Well, Family Games: The 100 Best, the companion volume to Hobby Games: The 100 Best, has finally gone off to the printer. Should be back and available in a couple of weeks.
Final cover is up on the Green Ronin website:
The final author list:
Mike Gray: Foreword
James Lowder: Introduction and Appendix B (Family games in HG100)
Wil Wheaton: Afterword
David Millians: Appendix A (Games and education)
William W. Connors
David "Zeb" Cook
Anthony J. Gallela
Steve Jackson (Games Workshop)
Steve Jackson (Steve Jackson Games)
Robin D. Laws
Alan R. Moon
John D. Rateliff
Sheri Graner Ray
Thomas M. Reid
Susan McKinley Ross
Robert J. Schwalb
John Scott Tynes
James M. Ward
We'll reveal what games everyone covered shortly before the book ships. As you might expect, board and card games make up the clear majority.
Other than its somewhat inaccurate title, I really enjoyed "Hobby Games: The 100 Best". I look forward to reading this "sequel".
My introduction for FG100 dissects the title and assesses its accuracy. Much of the commentary could apply to both books. I suspect you'll likely agree with the points I raise, Greg.
I think it's an unwritten but accepted notion that anything that's described as the "XX best" automatically includes the footnote: "as determined by XXX". However, this isn't what I was addressing when I said that the title was inaccurate.
When reading the various essays in Hobby Games, it struck me that the authors were not necessarily writing about games they felt were "the best", but rather about games that held special meaning for them. These are not necessarily the same thing! As a personal example, Illuminati is a game that is very special to me but it's unlikely that I'd vote for it as one of the 100 "best" games.
Perhaps "100 Favourites" would have been a more accurate title? Either way, it's a very minor nit to pick about a very enjoyable book.
Glad you enjoyed HG100. I agree with you that the title is a bit problematic. (Like I said, read the intro for Family Games: The 100 Best and you'll see that pretty clearly. )
The authors took a variety of approaches to the idea of "best," so even calling the book "favorites" would be problematic. Most focused on a game's design or historical significance as the reason for writing about it; a few did take a more personal approach. Implicit in those discussions is the idea that Game A influenced an essayist personally, but that essayist also went on to design other games, so there's an added significance to that personal import. And most of the essays that framed the praise of a game in personal terms seemed also to be saying something along the lines of "this is the reason you'll like the game, too."
I'm hoping readers will do precisely what you're doing with the essays, though, Greg: Take them on individually, assess the strength of the individual argument presented, and consider the games discussed (and the book as a whole) through your own critical lens.
- Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:09 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:07 pm