Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: POLL: Do You Have a Favorite Game-Weight Category? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Smooth seas make the voyage more pleasant.
badge
A ship in port is safe, and that's just what ports are for.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just created four Geeklists based on BGG weight ratings. Which lists are your favorite games mostly in?

Links to the Geeklists:
Lightweight (1.0 to 1.9)
Light Middleweight (2.0 to 2.9)
Light Heavyweight (3.0 to 3.9)
Heavyweight (4.0 to 5.0)

Poll
Which BGG weight range do your favorite games usually fall into?
Lightweight
Light Middleweight
Light Heavyweight
Heavyweight
They overlap a lot but tend toward the light end.
They overlap a lot but tend toward the middle.
They overlap a lot but tend toward the heavy end.
They're all over the place.
      48 answers
Poll created by Patrick Carroll
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
"L'├ętat, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
badge
Caution: May contain wargame like substance
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Do You Have a Favorite Game-Weight Category?
I had a look at all 4 lists and I was surprised at how many of my favorite games were in the light heavyweight category. It seems that's really my niche.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Re: Do You Have a Favorite Game-Weight Category?
1830 is currently my baseline for ideal weight, with weight defined as a measure of the difficulty of playing well once the rules are understood. Given 1830's 3.9 rating, I suspect that the 18xx, like the wargames, tend to share a different weight scale than other games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Smooth seas make the voyage more pleasant.
badge
A ship in port is safe, and that's just what ports are for.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
1830 is currently my baseline for ideal weight, with weight defined as a measure of the difficulty of playing well once the rules are understood. Given 1830's 3.9 rating, I suspect that the 18xx, like the wargames, tend to share a different weight scale than other games.


I suspect the BGG weight rating takes on a different meaning for people like you, who tend to get deeply into game strategy and play to the hilt.

For example, Go has a weight of 4.0, and yet some say it may pose a deeper strategic challenge than any other popular board game in the world. If it's true the game has such depth, its weight should easily be 5. But it's a pretty easy game to learn, and most anybody can play at it. I think that fact lightens the perceived weight for many people.

In contrast, take a game like War in the Pacific (second edition). It's a monstrosity that even most hardcore wargamers won't touch. It gets a weight rating of 5 simply because it's inaccessible to almost everybody, whether or not the person would ever want to get deeply into the game's strategy or learn to play well.

I haven't played any of the 18xx games, but I get the impression they're a little like both of the games I just named. There's enough rules complexity--enough moving parts, as it were--to make learning the game something of a challenge (though nothing to the degree of War in the Pacific (second edition). And then there's enough strategic depth to make the game a lifelong challenge for all but the most brilliant or dedicated (even if there may not be as much strategic depth as in Go).

My guess is that most people will never tackle the strategic challenge (depth) of a game; so the weight rating, for them, is just in indication of how involved the rules are or how much bother the game is to learn and get into. The "heavier" a game, the more likely it is that only fellow Geeks will play it with you (and from the poll results, I'm getting that the "lighter" a game, the less likely Geeks will want to play it).

But I personally find that a game's "weight" lends a certain feel to the game as I play it. If it's too light, I may be having fun, but I'll probably find it lacks the satisfaction I expect from a good game. If it's too heavy, it may get to feeling like more work than play, and that can spoil any fun I might otherwise have with the game. I always appreciate it when I find a game that has just the right "weight" to it; it's accessible and enjoyable, and it holds out the promise of continuing challenge for a long time to come.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Smooth seas make the voyage more pleasant.
badge
A ship in port is safe, and that's just what ports are for.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Patrick Carroll wrote:

But I personally find that a game's "weight" lends a certain feel to the game as I play it. . . .


What I'm getting at there is that I can do a BGG search for highly rated games with a weight stat close to 2.85 and find a number of games on the list that I like--as well as some I haven't tried that I might like.

But if I do the same kind of search for games with a weight stat around 2.6 or 3.1, I'm sure to find some games I tried and didn't care much for, plus others I'm not interested in trying.

The further away from 2.85 I get in either direction, the less likely it is that I'll find games listed that I want to play very often.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After looking at the sample lists, I found that according to those samples I was all over the map. In reality I tend to gravitate toward heavy games. I think that all this does is illustrate the inherent weakness in a single data point for game weight. It seems to me that the game weight statistic as it stands is probably the most meaningless of any. I'm not saying it's worthless - it's probably got a standard deviation of 2 or so. shake

Of course, game weight (in some definitions) depends a lot on the players involved as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Smooth seas make the voyage more pleasant.
badge
A ship in port is safe, and that's just what ports are for.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NojNosredna wrote:
After looking at the sample lists, I found that according to those samples I was all over the map. In reality I tend to gravitate toward heavy games. . . .


So, what do you mean by "heavy games"?

Is it different than "games with a BGG weight of 4.0 to 5.0"? How so?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Patrick Carroll wrote:
I suspect the BGG weight rating takes on a different meaning for people like you, who tend to get deeply into game strategy and play to the hilt.


I certainly appear to use one of the less popular definitions of game-weight (and there are many)

Much like game ratings, there is no common definition or even basic concept for game weight across the punting audience. Unlike game ratings, the number of voters appears to be far too small to generate a meaningful amalgam value. The crowd is simply too small.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seven of my top 13 games are in the "Light Middleweight" category:

Medici
Catan
Empire Builder
Railway Rivals
Saint Petersburg
Race for the Galaxy
Napoleon at Waterloo
 
 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.