Recommend
19 
 Thumb up
 Hide
37 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Puerto Rico Deluxe» Forums » General

Subject: Why is this edition a separate bgg game entry/id? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Again it seems it's inconsistent... this one gets it's own entry while Carcassonne Big Box editions are just "versions" under the main Carcassonne game entry
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree. How do we bring this to the attention of the admins? Do they have access to the database to change the status of this field in the table?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
I think Big Box should get its own and leave this alone. It does include the expansions which the base game does not. It is more than a "new version."
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
I think Big Box should get its own and leave this alone. It does include the expansions which the base game does not. It is more than a "new version."

Then any game version that bundles expansion(s) should get it's own bgg entry?

We already had this debate with El Grande 10th Anniversary edition... hard to remember but I think it too had it's own entry originally... the problem with this approach is that the ratings, forums, etc are all separate... if you want to rate an expansion you rate it on the expansions own bgg entry. Same with Carcassonne and the expansions. Just "bundling" expansions does not fundamentally change the game which has been the bgg criteria for creating a new separate entry (ie. "re-implementation" with different bits/rules)
13 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam O'Brien
United States
Raleigh
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Even Cleverer Overtext
badge
Every time someone activates this overtext, it takes a year off my life. Hover often please!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess for the same reason this is a separate thread from the other one:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/705661/please-dont-tell-me-t...

People like duplication.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
3dicebombers wrote:
I guess for the same reason this is a separate thread from the other one:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/705661/please-dont-tell-me-t...

People like duplication.

I actually don't like duplication and I did make an honest effort to go through the subjects of all the forum threads here but did not see this thread (in my defense it's because imho the subject when glancing did not get to the gist of the subject at a quick glance).

I suggest folks use the prior thread with a better link to the thread:

Please don't tell me this will be a standalone entry in BGG.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
JeffyJeff wrote:
We already had this debate with El Grande 10th Anniversary edition...

So why bring it up again?

If you have an issue with, submit a correction. If an Admin agrees he will merge it. If not, it will stay up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
JeffyJeff wrote:
We already had this debate with El Grande 10th Anniversary edition...

So why bring it up again?

If you have an issue with, submit a correction. If an Admin agrees he will merge it. If not, it will stay up.

Because most folks are probably not aware of that discussion buried in the El Grande now merged threads (originally posted in the 10th anniversary separate entry before the merge).

Can ask you the same question, why did you bother replying above, you apparently have an opinion and that is the reason for a discussion thread.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
JeffyJeff wrote:
ColtsFan76 wrote:
JeffyJeff wrote:
We already had this debate with El Grande 10th Anniversary edition...

So why bring it up again?

If you have an issue with, submit a correction. If an Admin agrees he will merge it. If not, it will stay up.

Because most folks are probably not aware of that discussion buried in the El Grande now merged threads (originally posted in the 10th anniversary separate entry before the merge).

Can ask you the same question, why did you bother replying above, you apparently have an opinion and that is the reason for a discussion thread.

And carcassonne, and dominion, and alhambra and many more.

I answered to tell you to contact an admin. That is the only way it will change, not the discussion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Terry
United States
carlsbad
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Personally I like "more rather than fewer" game IDs. It makes finding information far easier (as long as you link/associate those multiple entries together)

If you're looking for info on the collector's edition or want to purchase one from the marketplace, going to a merged "Puerto Rico" entry would display a huge amount of noise. You'd never find anything there about this edition a year from now in a million years. Philosophically speaking, I think any version of any popular game that someone realistically might want to specifically seek out information on should have its own entry just for organizational purposes.

IMO, more games should have multiple game IDs for forum / marketplace / geeklist / trading purposes. If I stick PR:Collector's up in a math trade 3 years from now, I want it to link directly to all of the info on PR:Collector's, not vanilla PR.

If ranking duplication is the real issue, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. As in, aggregate the ranks of multiple-entry games somehow, and list them together in the rankings. So, perhaps you'd combine the ratings of this and PR:vanilla, and come up with a combined rating, listing both of them together as one combined weighted rank in the top 100. Ditto War of the Rings, etc.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul M
United States
Elkhart
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if the site redesign will solve any of this?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G K
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Mattel Electronics Presents
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PR: Anniversary Edition is really cool and it is a "must have" for a lot of geeks- that is why it has it's own entry.

But it's difficult to quantify just how cool something must be to warrant having a separate entry. I honestly believe if it was just a regular reprint with the expansions bundled, different artwork and slightly nicer components it wouldn't have a separate entry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G K
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Mattel Electronics Presents
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
carlsbad wrote:
Personally I like "more rather than fewer" game IDs. It makes finding information far easier (as long as you link/associate those multiple entries together)

If you're looking for info on the collector's edition or want to purchase one from the marketplace, going to a merged "Puerto Rico" entry would display a huge amount of noise. You'd never find anything there about this edition a year from now in a million years. Philosophically speaking, I think any version of any popular game that someone realistically might want to specifically seek out information on should have its own entry just for organizational purposes.

IMO, more games should have multiple game IDs for forum / marketplace / geeklist / trading purposes. If I stick PR:Collector's up in a math trade 3 years from now, I want it to link directly to all of the info on PR:Collector's, not vanilla PR.

I don't know much about the trading or marketplace features as I've not really used them, but does the version of a game factor into finding matches, sorting listings, etc? If not, it really should and would be a great update to the site. Seems like using versions would be the ideal way to handle trading especially for games which have many, many editions/languages/etc.

The thing I don't care for about having multiple IDs is having to look in different places to find forum posts (ie. Rules, Variants, etc), Files, Images, etc. For me this is a hassle since I use the geek more as a source of information than for buy/sell/trade transactions. But for users who use the site as a marketplace and couldn't care less about the other data I can see how they would like multiple IDs better. And I actually prefer having stuff like all the reviews for different editions in a single forum, especially if they are titled appropriately (which is the case for most combined entries that I've seen on the site).

carlsbad wrote:
If ranking duplication is the real issue, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. As in, aggregate the ranks of multiple-entry games somehow, and list them together in the rankings. So, perhaps you'd combine the ratings of this and PR:vanilla, and come up with a combined rating, listing both of them together as one combined weighted rank in the top 100. Ditto War of the Rings, etc.

As far as ratings go... well ratings are a whole different can of worms aren't they?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antti Autio
Finland
Helsinki
flag msg tools
badge
Gina, Escher gang leader (Necromunda). Don't mess with her or she'll kick your ass.. actually, she's gonna do it anyway!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with keeping it a separate entry as it is much more handy to search discuss and find specific info about the edition.

The ranking is the only "problem" in a way. While not exatly optimal, I think the best way to "quick fix" that would be to make the database handle all special edition games as expansions. That way they would still have their own separate rating (which is kinda interesting) but would not "mess up" the main ranking.

This goes for games like War of the Ring Collectors' edition and even Dominion: Intrigue.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Hooper
United States
Rockford
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem I have with separate entries (and maybe it isn't a huge deal) is tracking two separate game-specific forums for rules questions, etc.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The game doesn't need its own entry. Every benefit ascribed above to a separate entry is already provided by the version system. Versions get their own descriptions, so complete descriptions, inventory counts and inclusions of expansions can be there. Photos can be assigned to versions, so it's easy to see which artwork goes with what.

It messes up the discussions, the files, the rankings, the forums, etc. It makes no sense to have two different places to discuss "Hey, should the price of the University be changed?"

A large number of the separate items were made before the game version system was implemented. At that time, it was the only choice. Now, they should be using the version system.

They should be strengthening the version system, by allowing discussions, files, etc to be assigned to different versions or all, but instead they weaken it each time they separate items.
29 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
The game doesn't need its own entry. Every benefit ascribed above to a separate entry is already provided by the version system. Versions get their own descriptions, so complete descriptions, inventory counts and inclusions of expansions can be there. Photos can be assigned to versions, so it's easy to see which artwork goes with what.

It messes up the discussions, the files, the rankings, the forums, etc. It makes no sense to have two different places to discuss "Hey, should the price of the University be changed?"

A large number of the separate items were made before the game version system was implemented. At that time, it was the only choice. Now, they should be using the version system.

They should be strengthening the version system, by allowing discussions, files, etc to be assigned to different versions or all, but instead they weaken it each time they separate items.

Although I agree with your points, one thing that doesn't currently work with the version system (AFAIK) is selling history.

Acquire is a good example how the current selling history has become worthless. The latest version can be had for a few bucks, but the big box version still sells for upwards of one hundred. Because the versions are all lumped into one entry, there is no way to determine the value of a particular edition.

I think the bottom line is basically based on what you come to BGG for most. If it is about game mechanics or overall play of the design, single entry is favored. If it is about which version you want to buy or play, multiple entries are favored. With the diverse community we have here, with varied tastes and motivations, I suspect it will be quite a long time before a solution is found that satisfies everyone.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G K
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Mattel Electronics Presents
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
They should be strengthening the version system, by allowing discussions, files, etc to be assigned to different versions or all, but instead they weaken it each time they separate items.

This. If versions were an extension of the game id itself, and every bit of content on the site that is currently linked to a game id also was linked to a version which was sortable by the different modules/features on the site, that would solve a lot of problems. Any existing content that didn't have a version would fall under the main/general/versionless category for that item. Then people who use BGG for trading games would be happy, and also people who use BGG for forums/files/geeklists/pictures/everything else would also be happy.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geert Vinaskov
Belgium
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think both versions need one entry. iPad versions and others don't have their own database-entry neither.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Werner Bär
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geert Vinaskov wrote:
I think both versions need one entry. iPad versions and others don't have their own database-entry neither.

Puerto Rico HD (iPad version)
Puerto Rico (computer version)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm in favor of a separate entry when the components are drastically different.
The carcassone big box are the same tiles as before. Nothing has been remade and it's really just a bundle of expansions.
The War of the Rings collectors and the Puerto Rico collectors have completely different component quality and artwork. It makes sense the game should receive a new rating by users and a new entry.
A game with very nice components *should* have higher ratings than a game with no nice components.
Someone coming to learn about Puerto Rico and looking at all the images of the game and finds the pretty Limited edition there... goes to buy the original game and finds out his game is nothing compared to what he saw on the game's entry can feel cheated. Again, it makes sense to keep them separated.

With the Carcassone big box, no such arguments can be made as it's the same components.

Also the "limited" edition is playable 2 players, where the original was not.
That's a difference of more than just components quality.
Agreed, the 2-players was an official variant, but it wasn't actually in the original box.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
deedob wrote:

A game with very nice components *should* have higher ratings than a game with no nice components.


Don't expect this from me. Every single rating I provide is about mechanics. I play a game, I don't play wood and paper.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PauloSantoro wrote:
deedob wrote:

A game with very nice components *should* have higher ratings than a game with no nice components.


Don't expect this from me. Every single rating I provide is about mechanics. I play a game, I don't play wood and paper.


I don't fully "buy" this...

I give you a game with poor components that breaks after a few plays, people are going to complain. The poor state of the game *should* be reflected in the ratings.

Inversely, a game with great quality of components should be noted as such.

A game's rating should be the sum of:
- Mechanics and gameplay,
- Artwork, presentation and graphic design,
- Component quality,
- Personal tilts.

If the graphic element of a game and it's component quality wasn't important, then people would never buy this limited edition, they wouldn't paint minis for their favorite miniature game and they wouldn't "pimp" their games to make them better-looking in any way.

Sure, i could play Puerto Rico with just handwritten counters made of paper and cut with scissors. Boy would that be boring...
Similarly, you could play Dust Tactics with chits and counters... the game wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I bought the Limited Edition because it's a great "game" and it deserves good components. However Puerto Rico is always a 10. If today I go to a place where there is a poor homemade edition and people call me to play, I will. And I will enjoy because it's a 10 game.

That's it, and you don't have to buy my position.

But let me ask: how would you rate Chess? Maybe Chess *should* have hundreds of entries?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Remi Letourneau
Canada
Montrea
Quebec
flag msg tools
deedob wrote:
you could play Dust Tactics with chits and counters... the game wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting.


as "Small pieces of paper with units types & names on them"

Not as fun as with real figs, but "functionally" exactly the same...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.