William Baldwin
United States
Springfield
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Go change your ratings for that CCG that you hated on when you rated it. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I've always been dismayed by the CCG ratings of Magic: the Gathering, Netrunner and Jyhad (Vampire: the Eternal Struggle) on BGG. The bias against collectible card games has been apparent from my first day of exploring the ratings on BGG. I think it is a blemish on the validity of the ratings (if one wants to take them with any seriousness at all) which, otherwise, seem pretty accurate with game critics.

In fact, those ratings kept me from taking BGG serious AT ALL when I first came to the site. I said, "Oh. More bitter anti-CCG sentiment by a bunch of people that had bad experiences with non-game issues bashing the game. I'll pass." I stand by that statement TODAY... except for the passing on BGG.

When you rate a game for issues other than the game play of the game itself, you are doing a disservice to YOUR credibility as a person that ranks games. It's like rating a game a 1 because you played it with people you did not get along with during the game. Or because you played it on a Tuesday.

There is no criteria for rating a game, but when you see the following rating comments on Netrunner, it's pretty indicative of bitter reasoning:

"Collectible games = 1 in my book"

and

"This game being collectible means the gameplay is fundamentally broken. The process of figuring out what combinations are better is a puzzle not a game. Sitting by yourself constructing a deck is the definition of solitary play (a puzzle).

Beyond that the business model of collectible games is deplorable. It is a form of gambling targeted towards children. It adds no benefit to the gameplay is done specifically to milk as much money from people as possible."

The last entry is a bit worse because I can tell you that EVERY GAME WITH A DECISION IS A PUZZLE. From a game designer, I thought that the person would figure that out.

Android: Netrunner is not that different from Netrunner, but Android: Netrunner will likely end up listed with the top 10 GAMES OF ALL TIME on the geek. Netrunner will stay above 200. Average ratings: 8.58 to 7.52?!? PLEASE. There is not that much of a difference in the games. It's embarrassing.

Game of Thrones CCG vs. LCG? 6.97 average rating and 1004 ranking to 7.32 and 255 ranking. Same game.

Why does it matter? Again, to many it doesn't have to mean a thing.

But to those that are currently enjoying A:N, maybe this game could have been in circulation for 10 years with people enjoying it instead of only 3 months.

Maybe when someone picks up Jyhad (I'm guessing within the next 3 years because of Netrunner's success) you will get a chance to enjoy it as well.

People always want thematic games... well Jyhad is one of the best... except, most don't know anything about it. Because many BGG raters(haters?)have a bias against CCG's.

- Someone that is teaching Jyhad to his game group and getting requests for it at the next session.

41 
 Thumb up
2.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Android:Netrunner is very different from Netrunner. Constructed Netrunner was all cheese all the time, which A:N is not.
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacovis
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just dropped all my ccg ratings by 1, because this post reminded me how much I hate collectible games, and how I hate the process of buying ccg games, which in turn ruins my playing experience because of random packaging and hunts for rares that competitive play requires of me. On second thought, I dropped them all by 2. Thanks for the reminder!
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

About the only point you mention that I agree with is that games should be rated on gameplay itself and not the trappings of the genre it happens to be in.

Netrunner was a poor example though. Why? Because its a freakin' awesome game that never really had a chance and that was solely because of its distribution model. Some cards were made more powerful than others, rendering many cards as "must haves" and rendering half the set useless by comparison. Add to the fact that in a desperate attempt to get more money, expansions were released that upped the power-level making most previous cards worthless and EVERY TIME you played with somebody, there was a disparity of game power. Netrunner's CCG distribution model actually killed it. People wanted to like it, but many could not play except with the initial starter sets.

There are many great CCGs released in the '90s that would make AWESOME stand-alone card games. I don't think I'd count Magic among them, but definitely such games as Battletech, Legend of the Five Rings, Netrunner, and Babylon 5. These are games that have innovative and tactical rules with awesome deck-building considerations, but could not survive as a CCG because the CCG has inherent disadvantages beyond just randomness and cost. As a stand-alone card game where we build our decks together, or from a similiar agreed-on pool of cards, this would be awesome.

It's also important to realize that Netrunner isn't just being ported over, its being revised as part of the new format. That is, certain cards may have been edited in this new edition. Others, which may have previously ruined the game but had to be included to make money in the CCG model, may have not been included here. In time, LCGs may suffer the same power creep. We don't know. But definitely in the starters and the first few expansions, you can expect the game to be well-balanced and work well because the cards are going through a filtering process of which to include and which not to. On top of that, FFG has the benefit of hind-sight here, working to improve something that was already good, rather than trying to experiment and hoping it will work out.

What I'm saying is that while I agree with some of your points, it's perfectly reasonable to hate the CCG version of a game but like the LCG version, not because one is a CCG and the other is an LCG, but because the LCG may in fact be better and lead to better gameplay.

Battletech: CCG could go through a rebirth right now, today, if it was a stand-alone card game that utilized some kind of card drafting mechanic rather than go with the collectible game method where you design a deck completely in the dark.
58 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro G.
United States
Hurst
Texas
flag msg tools
Sometimes you have to roll the hard six.
badge
I'm getting my men...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jacovis wrote:
I just dropped all my ccg ratings by 1, because this post reminded me how much I hate collectible games, and how I hate the process of buying ccg games, which in turn ruins my playing experience because of random packaging and hunts for rares that competitive play requires of me. On second thought, I dropped them all by 2. Thanks for the reminder!


yuk lol.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
Willi B wrote:


When you rate a game for issues other than the game play of the game itself, you are doing a disservice to YOUR credibility as a person that ranks games. It's like rating a game a 1 because you played it with people you did not get along with during the game. Or because you played it on a Tuesday.




No. It's not the same thing. One can hold negative opinions of a game
even if they concede that the gameplay is perfectly fine. Subject matter,
mechanics, derivative nature, and yes - the sales model, can all impact
on how one perceives the game overall.

BGG actually instructs people (not that I buy into this) to rate games
on their likelihood to PLAY the game, not some rating of the game's
actual value. It's not surprising that a group of people who likely
are NOT into CCGs (it is a BOARD game site after all), will rate it
less favorably than other places.

As a disclaimer, I rated MtG a '9'. IMO (but this is important -
ratings are subjective) it's one of the better games ever created,
and spawned a whole new genre of gaming. But this isn't a site I'd
expect a card game to do well in - hell, classics like Chess and Go
are very poorly rated considering their (far far greater) impact
and acceptance throughout the world.
64 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Karan R
India
Mumbai
flag msg tools
It's Karan, not Karen!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
IMO along with a fun factor, there is also a 'what if' fun factor
With a LCG, the player knows he is getting everything out of the game
With a CCG, the player will have a niggling at the back of his mind saying "XYZ has so&so more rare cards and is having more fun than me...therefore after all my investment, I feel cheated...this game sucks"
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ferejohn
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
badge
Pitying fools as hard as I can...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So if you and your group are enjoying Jyhad and other CCGs why do you care what they are ranked?

Every game/type of game has its irrational haters (and irrational lovers).

The BGG rankings as anything other than the arbitrary ordering based on the arbitrary opinions of an arbitrary group of people. Mapping them to some kind of "actual game quality" is folly.

Edit:

  • [+] Dice rolls
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
I'm only happy when it rains...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually the suggested criteria IS based on something: one's desire to play it. If the publishers made choices that make that desire very small, you can't really fault people for ranking it. Kind of like saying I'm not allowed to rank games based on component quality or something-- if it matters to me, it matters to me!

But it doesn't really seem fair to rank a game someone hasn't actually played, even if they hate the idea of ccgs. I (and most people) don't go around down ranking every terrible, boring, dry looking light/midweight euro just because I never want to play them!

But like . . . the fact of the matter is that the ccgs are almost all out of print, unsupported, and not widely played. They probably desrve kind of low scores. I can't really find people to play things other than Magic with. No one around here plays swccg any more, or eve, or wow.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Scatliff
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
flag msg tools
It's about time, too.
badge
I hate overtext but love irony.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
calandale wrote:
BGG actually instructs people (not that I buy into this) to rate games
on their likelihood to PLAY the game, not some rating of the game's
actual value. It's not surprising that a group of people who likely
are NOT into CCGs (it is a BOARD game site after all), will rate it
less favorably than other places.

I do buy into this, it's how I rate the games, and I will continue to keep CCGs rated very low for this exact reason.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Brown
United States
Okemos
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magic's gameplay is only a 6-7 at best anyway.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
matthean wrote:
Magic's gameplay is only a 6-7 at best anyway.


Modern magic, maybe. Tournament magic, maybe. Drafted/sealed magic, maybe. But when playing from well-balanced decks of middling power designed for casual play by a group of friends that share a common pool of cards, the game can be extraordinary.

The same is true for most of the "good" CCGs. I think this is the future of customizable card games. It may not be where all the money is made, but it will keep the game alive and popular a lot longer.

31 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Destiny's got her hand way, way up in their puppets! It's an unpleasant tingling! The deepest of wriggles!
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Spoon!
badge
Well, once again we find that clowning and anarchy don't mix.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BGG rankings and ratings aren't important enough to be "ruined" by anything. I only pay attention to what my friends and geekbuddies say. Everything else is noise.
49 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Manning
Australia
Adelaide
South Australia
flag msg tools
designer
err... I like boardgames!?!
badge
D'oh! I bought overtext even though I have nothing interesting to say.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some rational reasons why people might rank CCGs poorly:

1 Boardgames are a social experience, and many are drawn to gaming for the opportunity to spend time socializing with others. CCGs and LCGs have a metagame involving deck construction in which players spend considerable time alone building and refining their decks. If the social aspect of games is a drawcard, then the non-social gameplay aspect of CCGs and LCGs would make those genres qualitatively less enjoyable for such players.

2 While experience and play order/starting conditions may be complicate things, generally speaking, most boardgames are balanced so that players all start on equal footing. This means that typically, the most skilled player should win. The default play format for CCGs involves players playing their own decks against each other, and because of the artificial common/uncommon/rare distribution of cards, a player who is prepared to invest more money in buying powerful rare cards is at an advantage. Since many gamers would prefer a competition of skill to a competition of wealth, this too could see the ratings lowered. Draft formats might lessen this, but they require either a.) buying new cards every time you want to play, or b.) considerable more effort in setting up. Both a.) and b.) would make the game less likely to want to be played often.

31 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt
United Kingdom
Gloucester
Gloucestershire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you're on the wrong track here. MtG invented a new paradigm (for gaming) where the distribution and sales model itself was part of the game.

Advanced Squad Leader is a classic hex and counter wargame. What you're apparently saying is that if instead of selling modules of counters by country, ASL players had been made to buy 'sealed boosters' of random assortments of infantry, artillery and vehicles counters from random countries and then fight with whatever they could cobble together for a given country that it would still have been the same game - that the 'gameplay' wouldn't have been affected.

I completely disagree. If you blind sell the components to your game you change the gameplay. Magic made buying part of the 'gameplay', a lot of people don't like that and I respect their right not to and to score accordingly.
71 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
“It's all in the mind.” ― George Harrison
badge
Devoted Follower of the Most Holy Church of the Evil Bob. Possessed and down the road to become chaotic, evil & naughty. All hail the Evil Bob and his Stargate.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I rated M:tG a "7". This is a fair rating for a fair fantasy card game.

And - I want to add - although I don't hate them, I'll never buy a card game with the tag "collectible" or "living" anymore. Never ever. I'll start collecting Monopoly editions before I do that.
27 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Spieles
United States
Vandalia
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PzVIE wrote:
And - I want to add - although I don't hate them, I'll never buy a card game with the tag "collectible" or "living" anymore. Never ever. I'll start collecting Monopoly editions before I do that.


I hate to break it to you but any board game with expansions are "living board games."
51 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Finlay
Australia
Beldon
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Willi B wrote:
When you rate a game for issues other than the game play of the game itself, you are doing a disservice to YOUR credibility as a person that ranks games.


When you criticize peoples game ratings but don't rate games yourself, you do a disservice to YOUR credibility (as a person criticizing others games ratings).
41 
 Thumb up
1.54
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
“It's all in the mind.” ― George Harrison
badge
Devoted Follower of the Most Holy Church of the Evil Bob. Possessed and down the road to become chaotic, evil & naughty. All hail the Evil Bob and his Stargate.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOrangeMage wrote:
PzVIE wrote:
And - I want to add - although I don't hate them, I'll never buy a card game with the tag "collectible" or "living" anymore. Never ever. I'll start collecting Monopoly editions before I do that.


I hate to break it to you but any board game with expansions are "living board games."

I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT.
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike M.
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Willi B wrote:

I've always been dismayed by the CCG ratings of Magic: the Gathering
There is no criteria for rating a game,


I am sorry if I butchered your quote, but it is the best I can do. I have two observations.

First, as of this post, Magic: The Gathering is rated 7.36 with just over 12 thousand votes. To me, that appears to be a pretty darn good rating.

And second, which ties into my first observation and the second part of your quote, BGG gives users the criteria for rating games. If you hold your cursor over the numbers when rating a game, BGG tells you what those numbers are supposed to reflect. A rating of 7 should mean, according to BGG "Good game, usually willing to play."

According to BGG, Magic: The Gathering has a good rating. So am I misunderstanding your complaint?

Thanks,
Mike
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
My rating of 3.0 reflects my opine of both the game of MtG and of playing MtG.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Moldie wrote:

I do not play Magic, but according to BGG, Magic: The Gathering has a good rating. So am I misunderstanding your complaint?


Appears to be "All the Hateorz are stopping us Fanboyz from making it a 10!".

But I could be mistaken.
37 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Kruczek
United Kingdom
Colchester
Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Moldie wrote:

I do not play Magic, but according to BGG, Magic: The Gathering has a good rating. So am I misunderstanding your complaint?


Appears to be "All the Hateorz are stopping us Fanboyz from making it a 10!".

But I could be mistaken.


How about: "Why are not everyone rating Magic a 10?"
58 
 Thumb up
0.03
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kai Günster
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
mbmb
lordrahvin wrote:
matthean wrote:
Magic's gameplay is only a 6-7 at best anyway.


Modern magic, maybe. Tournament magic, maybe. Drafted/sealed magic, maybe. But when playing from well-balanced decks of middling power designed for casual play by a group of friends that share a common pool of cards, the game can be extraordinary.

The same is true for most of the "good" CCGs. I think this is the future of customizable card games. It may not be where all the money is made, but it will keep the game alive and popular a lot longer.



So you're saying that all the official game modes are bad, but the game is really good when played with restrictions put into place by your game group? Doesn't that kind of confirm the low rating? It's a bit like saying "Game X is complete rubbish, but the components are nice, so we house-ruled it into a completely different game and now I rate it a 10".

For the record though, I think M:tG is a decent game and given the sheer number of cards they're doing a reasonably good job at keeping it balanced. I don't play any more because of the costs, but I don't hate it, either.
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Original Dibbler
Germany
Aachen
NRW
flag msg tools
designer
What's one damage?
badge
It's na-fing!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
scifiantihero wrote:
Actually the suggested criteria IS based on something: one's desire to play it. If the publishers made choices that make that desire very small, you can't really fault people for ranking it. Kind of like saying I'm not allowed to rank games based on component quality or something-- if it matters to me, it matters to me!


+1

Everything that influances the fun I am having when playing a game goes into the rating.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [15] | 
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.