. But how would I feel, when I would see the game entry disappear some time later....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren M
Canada
Fort Vermilion
AB
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
I think it comes down to what the primary purpose of the BGG database is deemed to be. That's subjective but I think the ultimate goal and the main reason for it's existence should be to document every known board game and card game in existence. I personally think every game that can be played as a standalone game should have a separate entry on BGG.

This is the general format I'd personally think would be best even though it would make many more entries on BGG in some cases:

With a standard deck of cards you can play thousands of games... so ideally these would all be listed separately with the base game (A standard deck of cards) also having a separate entry for collection purposes.

Stonehenge... 5 separate entries if there are 5 separate games and ideally I'd like to see 5 sets of ratings, discussions, reviews etc covering all those different games. One entry as well for the overall Stonehenge "package" for collection purposes.

An English version vs a German version of the same game? Well, technically I think you could make an argument either way but if the game is the same then 1 entry is sufficient as only the language used in the rules and possibly some wording on some components are different.

If a game has significant rules changes from version to version which does essentially change the game play then I would certainly say split the games into separate entries... again this is going to be a somewhat subjective call as sometimes rules are merely "cleaned up" which may effect game play, sometimes components are changed but the game plays the same etc.

I would generally say when in doubt... separate entries should always be used as it's much harder to separate entries out after the fact than it is to collapse them together (often eliminating valuable database info in the process.. never to be recovered again... which I've seen happen many times.)

The worst case scenario to having separate entries for some games is you may get some redundancies (subjective) in the database but I think as long as the database has no upward limit on size... then the value of having more info in it outweighs the "efficiency" of the filing system here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pɹɐɥɔᴉɹ
England
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Careful. There is a minefield around here.
badge
BANG!! Don't step on the mines!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another interesting case to consider is that of wargames magazines such as Strategy and Tactics Magazine and Command Magazine that include games in each issue. Some issues contain two games. Often these have individual entries in the database. Do such cases also merit a combined entry, as the unit of purchase, especially given that the games cannot be purchased individually?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(Mr.) Kim Beattie
United States
Rocklin
CA
flag msg tools
Embrace your inner geek!
badge
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
riks wrote:
Another interesting case to consider is that of wargames magazines such as Strategy and Tactics Magazine and Command Magazine that include games in each issue. Some issues contain two games. Often these have individual entries in the database. Do such cases also merit a combined entry, as the unit of purchase, especially given that the games cannot be purchased individually?

Yes, that is a good question... It seems like each game deserves an entry into the database, but I'm not sure about an "umbrella" entry. What does the combined entry actually represent? Maybe just adding the combined entry name to the individual name as an alternative name would serve the purpose.

Otherwise, it almost seems like I would be inflating my game owned count. But I guess the same argument applies to the Quad games as well. And since I'm in favor of having a combined entry for Quad games, I guess I should be in favor of having a combined entry for multi-game magazine games as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
...and so I toss into the 'mix' with the very first indications of "Designer's Editions" with many of these as well! that's RIGHT! Here that was 'instituted' from of ALL 'thangs' with its connotations! Since these were 'upgraded' in many instances with improved production qualities, then yes there ought to BE a distinction for such, for those seeking out this particular version, wouldn't you agree?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pɹɐɥɔᴉɹ
England
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Careful. There is a minefield around here.
badge
BANG!! Don't step on the mines!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hurrah!

The folio games from Napoleon's Last Battles are back! (or rather, they have been recreated and reposted - and not by me!).

Those of you who had missed them can now find them at Quatre Bras, Ligny, Wavre and La Belle Alliance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(Mr.) Kim Beattie
United States
Rocklin
CA
flag msg tools
Embrace your inner geek!
badge
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
riks wrote:
Hurrah!

The folio games from Napoleon's Last Battles are back! (or rather, they have been recreated and reposted - and not by me!).

Those of you who had missed them can now find them at Quatre Bras, Ligny, Wavre and La Belle Alliance.

Yes, I re-submitted the games on Friday (as well as submitting entries for the individual games in the Great War in the East Quadrigame.) I have updated the Napoleon's Last Battles page with the new game ids as well.

Still have not heard why the NLB games were removed in the first place. I'm thinking a mistake or system "burp" of some kind... But the games are back in the database now, so all is well!
 
 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.