Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
84 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

A Few Acres of Snow» Forums » General

Subject: Do people update their BGG ratings? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Marc Bishop
Canada
Gatineau
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm surprised to see that AFAoS is still ranked top 50 in the wargame/strategy sections and has a high 7.X score given by players despite the fact that we know that a specific strategy closely resembling actual history gives the victory to the British 100% of the time.
It appears that BGG members or commentators are not big on updating their game ratings or simply do not expect their games to to be playable after a 'secret' strategy is uncovered and shifts their attention to another game.
I simply find it odd that the community is still cheering for possibly the biggest let-down of the pass couple of years. I mean, how many times do you hear "it's genius" coupled with "it's broken and unreparable" in the same sentence?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are a lot of people who enjoy it as a game despite its flaws. There is also an implementation on Yucata that pretty brilliantly addresses any balance issues: pick some variant rules, and let your opponent choose which side to play.
17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Dilloo
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
Everything is relative to perception, and your perception is limited.
badge
The Ginger Ninja
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yup it is a tough one to rank. Do you propose a novel way to rank games that you have played hundreds of times, but is flawed? Pretty rare animal here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Pennington
United States
Springfield
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
If your orange juice doesn't burn on the way down, then you need more vodka!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out4blood wrote:
There are a lot of people who enjoy it as a game despite its flaws. There is also an implementation on Yucata that pretty brilliantly addresses any balance issues: pick some variant rules, and let your opponent choose which side to play.


This
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacovis
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out4blood wrote:
There are a lot of people who enjoy it as a game despite its flaws. There is also an implementation on Yucata that pretty brilliantly addresses any balance issues: pick some variant rules, and let your opponent choose which side to play.


Has this been ironed out enough for a paper release Tim? I've been waiting to see the results of your extended playtest.

Cheers!

Jacovis
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TGov wrote:
out4blood wrote:
There are a lot of people who enjoy it as a game despite its flaws. There is also an implementation on Yucata that pretty brilliantly addresses any balance issues: pick some variant rules, and let your opponent choose which side to play.


This


Really? I recall discussing this. Is what I discussed what transpired? Please confirm.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Buccheri
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
If you love America, you through money in it's hole!!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Prisme wrote:
I'm surprised to see that AFAoS is still ranked top 50 in the wargame/strategy sections and has a high 7.X score given by players despite the fact that we know that a specific strategy closely resembling actual history gives the victory to the British 100% of the time.
It appears that BGG members or commentators are not big on updating their game ratings or simply do not expect their games to to be playable after a 'secret' strategy is uncovered and shifts their attention to another game.
I simply find it odd that the community is still cheering for possibly the biggest let-down of the pass couple of years. I mean, how many times do you hear "it's genius" coupled with "it's broken and unreparable" in the same sentence?


What?...this game is broken? Why wasn't I notified? Oh,that is right, I'm not as narrow-minded as most BGGers. Please send me a private message and let me know what I should rate it. While your at it...can you check the rest of my game ratings and let me know what they should be too? We don't want to mislead the small-minded.
25 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gavan Brown
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's broken and it's still a 10. Yes, it's that good.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Would you feel the same way if it wasn't a board game? Would you feel the same if you weren't so emotionally attached to the product?


Consider the following situation.

You purchased an office chair which does everything that you would expect the chair to do.

You can adjust every dimension to suit your body.

It's padded everywhere that you would want and even the distribution of the padding can be modified to your satisfaction.

It seems that the manufacturer has really engineered the perfect chair. You decide to give some feedback so you rate it a 10.

Many reviews are released all proclaiming the virtues of this amazing new product! Fantastic!

You rave about this chair and you tell everyone how great this particular chair is. Anyone who sits in the chair immediately agrees that it really is a fabulous chair.

A short while later you begin to hear some buzz about how there is a problem. No one wants to believe it because they are all personally invested in the illusion of the perfect chair.


Clearly these people don't know what they're saying. Maybe they just don't have a proper seating posture. Perhaps they don't know how to adjust the chair properly and leverage all of the features of the chair. How can a minority tell the rest of us that we're wrong? How could the manufacturer make such an oversight? It is much more likely that the problem is a local one where that single chair is broken and not the entire line.


However, the discussion grows. More and more people are starting to voice their complaints.


Really? This again? I thought we were past all of this. Hmm... Maybe I should take a look and see what the fuss is about. What's this? The chair has a major flaw?

Pshaw! I've used this chair for a really long time and I've never noticed this so-called flaw. Clearly, it's just an over-reaction.


After a long period of silence, the manufacturer weighs in on the situation. They admit that there is in fact a major flaw. However, this is not a reflection of their engineering department.

All chairs of this type inherently contain this flaw.

A provisional fix is released to the public but there is nothing more that the manufacturer can or will do.


There! That will shut them up. Even if there was a flaw, (which there wasn't), the manufacturer has fixed it.


The community accepts the fix but the conclusion is quickly reached that the official solution exacerbates the problem even more.

The manufacturer does not comment but it's soon revealed that a new and improved model of the chair is being developed. Essentially, those owners who purchased the original chair will just have to wait to get the better version.


Well, whatever, sucks to be those guys. I still love the chair. I'm not going to change my rating!



So, after all of this, does the chair still warrant a 10?

Why not? It's still the best chair ever (as long as you sit exactly how I sit).


Does that seem reasonable? When I look at the ratings for any product, I am trusting that other users are reporting what they liked, what they didn't like and any fundamental flaws. We live in an era where I no longer have to buy something from a catalog and hope that it works the way I want it to.


What does your rating even mean then? Is it just a rating for yourself? Why bother recording it if it's not meant to help other consumers make up their minds?


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's the "all chairs of this type inherently contain this flaw" where this falls apart.

Such a weak, self-serving remark has really lowered my opinion and regard for Mr. Wallace.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Dilloo
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
Everything is relative to perception, and your perception is limited.
badge
The Ginger Ninja
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This seems a bit emotional. I don't see anything emotional about ranking a game high, when you have played and enjoyed it hundreds of times.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bigloo33 wrote:
This seems a bit emotional. I don't see anything emotional about ranking a game high, when you have played and enjoyed it hundreds of times.
Er..isn't that the very definition of emotional? Whereas King James appears to be looking at it pretty rationally.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gavan Brown
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
So, after all of this, does the chair still warrant a 10?


I actually would have rated this game a 12, but the broken-ness lowered my score to a 10.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What's Twilight Struggle for you?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin 'Rocky' Robertson
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Now a Sarf London boy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are ratings are by their nature personal.

Yes I loved the chair, the way I sit in it was perfect

So am I now meant to rate the chair a 6 because others don't sit as I do and I've been told by everyone, including the manufacturer, that there is a flaw?

Does it also mean that if I play a game, or sit in another chair that I don't really like but others do, that I should boost my rating to reflect the overall opinion?

At the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind about the said chair, if you don't like it fine, don't sit in it, but why continue to badger others not to when they are quite happy sitting there?

I would suggest that instead that you go find a chair that you like and disregard what others think, it's you that's going to be sitting in the thing after all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Macleod
United States
Pearland
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kingjames01 wrote:
Would you feel the same way if it wasn't a board game? Would you feel the same if you weren't so emotionally attached to the product?


Consider the following situation.

You purchased an office chair which does everything that you would expect the chair to do.

You can adjust every dimension to suit your body.

It's padded everywhere that you would want and even the distribution of the padding can be modified to your satisfaction.

It seems that the manufacturer has really engineered the perfect chair. You decide to give some feedback so you rate it a 10.

Many reviews are released all proclaiming the virtues of this amazing new product! Fantastic!

You rave about this chair and you tell everyone how great this particular chair is. Anyone who sits in the chair immediately agrees that it really is a fabulous chair.

A short while later you begin to hear some buzz about how there is a problem. No one wants to believe it because they are all personally invested in the illusion of the perfect chair.


Clearly these people don't know what they're saying. Maybe they just don't have a proper seating posture. Perhaps they don't know how to adjust the chair properly and leverage all of the features of the chair. How can a minority tell the rest of us that we're wrong? How could the manufacturer make such an oversight? It is much more likely that the problem is a local one where that single chair is broken and not the entire line.


However, the discussion grows. More and more people are starting to voice their complaints.


Really? This again? I thought we were past all of this. Hmm... Maybe I should take a look and see what the fuss is about. What's this? The chair has a major flaw?

Pshaw! I've used this chair for a really long time and I've never noticed this so-called flaw. Clearly, it's just an over-reaction.


After a long period of silence, the manufacturer weighs in on the situation. They admit that there is in fact a major flaw. However, this is not a reflection of their engineering department.

All chairs of this type inherently contain this flaw.

A provisional fix is released to the public but there is nothing more that the manufacturer can or will do.


There! That will shut them up. Even if there was a flaw, (which there wasn't), the manufacturer has fixed it.


The community accepts the fix but the conclusion is quickly reached that the official solution exacerbates the problem even more.

The manufacturer does not comment but it's soon revealed that a new and improved model of the chair is being developed. Essentially, those owners who purchased the original chair will just have to wait to get the better version.


Well, whatever, sucks to be those guys. I still love the chair. I'm not going to change my rating!



So, after all of this, does the chair still warrant a 10?

Why not? It's still the best chair ever (as long as you sit exactly how I sit).


Does that seem reasonable? When I look at the ratings for any product, I am trusting that other users are reporting what they liked, what they didn't like and any fundamental flaws. We live in an era where I no longer have to buy something from a catalog and hope that it works the way I want it to.


What does your rating even mean then? Is it just a rating for yourself? Why bother recording it if it's not meant to help other consumers make up their minds?




Is the intention of your post to challenge the BGG guidelines behind ranking a game? Or, are you suggesting that one specific user (in this thread) or a handful of users (in this community) are too emotionally invested in this game to go back and update their ranking?

As you recall, the BGG guideline for a game ranking of 10 is as follows:

"Outstanding game. A classic. Always want to play and expect this will never change."


I think reasonable minds would all agree that this game has taken a revolutionary step by applying a very popular deck building game mechanic into a board game. I agree that many may be emotionally invested in this game. I believe this investment is driven by a desire to see this "revolutionary" step in gaming succeed. I think many may argue that this attempt alone makes this game an instant classic.

As for having a strong desire to play...I think many of the users you question (if in fact you are questioning some users) maintain that "always want to play" desire. To that end, it seems very reasonable and appropriate for some to maintain high rankings for this game.

BTW, I do find your post odd considering you don't currently have any board game ranking contributions associated with your user profile.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Old Ways Are Best!
badge
Check Six!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it very much depends of the rater. Some may feel that their opinions may be useful to others and try to keep their ratings current reflecting their most recent take on a given game. You can see their comments evolve with their ratings. This is easier when sticking to just a few games or some will get stale just by their sheer number and the time and effort it would take to keep current ratings on a collection in the hundreds. Even gamers who rate games actively for their own or other's blogs can fall behind unless they really apply themselves (Chris Farrell vs Tom Vasel for example). A lot stick in a rating once and never revisit. Others follow the crowd and will join a bandwagon just to see where it goes. There is no objective commonly agreed to standard as to the rating of games in the first place.

Ratings, updated or not, especially here, are marginally useful. They can give you a first impression but only that. Further investigation and ideally a few plays will be the only way to establish what you really should think about any game. Even then, after giving a game a serious chance (which you wouldn't do unless there was something there that drew you in), you finally decide there is something really wrong, consider how many plays it took you to get there and if you weren't enjoying them quite a lot, before you write it off. Change your rating then if you are one to do that sort of thing but be honest about the whole journey. I'd prefer a game that held my attention and interest for some time over one that was critically acclaimed but couldn't keep me coming back (Twilight Struggle I'm looking at you)...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Windopaene wrote:
It's the "all chairs of this type inherently contain this flaw" where this falls apart.

Such a weak, self-serving remark has really lowered my opinion and regard for Mr. Wallace.


A 10 on BGG doesn't have to do with whether a game has flaws or not. What a 10 on BGG has to do with, is how often someone wants to play a game. If they will never turn a game down, and the person sees this remaining true the rest of their life, the game gets a 10.

I personally use that as a benchmark, with a proviso that I would rather never play the same game twice, and too much of ANY game is going to make me say no and want to play something else to mix it up. Puerto Rico (and one of my own games, which I shill rate and clearly label that I do in the ratings) is the only game I give a 10 to, because it is my favorite game, and I see it remaining such.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
docreason wrote:
Windopaene wrote:
It's the "all chairs of this type inherently contain this flaw" where this falls apart.

Such a weak, self-serving remark has really lowered my opinion and regard for Mr. Wallace.


A 10 on BGG doesn't have to do with whether a game has flaws or not. What a 10 on BGG has to do with, is how often someone wants to play a game. If they will never turn a game down, and the person sees this remaining true the rest of their life, the game gets a 10.

I personally use that as a benchmark, with a proviso that I would rather never play the same game twice, and too much of ANY game is going to make me say no and want to play something else to mix it up. Puerto Rico (and one of my own games, which I shill rate and clearly label that I do in the ratings) is the only game I give a 10 to, because it is my favorite game, and I see it remaining such.


My problem is:

Innovative? Yes, but not as much as Dominion.
Want to play all the time? Yes but only with rules modifications.
Timeless? No way. Will be forgotten, relegated by its follow ups.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin 'Rocky' Robertson
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Now a Sarf London boy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
My problem is:

Innovative? Yes, but not as much as Dominion.
Want to play all the time? Yes but only with rules modifications.
Timeless? No way. Will be forgotten, relegated by its follow ups.


I don't see that as a problem, just mark it as you see fit, you've no need to give it a 10 if you feel that way
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Dilloo
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
Everything is relative to perception, and your perception is limited.
badge
The Ginger Ninja
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
docreason wrote:
Windopaene wrote:
It's the "all chairs of this type inherently contain this flaw" where this falls apart.

Such a weak, self-serving remark has really lowered my opinion and regard for Mr. Wallace.


A 10 on BGG doesn't have to do with whether a game has flaws or not. What a 10 on BGG has to do with, is how often someone wants to play a game. If they will never turn a game down, and the person sees this remaining true the rest of their life, the game gets a 10.

I personally use that as a benchmark, with a proviso that I would rather never play the same game twice, and too much of ANY game is going to make me say no and want to play something else to mix it up. Puerto Rico (and one of my own games, which I shill rate and clearly label that I do in the ratings) is the only game I give a 10 to, because it is my favorite game, and I see it remaining such.


My problem is:

Innovative? Yes, but not as much as Dominion.
Want to play all the time? Yes but only with rules modifications.
Timeless? No way. Will be forgotten, relegated by its follow ups.


Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Indeed it is. I'm just explaining why this game cannot be a ten for me. I don't see how it can be a 10 for anyone, given that it won't be timeless, but I suppose I could be proven wrong and 100s of years from now this game will still being played. I doubt it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gavan Brown
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
Indeed it is. I'm just explaining why this game cannot be a ten for me. I don't see how it can be a 10 for anyone, given that it won't be timeless, but I suppose I could be proven wrong and 100s of years from now this game will still being played. I doubt it.


Simple,
• I find it revolutionary in terms of metagame.
• It's one of the most intense game's I've EVER played
• I've played it more times than nearly every other board game I've ever played (Other than Brass and Agricola).

Finding out that the game is broken after traveling all the way down the rabbit hole, is no different to me figuring out that in Agricola there are no viable strategies that allow you to not expand your family to at least 4 people.

Most games, when played enough times can be fully explored. The winner between 2 equally skilled players at the highest level of optimal play in any game comes down to a few possibilities:
• Luck / Chaos / Lack of control
• Imbalance

Once you have discovered all there is to know about a game, it inherently becomes less interesting, because of the fact that play devolves into 1 of the two options listed above. I personally don't feel that a game that is determined by lack of control at the highest level of play is superior to one that is determined by imbalance. Rather, I feel that what is important is how difficult it was for the players to achieve the skill ceiling. In otherwords, I value depth and re-playability above all else.

I feel that AFAoS has an abundance of both of these factors, to the point where I give the game a 10/10.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Bishop
Canada
Gatineau
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kingjames01 wrote:
Would you feel the same way if it wasn't a board game? A) Would you feel the same if you weren't so emotionally attached to the product?


B) What does your rating even mean then? Is it just a rating for yourself? Why bother recording it if it's not meant to help other consumers make up their minds?




A) Yes

B) My point exactly. It appears that many people that rate games do not consider the product they are refering in its entirety, esp in the circumstance where a player is acting as a punching bag for the other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Bishop
Canada
Gatineau
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
manfromtherock wrote:
Are ratings are by their nature personal.

Yes I loved the chair, the way I sit in it was perfect

So am I now meant to rate the chair a 6 because others don't sit as I do and I've been told by everyone, including the manufacturer, that there is a flaw?

Does it also mean that if I play a game, or sit in another chair that I don't really like but others do, that I should boost my rating to reflect the overall opinion?

At the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind about the said chair, if you don't like it fine, don't sit in it, but why continue to badger others not to when they are quite happy sitting there?

I would suggest that instead that you go find a chair that you like and disregard what others think, it's you that's going to be sitting in the thing after all.


If the manufacturer told you that the chair would support your back and then admits it "can't adequately do that because all chairs inheritly do not support the human back" then I would say you should complain eventhough when you sit you don't have immediate terrible back pain.

Although in the case of the Halifax hammer, it sounds pretty immediate for this game. I'm still in shock that people don't mind playing a game where a single strategy gurantees a win.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  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.