Tikal:El Grande=WellThemed:ThinlyThemed=VeryGoodGame:GreatGame
Marco Calcaterra
here's some of my thoughts.
El Grande (1996) is a great game, really, but it's clear it's an
abstract game (what does it mean "Move your caballeros to ANY
region"?). It's a clever game, published under a real "gamer's" label:
Hans Im Glueck. But it's an abstract, and for some players this is a
big BUT (though the components are classy).
Tikal (1999) is a great game too, but, and many people will agree with
me, is not in the same league of El Grande. Kramer (aided here by
fellow Kiesling in place of Ulrich) maybe wanted this game to be more
themed than El Grande, with a twist of "unknown" borrowed from
Entdecker (the tile displacement). Some dynamics of Tikal obviously
remind of El Grande, e.g. the way score is distributed, with X scoring
rounds and players earning points by having more explorers in a
temple-hex than their enemies. In Tikal each player has a leader of
the expedition, in El Grande you have an El Grande, another
similarity. Obviously the El Grande is a much more interesting "piece"
than the leader of Tikal, but it's a piece that detracts from the
theme, as it's hard to make ppl understand he DOESN'T count as a
caballero too. As you can see, my thought is that Kramer tried to make
a very good themed game with some dynamics borrowed from a killer game
like El Grande. Another consideration: the label. Ravensburger
published Tikal, and it makes perfect sense to me, as this label is
surely closer to the philosophy of "family game" than is usually Hans
Im Glueck.
The real point of this message, though, it's this:
Is El Grande a great game BECAUSE it's mainly an abstract?
and is TIKAL "only" a "really good game"" BECAUSE they tried to theme
it better?
Marco Calcaterra
----------------
PSX: Vib Ribbon - SCEJ
PC: The Sims - Maxis
Last BoardGame played: Magalon (Kramer)
IRC Nick: DeSangre
ICQ UIN: 213080
Mike Bialecki
:*The real point of this message, though, it's this:
:*Is El Grande a great game BECAUSE it's mainly an abstract?
:*and is TIKAL "only" a "really good game"" BECAUSE they tried to theme
:*it better?
I don't agree with the foundation of your argument. That is, I don't
agree that El Grande is an objectively better game than Tikal. I
personally enjoy Tikal more than El Grande.
However, I do follow and agree with your analysis. With Tikal, it seems
Kramer tried to use some of the El Grande mechanics to produce a tighter
and more themed game. I think he succeeded.
--
-Mike
"It's one thing when your hobbies interfere with your work, but when your
hobbies interfere with your hobbies..."
Bruno Faidutti
> The real point of this message, though, it's this:
My answer is: Tikal is great came because it has great theme, and El
Grande is only a rather good game because it's abstract.
--
Bruno Faidutti
12 rue Armand de Pontmartin
30133 LES ANGLES
faid...@free.fr
http://faidutti.free.fr/
Marco Calcaterra
wrote:
>My answer is: Tikal is great came because it has great theme, and El
>Grande is only a rather good game because it's abstract.
I hope Citadels is better than both, THEN.
LOL
:)
Btw, I'm really going to buy Citadels soon. :)
Marco Calcaterra
Bialecki) wrote:
>I don't agree with the foundation of your argument. That is, I don't
>agree that El Grande is an objectively better game than Tikal. I
>personally enjoy Tikal more than El Grande.
Excuse me, I was talking IMHO all the way long obviously. By the way I
still think El Grande dynamics are more original and clever than those
used in Tikal. Not discussing the quality of both, that is truly great
in both games.
>However, I do follow and agree with your analysis. With Tikal, it seems
>Kramer tried to use some of the El Grande mechanics to produce a tighter
>and more themed game. I think he succeeded.
Yes, I think so too. Maybe time will tell if I really like El Grande
more than Tikal. :)
Graham Wills
>
> > The real point of this message, though, it's this:
> > Is El Grande a great game BECAUSE it's mainly an abstract?
> > and is TIKAL "only" a "really good game"" BECAUSE they tried to theme
> > it better?
>
> Grande is only a rather good game because it's abstract.
And my answer is that El Grande is a great game because it has one
simple conceptual model and all the rules and components work to
that one aim, whereas in Tikal there are multiple aims and less
coherence between the subsystems(*)
-Graham
* For example, the treasures could easily be taken out of the game
or replaced by a different system and not much would be different.
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Marco Calcaterra
wrote:
>My answer is: Tikal is great came because it has great theme, and El
>Grande is only a rather good game because it's abstract.
That leads to the obvious conclusion:
Formula De' is a fantastic game 'cause has a fantastic theme
Go is crap 'cause isn't themed.
Mark Johnson
<faidutti-190...@213.228.39.159>:
>My answer is: Tikal is great came because it has great theme, and El
>Grande is only a rather good game because it's abstract.
And my related opinion is that Tikal is pretty good thanks to it's
pretty good theme, while I don't care for El Grande at all due to its
nonexistant theme. (In other words, I agree completely in principal and
logic, just disagree in terms of degree.)
-MJ
Justin B. Green
> Marco Calcaterra (desa...@tiscalinet.it) wrote:
> :*The real point of this message, though, it's this:
> :*Is El Grande a great game BECAUSE it's mainly an abstract?
> :*and is TIKAL "only" a "really good game"" BECAUSE they tried to theme
> :*it better?
>
> I don't agree with the foundation of your argument. That is, I don't
> agree that El Grande is an objectively better game than Tikal. I
> personally enjoy Tikal more than El Grande.
>
> However, I do follow and agree with your analysis. With Tikal, it seems
> Kramer tried to use some of the El Grande mechanics to produce a tighter
> and more themed game. I think he succeeded.
And I don't agree that the games are similar enough for a comparison.
The thrills of El Grande come in the bidding, the diplomacy, and of course
the castillo. The thrills of Tikal come in the exploration and resource
management. The differences (IMO) go way beyond how well they are themed.
El Grande is supposed to be about political intrigue, so it sort of feels
right that the cabelleros are just pawns that can be moved around at will.
Whereas it feels right that Tikal should get down in the nitty gritty of
actually trying to get from one place to the other. (BTW, I love both
games!)
Bruno Faidutti
desa...@tiscalinet.it (Marco Calcaterra) wrote (écrivait) :
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:06:04 GMT, faid...@free.fr (Bruno Faidutti)
> wrote:
>
> >My answer is: Tikal is great came because it has great theme, and El
> >Grande is only a rather good game because it's abstract.
>
> That leads to the obvious conclusion:
> Formula De' is a fantastic game 'cause has a fantastic theme
> Go is crap 'cause isn't themed.
OK... I don't like Formula De because it's just throw the die and push
your pawn - though it can be fun with the right people from time to time.
I'm interested in Go as an intellectual exercise but not really as a game.
Marco Calcaterra
wrote:
>OK... I don't like Formula De because it's just throw the die and push
>your pawn - though it can be fun with the right people from time to time.
>I'm interested in Go as an intellectual exercise but not really as a game.
I was obviously joking ;), just for idle chit-chat. :) Your web site
is excellent and your reviews are well balanced. I'm eager to
appreciate you as a designer, too. I'm getting Citadel next month. I
hope :)
richar...@hotmail.com
desa...@tiscalinet.it (Marco Calcaterra) wrote:
... SNIP ...
> The real point of this message, though, it's this:
> Is El Grande a great game BECAUSE it's mainly an abstract?
> and is TIKAL "only" a "really good game"" BECAUSE they tried to theme
> it better?
>
> Marco Calcaterra
Ok, this old "theme vs mechanics" debate arises from the ashes to once
again antagonize this newsgroup =). This debate, along with the type
of gamers there are, appears over and over. I think the "theme vs
mechanics" is also seen in the old "game vs simulation" argument that
arises in the PC gaming circles.
When designing a game, one needs to ask how closely they want to model
reality in what they are doing. The closer to reality, the less
abstract the game is, and with this, the more restricted the choices of
play mechanics come. The freedom to step away from a theme or modeling
reality, allows for better refined game mechanics. HOWEVER, the
counterpoint to this, is the further you step away from an integrated
theme into the game (or modeling of reality), the less intrinsic hook
the game has for drawing a player in. This is a reason why abstract
strategy games tend to do poorly. With abstract strategy games, there
is nothing there intrinsically that would hook a player. Sure, a
person up for the thrill of competition would get into it, but not the
person who wants to use a game as a form of escape and fantasy.
Abstract/thinly themed games also appeal to people who have might
higher cognitive skills, who are able to abstract out reality to a very
high level, that moving symbols on a board can reflect one form of
reality to them, even if it is on a really high level.
I think it is interesting how the thinly themed German games have
caught on with gamers now. It could have something to do the success
of computer and video games. As was the case of photography and film
replacing paintings of reality, German style games with loose themes
seem to have become popular. The computer and video games have causes
a shift and a fragmenting of the boardgame industry into different
niches. Live action roll playing, Warhammer miniatures, and German
style games have all managed to become what sells, while complex
business and wargaming sims have been consumed by the computer and
video games.
Just my 2 cents...
- Richard Hutnik
--
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dave green
I would rather play tikal, even though I see that El Grande is a more elegant
game.
my main reason (which I haven't seen mentioned yet) is:
The english cards in the first rio grande version had writing which was too
small. Unless I played much more than I do and became more familiar with the
available actions, I spend a lot of time leaning over to the card piles to read
the descriptions. Inevitably, someone chooses a card which was quite good for
them, but I had discounted as useless. and I blame this on not being able to
quickly load the cards into my mind and keep their content their easily for
evaluation.
I believe that the graphic design of el grandes cards significantly reduces its
Quality.
also, it is a little abstract for me.
D
PS: yes, I know the new version has different cards. I'm probably not going to
fork out another 25 dollars for a duplicate game just to find out whether they
work better, since there are other new games coming out all the time.
Peter Clinch
> I think it is interesting how the thinly themed German games have
> caught on with gamers now. It could have something to do the success
> of computer and video games.
Maybe, though I think it's perhaps the case they've always been latently
popular, but lacking in sufficient numbers to make more of an
impression. The success of Acquire showed that gamers were always
willing to put their 20 page simulation rulebooks to one side for
something quick, but clever. The problem was more a case of after
Acquire, then what? Until I came across the current crop of German
games it was always difficult finding something else that could be
played inside an hour or two, including explaining the rules and setting
it up, which was fun and reasonably exercising of the mind.
In my personal case I haven't so much abandoned my complex simulations
for computer/video games (don't have a TV, and only run a computer at
work), as just things I can play more than once in a blue moon and only
with highly dedicated fellow anoraks with time on their hands...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Glenn Kuntz
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dn1j9$e8g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This is a reason why abstract
> strategy games tend to do poorly. With abstract strategy games, there
> is nothing there intrinsically that would hook a player. Sure, a
> person up for the thrill of competition would get into it, but not the
> person who wants to use a game as a form of escape and fantasy.
Huh? You want to tell that to all the chess, go, backgammon, mah-jongg,
draughts, mancala, etc., etc. players in the world? ;-) (But I s'pose
you're talking about *just* the niche boardgame market...)
When I'm using a game as a form of escape, it's to get absorbed in the game
(the play) and it makes no difference if it's themed or abstract. Same goes
for the thrill of the competition (the juice).
I think there is plenty to hook a player in many abstract games - the
aesthetics of the components, the elegance of the rules, replay value, and
availability of opponents to name just a few...
Most every niche game store I've ever been in has had a decent selection of
abstract games, both old and new, and I don't think they'd continue stocking
them if they weren't selling. They may not be fad games of the month/year
like SoC, but they are the slow & steady tortoises that continue to sell
year after year, generation after generation (and you rarely get bogged down
by language barriers. ;-)
nates
> > This is a reason why abstract
> > strategy games tend to do poorly. With abstract strategy games, there
> > is nothing there intrinsically that would hook a player. Sure, a
> > person up for the thrill of competition would get into it, but not the
> > person who wants to use a game as a form of escape and fantasy.
i think that the write above meant to say "hook a theme game kind of
player".
;-)
> I think there is plenty to hook a player in many abstract games - the
> aesthetics of the components, the elegance of the rules, replay value, and
> availability of opponents to name just a few...
i, for one, am not interested in theme games. i like the completely
abstract games.
if the top-class abstract games "do poorly", then it because of a lack of
interest - which is more indicative of short comings in the players, not
because of any inherent shortcomings in the game itself.
this was the first post i saw in this thread, so i am not sure what abstract
games richar...@hotmail.com was referring to. i could look....
- nate, inventor of Xong[tm]
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8dn1j9$e8g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > strategy games tend to do poorly. With abstract strategy games,
there
> > is nothing there intrinsically that would hook a player. Sure, a
> > person up for the thrill of competition would get into it, but not
the
> > person who wants to use a game as a form of escape and fantasy.
>
jongg,
> draughts, mancala, etc., etc. players in the world? ;-) (But I
s'pose
> you're talking about *just* the niche boardgame market...)
multiple people who already play them. What I am referring to is new
abstract strategy games that attempt to break into the market, usually
do the poorest. People, being social animals, will play what the group
is playing, which is why chess/checkers/etc... get played. It also
isn't for the escapism reason either.
I would say if chess were offered as a brandly new created game
today, it would bomb.
> When I'm using a game as a form of escape, it's to get absorbed in
the game
> (the play) and it makes no difference if it's themed or abstract.
Same goes
> for the thrill of the competition (the juice).
When I said escapism, I meant fantasy. Themeless abstract strategy
games are far less to appeal to a person, than a game that is about a
subject matter that interests someone.
> I think there is plenty to hook a player in many abstract games - the
> aesthetics of the components, the elegance of the rules, replay
value, and
> availability of opponents to name just a few...
To get the initial bite, there has to be something there to hold the
attention of a person and stand out in their mind. The problem with a
good bulk of abstract strategy games is that they fade from the mind as
not being that special.
> Most every niche game store I've ever been in has had a decent
selection of
> abstract games, both old and new, and I don't think they'd continue
stocking
> them if they weren't selling.
The classics get sold because they already have a built in set of
people who play them, that is why. However, with rare exception, a new
abstract strategy game will fail miserably in the marketplace.
>They may not be fad games of the month/year
> like SoC, but they are the slow & steady tortoises that continue to
sell
> year after year, generation after generation (and you rarely get
bogged down
> by language barriers. ;-)
There is nothing intrinsically special about the old classics. The
only think that keeps them going is that they have centuries of
tradition behind them.
Nothing beats tradition to keep something going...
richar...@hotmail.com
nates <na...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
... SNIP ....
> > I think there is plenty to hook a player in many abstract games -
the
> > aesthetics of the components, the elegance of the rules, replay
value, and
> > availability of opponents to name just a few...
>
> i, for one, am not interested in theme games. i like the completely
> abstract games.
>
> if the top-class abstract games "do poorly", then it because of a
lack of
> interest - which is more indicative of short comings in the players,
not
> because of any inherent shortcomings in the game itself.
>
> this was the first post i saw in this thread, so i am not sure what
> abstract games richar...@hotmail.com was referring to. i could
> look....
Some people don't play games with the main point to beat someone. Yes,
they want to win, but the gratification of defeating an opponent is not
the driving force. The driving force for them is pretending they are
somewhere else, in another world, and acting out a role. For them, the
theme of the game is important. An abstract game usually is devoid of
that, so for the theme driver gamer, a lack of a tangible theme in the
game is a turn off.
Justin B. Green
> news:8dn1j9$e8g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > This is a reason why abstract
> > strategy games tend to do poorly.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Glenn Kuntz wrote:
> Most every niche game store I've ever been in has had a decent selection of
> abstract games, both old and new, and I don't think they'd continue stocking
> them if they weren't selling.
And when stores that aren't game shops or toy stores stock games (they are
usually "new age-y" educational gift shops that sell things from chemistry
sets to homemade kites to tarot cards), the games are almost exclusively
abstract. I have no proof (this is usenet after all), but I don't think
that, in North America, abstract games do much worse than the themed ones.
Many reasons have been given for the appeal of abstract games, but one
that hasn't been mentioned is that they seem more intellectual. My
father-in-law digs chess, cathedral, qoridor and the like (and card
games--also abstract), but he's a pretty uncomfortable with most German
games as he has a nagging feeling that he's playing a kiddie game. This
is an unfounded prejudice, but it's there nonetheless. Anyway, I'm sure
there are tons of people (like me) who like it BOTH ways as long there's
good competition.
nates
> Some people don't play games with the main point to beat someone. Yes,
> they want to win, but the gratification of defeating an opponent is not
> the driving force. The driving force for them is pretending they are
> somewhere else, in another world, and acting out a role. For them, the
> theme of the game is important. An abstract game usually is devoid of
> that, so for the theme driver gamer, a lack of a tangible theme in the
> game is a turn off.
>
> - Richard Hutnik
definitely agree here.....but
i'll add that some abstract gamers dont play to beat someone, but to
explore the mathematical complexity within the game. true, they are
still playing to win. but they want to see a great game unfold. if
the opponent suddenly makes a stupid move, both players lose out in the
sense that the depth of the game is lost. for those seeking the beauty
of this depth of complexity, attempts to link any of the action to a real
world or a fantasy world with some theme only get in the way of this
level of understanding.
- nate
"i dont want to win by forcing my opponent into a stupid mistake -
i want to win by forcing my opponent into an intelligent mistake."
spam...@phantaci.retlif.maps.com
>the game has for drawing a player in. This is a reason why abstract
>strategy games tend to do poorly. With abstract strategy games, there
>is nothing there intrinsically that would hook a player. Sure, a
>person up for the thrill of competition would get into it, but not the
>person who wants to use a game as a form of escape and fantasy.
>Abstract/thinly themed games also appeal to people who have might
>higher cognitive skills, who are able to abstract out reality to a very
>high level, that moving symbols on a board can reflect one form of
>reality to them, even if it is on a really high level.
Okay...lets step back here for a moment and turn our brains on...
What it sounds like you are saying is that people that play games that
are "abstract" are more intelligent than those individuals that dont.
Pardon? Does that mean if I take a game that is built with little
abstraction, but rules that would reach as close to "simulation" as
possible that those individuals that like to play those games must
not have "higher cognitive" skills? Do yourself a favor and dont repeat
that to the wargamers group.
Then again, you are probably just making a distinction between "German"
games and "Ameritrash" as you like to call most of the games in the
American market. (ie..Settlers vs Scatagories or Die Macher vs Monopoly).
If that is the case, then I think the deciding factor of between who plays
what game is not the "cognitive" skill part. Its more a matter of
marketing, sales location, and the current "mindset" towards games of
any particular form.
Of course, this viewpoint of yours could easily be used to back up a
wonderful little judgement to those that dont like "German abstract games".
They are probably just too dumb to play them.
-Jim Shumaker
--
Jim Shumaker |
ja...@phantaci.com |
Mountain View, CA |
Glenn Kuntz
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dnfpn$uu7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8dncdt$79nq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > strategy games tend to do poorly. With abstract strategy games,
> there
> > > is nothing there intrinsically that would hook a player. Sure, a
> > > person up for the thrill of competition would get into it, but not
> the
> > > person who wants to use a game as a form of escape and fantasy.
> >
> jongg,
> > draughts, mancala, etc., etc. players in the world? ;-) (But I
> s'pose
> > you're talking about *just* the niche boardgame market...)
> There are the classics that end up being played, because they have
> multiple people who already play them. What I am referring to is new
> abstract strategy games that attempt to break into the market, usually
> do the poorest.
Is this a reflection on Steve Peek's assessment, or do you have some hard
industry data? Very few games that come to market (whether abstract or
themed) "make it" and while themed games tend to run like rabbits (quick
success) the abstract games do sometimes take longer. But I think the
percentages that succeed are about the same. That is, a smaller percentage
of new games are abstract than themed, but the percentages of each within
their niche that succeed are similar. So yes, I agree that abstract games
do poorly overall, but they seem to hold their own amongst their followings
(which I think you may be underestimating/under-rating (?)
> People, being social animals, will play what the group
> is playing, which is why chess/checkers/etc... get played. It also
> isn't for the escapism reason either.
> I would say if chess were offered as a brandly new created game
> today, it would bomb.
I don't know. Gigamic/American Trading Co. (for one example) seem to be
doing very well with abstract games, both traditional *and* new. As Justin
remarked, you can't really judge abstracts by what you see in the "Android's
Dungeon" (a little Simpson's humor) - ATC sells games in many more outlets
(gift shops, novelty shops, etc.) where you won't find niche board games
(just a few topical themed ones.)
> > When I'm using a game as a form of escape, it's to get absorbed in
> > the game
> > (the play) and it makes no difference if it's themed or abstract.
> > Same goes
> > for the thrill of the competition (the juice).
> When I said escapism, I meant fantasy. Themeless abstract strategy
> games are far less to appeal to a person, than a game that is about a
> subject matter that interests someone.
I respect this opinion - I'm just not sure I agree with the assessment. For
clarification, are we talking about "gamers" or the "unwashed masses"? ;-)
(because I think it may make a difference.)
> > I think there is plenty to hook a player in many abstract games - the
> > aesthetics of the components, the elegance of the rules, replay
> value, and
> > availability of opponents to name just a few...
> To get the initial bite, there has to be something there to hold the
> attention of a person and stand out in their mind.
Yes, I believe this is true with *any* game.
> The problem with a
> good bulk of abstract strategy games is that they fade from the mind as
> not being that special.
Here I would take exception. There are several abstracts that I play and
enjoy, and many more that I do not, but the ones I play *did* hook me, and
*do* seem "special" in my mind. Same goes for the themed games I play, and
I expect that many/most other game players (not *necessarily* "gamers") feel
the same way to some extent. I think it's the whole package that grabs and
keeps a player - not just whether it's themed or abstract.
> > Most every niche game store I've ever been in has had a decent
> selection of
> > abstract games, both old and new, and I don't think they'd continue
> stocking
> > them if they weren't selling.
> The classics get sold because they already have a built in set of
> people who play them, that is why. However, with rare exception, a new
> abstract strategy game will fail miserably in the marketplace.
As above, I think the relative percentages may be quite close.
> >They may not be fad games of the month/year
> > like SoC, but they are the slow & steady tortoises that continue to
> sell
> > year after year, generation after generation (and you rarely get
> bogged down
> > by language barriers. ;-)
> There is nothing intrinsically special about the old classics. The
> only think that keeps them going is that they have centuries of
> tradition behind them.
I would say that decades or centuries of tradition and longevity *are*
intrinsically special! For each of these classics that have withstood the
test of time, think about how many more ancient games did *not* survive,
just as the majority of contemporary games don't make it.
>
> Nothing beats tradition to keep something going...
Sure it does. In the case of games: replay value.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Is this a reflection on Steve Peek's assessment, or do you have some
hard
> industry data? Very few games that come to market (whether abstract
or
> themed) "make it" and while themed games tend to run like rabbits
(quick
> success) the abstract games do sometimes take longer. But I think the
> percentages that succeed are about the same. That is, a smaller
percentage
> of new games are abstract than themed, but the percentages of each
within
> their niche that succeed are similar. So yes, I agree that abstract
games
> do poorly overall, but they seem to hold their own amongst their
followings
> (which I think you may be underestimating/under-rating (?)
It is based upon my speaking to someone who is in the toy business,
a relative, who tells me this, in combination with what else I see when
I survey the market, plus what Mr. Peek wrote, which confirmed it. A
prime example I have is Othello, which lost money for Gabriel. It
could be that a title such is that is easily replicated and cloned, and
that results in pirated copies being made. I think Spot/Attaxx is
another game that fits this mold.
> I don't know. Gigamic/American Trading Co. (for one example) seem to
be
> doing very well with abstract games, both traditional *and* new. As
Justin
> remarked, you can't really judge abstracts by what you see in
the "Android's
> Dungeon" (a little Simpson's humor) - ATC sells games in many more
outlets
> (gift shops, novelty shops, etc.) where you won't find niche board
games
> (just a few topical themed ones.)
I think one saving grace for abstract games is when they are done up
like artwork, and whatnot. They can sit on coffee tables and look like
a sculpture. I am sure most of the ATC games are sold as gifts for
other people.
> I respect this opinion - I'm just not sure I agree with the
assessment. For
> clarification, are we talking about "gamers" or the "unwashed
masses"? ;-)
> (because I think it may make a difference.)
I am speaking of mostly the unwashed masses =). However, even
gamers have niches they are favorable toward. Some are favorable to a
niche of abstract strategy games. I happen to like them, but have
grown to want a bit of a theme attached to them.
> > To get the initial bite, there has to be something there to hold
the
> > attention of a person and stand out in their mind.
>
> Yes, I believe this is true with *any* game.
And that is the point I am making. Any game needs this. An
abstract strategy is handicapped in this regard, because a person
looking over it doesn't see something there that might be appealing.
People who are fans of the game can win others over to it by their
enthusiasm (Octi was won over to me by the positive buzz on the Net,
Games Magazine, etc...). This might explain why the classics do well.
Assuming you have a finely designed classic game, you have a bunch of
fans that can win converts to them. New games, out of the shoots, tend
not to do this, and usually fade. Heck, even theme games are similar,
but abstract strategy games have a harder sell.
> Here I would take exception. There are several abstracts that I play
and
> enjoy, and many more that I do not, but the ones I play *did* hook
me, and
> *do* seem "special" in my mind. Same goes for the themed games I
play, and
> I expect that many/most other game players (not
*necessarily* "gamers") feel
> the same way to some extent. I think it's the whole package that
grabs and
> keeps a player - not just whether it's themed or abstract.
An abstract strategy game will fade from the mind of a person who is
theme driven more likely than one that isn't. Ok, I bias the audience,
but my point is that theme driver players are more numerous than those
who play the game mostly for human competition.
> As above, I think the relative percentages may be quite close.
Abstract strategy games have to be sold as niche products outside
the normal distribution channels, because their target audience is much
smaller. I am not speaking of the classics, but new games people are
trying to introduce. For most people the classics bundles you can buy
at Toys R Us, etc... are enough for them.
> > There is nothing intrinsically special about the old classics.
The
> > only think that keeps them going is that they have centuries of
> > tradition behind them.
>
> I would say that decades or centuries of tradition and longevity *are*
> intrinsically special! For each of these classics that have
withstood the
> test of time, think about how many more ancient games did *not*
survive,
> just as the majority of contemporary games don't make it.
Their longevity explains why they lasted? Once a game hits a
critical mass in popularity, it is hard to get rid of. The same is
true for standards in industries. There are plenty of abstract
strategy games that are superior to Chess, but Chess still remains the
number 1 known abstract strategy game. It certainly isn't due to its
kludgy design, but brand recognition. Chess is a "good enough" game,
which allows for a large enough following, that the end result is that
the game continues to be played. It also has the branding in that it
become an icon for strategy games, and what people associate with
strategy games.
> > Nothing beats tradition to keep something going...
>
> Sure it does. In the case of games: replay value.
A game have great replay value, but that doesn't mean it will catch
on in a way the games that have been played for centuries have.
Glenn Kuntz
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dsdgf$3ob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> Abstract strategy games have to be sold as niche products outside
> the normal distribution channels, because their target audience is much
> smaller. I am not speaking of the classics, but new games people are
> trying to introduce.
I think just the opposite is true; abstract strategy games are sold outside
normal distribution channels *in addition to* being sold within those
channels. I see these games sold in book stores, gift stores, department
stores, etc. *in addition to* game stores. I do not see many themed "gamer"
games sold in those venues.
> For most people the classics bundles you can buy
> at Toys R Us, etc... are enough for them.
>
> > > There is nothing intrinsically special about the old classics.
> The
> > > only think that keeps them going is that they have centuries of
> > > tradition behind them.
> >
> > I would say that decades or centuries of tradition and longevity *are*
> > intrinsically special! For each of these classics that have
> withstood the
> > test of time, think about how many more ancient games did *not*
> survive,
> > just as the majority of contemporary games don't make it.
> Their longevity explains why they lasted?
No, their desirable attributes (sorry, it's early and the vocabulary chip
isn't up & running yet... :-) - replay value, etc. - explain their
longevity.
> Once a game hits a
> critical mass in popularity, it is hard to get rid of.
This seems to contradict your earlier points. If the games aren't that
great, and have nothing to draw players in, how did they ever *reach* that
critical mass in popularity? We seem to agree that most games of any kind
don't survive long. Why do you think abstract games like Halma/Chinese
Checkers are still around, yet themed games from the same period (1880s -
1920s) are not?
> The same is
> true for standards in industries. There are plenty of abstract
> strategy games that are superior to Chess, but Chess still remains the
> number 1 known abstract strategy game. It certainly isn't due to its
> kludgy design, but brand recognition.
Picky point, but I believe that mancala games are actually played by more
people than chess... ;-)
> Chess is a "good enough" game,
> which allows for a large enough following, that the end result is that
> the game continues to be played. It also has the branding in that it
> become an icon for strategy games, and what people associate with
> strategy games.
>
>
> > > Nothing beats tradition to keep something going...
> >
> > Sure it does. In the case of games: replay value.
> A game have great replay value, but that doesn't mean it will catch
> on in a way the games that have been played for centuries have.
That's *my* point; games that have been played for centuries *have* replay
value (and other vitues,) or they wouldn't have caught on in the first
place!
Peter Clinch
> That's *my* point; games that have been played for centuries *have* replay
> value (and other vitues,) or they wouldn't have caught on in the first
> place!
I think a fair point: it's like classical music, where we just get a
repertoire of distilled "best of", and the great mass is forgotten and
no longer performed.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I think just the opposite is true; abstract strategy games are sold
outside
> normal distribution channels *in addition to* being sold within those
> channels. I see these games sold in book stores, gift stores,
department
> stores, etc. *in addition to* game stores. I do not see many
themed "gamer"
> games sold in those venues.
And most of the new abstract strategy games don't sell well at all.
> > Their longevity explains why they lasted?
>
> No, their desirable attributes (sorry, it's early and the vocabulary
chip
> isn't up & running yet... :-) - replay value, etc. - explain their
> longevity.
There is something intrinsically magical about older classic
abstract strategy titles that make them superior to the newer German
stuff?
> > Once a game hits a
> > critical mass in popularity, it is hard to get rid of.
> This seems to contradict your earlier points. If the games aren't
that
> great, and have nothing to draw players in, how did they ever *reach*
that
> critical mass in popularity? We seem to agree that most games of any
kind
> don't survive long. Why do you think abstract games like
Halma/Chinese
> Checkers are still around, yet themed games from the same period
(1880s -
> 1920s) are not?
Halma, a superior game to Chinese Checkers, is not around, but
Chinese checkers is. A reason why they caught on is that they really
were the only games back then available to people. This is the reason
why. Gamers back then didn't have exposure to the newer innovations in
designs gamers have now. And, being they are ok games, they had time
to build up an audience. Today, we have more noise and such, so if the
games of old were released today, they wouldn't sell at all.
> Picky point, but I believe that mancala games are actually played by
more
> people than chess... ;-)
Still, it is an older game, and is played because it has the built
in audience.
> That's *my* point; games that have been played for centuries *have*
replay
> value (and other vitues,) or they wouldn't have caught on in the first
> place!
And they caught on, because they were the only choices people had,
not because they were great. There is some merit to them, but that
doesn't mean they are great designs. Chess is kludgy and checkers had
to have opening books forced upon players in tournament play.
The fact the games have large audiences and are made out of easily
replicated material, results in them being able to last.
But, as I said before, if chess were launched today as a brand new
game, it would do badly in the marketplace amongst the newer games out
there.
Glenn Kuntz
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e1q5d$n8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8e19k7$dt6$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > I think just the opposite is true; abstract strategy games are sold
> outside
> > normal distribution channels *in addition to* being sold within those
> > channels. I see these games sold in book stores, gift stores,
> department
> > stores, etc. *in addition to* game stores. I do not see many
> themed "gamer"
> > games sold in those venues.
> And most of the new abstract strategy games don't sell well at all.
Neither do most new themed games; as I said, the percentages are about
equal.
>
> > > Their longevity explains why they lasted?
> >
> > No, their desirable attributes (sorry, it's early and the vocabulary
> chip
> > isn't up & running yet... :-) - replay value, etc. - explain their
> > longevity.
> There is something intrinsically magical about older classic
> abstract strategy titles that make them superior to the newer German
> stuff?
I didn't say that at all. I was just rebutting your contention that older
abstract games are still around just because they're old - not because
they're any good.
>
> > > Once a game hits a
> > > critical mass in popularity, it is hard to get rid of.
> > This seems to contradict your earlier points. If the games aren't
> that
> > great, and have nothing to draw players in, how did they ever *reach*
> that
> > critical mass in popularity? We seem to agree that most games of any
> kind
> > don't survive long. Why do you think abstract games like
> Halma/Chinese
> > Checkers are still around, yet themed games from the same period
> (1880s -
> > 1920s) are not?
> Halma, a superior game to Chinese Checkers, is not around, but
> Chinese checkers is.
1. Halma *is* still around.
2. Chinese Checkers is known as Halma in many parts of the world today.
3. How is Halma superior when they are virtually the same game?
> A reason why they caught on is that they really
> were the only games back then available to people. This is the reason
> why.
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. The Association of Game & Puzzle
Collectors (formerly American Game Collectors Association) and several
museums have archives and catalogs of games & game companies from that
period (I have a few myself). There were many games available, both
abstract and themed.
> Gamers back then didn't have exposure to the newer innovations in
> designs gamers have now. And, being they are ok games, they had time
> to build up an audience.
There were still many failures - games which did *not* survive simply
because they were available. A stinker is still a stinker.
>Today, we have more noise and such, so if the
> games of old were released today, they wouldn't sell at all.
Only the ones that weren't any good in the first place. The better ones
*are* still being sold today...
>
> > Picky point, but I believe that mancala games are actually played by
> more
> > people than chess... ;-)
> Still, it is an older game, and is played because it has the built
> in audience.
>
> > That's *my* point; games that have been played for centuries *have*
> replay
> > value (and other vitues,) or they wouldn't have caught on in the first
> > place!
> And they caught on, because they were the only choices people had,
Again, this is simply not true. Peruse a few early catalogs from MB, PB,
All-Fair, McLaughlin, Horsman, et al and you'll see...
> not because they were great. There is some merit to them, but that
> doesn't mean they are great designs.
Well "great" is in the eye of the player. ;-)
> Chess is kludgy and checkers had
> to have opening books forced upon players in tournament play.
> The fact the games have large audiences and are made out of easily
> replicated material, results in them being able to last.
I agree that part of classic abstract games' popularity and longevity is due
to easy replication, but I don't think people would bother to replicate
those games (it's *still* a lot of work) if they didn't enjoy playing them
over and over.
>
> But, as I said before, if chess were launched today as a brand new
> game, it would do badly in the marketplace amongst the newer games out
> there.
I have no opinion or argument on that point; I'm not a chess player (or
studier) :-)
nates
...[]...
> There are plenty of abstract strategy games that are superior to Chess,
> but Chess still remains the number 1 known abstract strategy game.
...[]...
> - Richard Hutnik
not to be antagonistic here, but i would like to see your list of
abstract strategy games "better than Chess". and also i am not sure
Chess is number 1. Go has a huge world following.
this might be a good place to fork another thread. do we consider
shogi a different game or other chess-like games? i think we have
to consider them different.
________abstract strategy games better than Chess____________
my starting point list:
Go, easily, by a mile
maybe Shogi
that's it for now. i am easily convinced otherwise! but IMHO no way
do Othello/Reversi games get on my list.
- nate
Fool
> ________abstract strategy games better than Chess____________
>
> my starting point list:
>
> Go, easily, by a mile
*nodnod*
> maybe Shogi
>
> that's it for now. i am easily convinced otherwise! but IMHO no way
> do Othello/Reversi games get on my list.
>
> - nate
Nomic.
Diplomacy.
Or is Diplomacy 'themed'? Only the map makes it historically 'themed'.
It is an elegant, essentially abstract game, I'd say.
--
To email me, remove 'it' from my address.
richar...@hotmail.com
nates <na...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> not to be antagonistic here, but i would like to see your list of
> abstract strategy games "better than Chess". and also i am not sure
> Chess is number 1. Go has a huge world following.
I will attempt to do that below.
> this might be a good place to fork another thread. do we consider
> shogi a different game or other chess-like games? i think we have
> to consider them different.
I think that would be a good idea. When I speak of chess, I am
speaking of FIDE certified version, which is held up as the
quintessential strategy game.
> ________abstract strategy games better than Chess____________
>
> my starting point list:
>
> Go, easily, by a mile
> maybe Shogi
>
> that's it for now. i am easily convinced otherwise! but IMHO no way
> do Othello/Reversi games get on my list.
I wouldn't put Othello/Reversi on the list of games better than Chess.
For me, better than refers to both elegance (symmetry and lack of
illogical hacks, simplicity, and other such things) in rules, and also
in superior depth of play.
On that note, I would consider the following games better than chess:
- Go
- Octi (beats chess on strategic depth and also simplicity of rules)
- Grand Chess (the pieces result in a more logically symetric game)
- Domination/Focus (supports 2-4 players equally as well)
- Star (obscure game by the maker of Poly-Y)
- Olix (Knizia's Pente derivative)
And I am sure there are others I can't recall now.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Neither do most new themed games; as I said, the percentages are about
> equal.
A game with a theme will likely do better on the simple grounds that
it, if done well, not only appeals to a person who likes games, but to
a person who likes the theme of the game. What I am speaking about is
sales. It is likely an abstract strategy game will get played more
than a theme driven game. Based on this point, two equally as good
games as far as a design point goes, will sell more, if it has a theme
attached to it that also appeals to people.
> I didn't say that at all. I was just rebutting your contention that
older
> abstract games are still around just because they're old - not because
> they're any good.
No, I am saying they are still around because they built up a
following of people that play them, more than anything else. I am not
saying they suck (if they did, they would have disappeared), just that
the years have allow such games to build up a following which has
resulting in more people to spread the word about the game. This is a
reason why the old games remain, along with easily to remember rules,
and easily to replicate components. Success has a way to build on
itself.
> 1. Halma *is* still around.
> 2. Chinese Checkers is known as Halma in many parts of the world
today.
> 3. How is Halma superior when they are virtually the same game?
Halma is the older of the two games, but Chinese Checkers is the
more popular of the two. Chinese checkers modified Halma.
> I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. The Association of Game &
Puzzle
> Collectors (formerly American Game Collectors Association) and several
> museums have archives and catalogs of games & game companies from that
> period (I have a few myself). There were many games available, both
> abstract and themed.
And the large bulk of theme are Game of Goose derivatives, which is
pretty much the same as it happens today.
> There were still many failures - games which did *not* survive simply
> because they were available. A stinker is still a stinker.
It is true that a stinker is a stinker. However, the fact a game is
good in and of itself in no way is a reason why it succeeds. A game
needs more than being good to succeed. The reality is today, there are
a wider selection of games to choose from. And my point is that newer
games do provide superior play mechanics over multiple older game
titles, chess included. The older title will likely remain more
popular than the superior newer title.
> Only the ones that weren't any good in the first place. The better
ones
> *are* still being sold today...
This doesn't mean the BEST ones caught on, however. I am sure
people can roll off a bunch of games they know which are superior to
checkers, but checkers gets played more than these other superior
titles.
> > And they caught on, because they were the only choices people
had,
> Again, this is simply not true. Peruse a few early catalogs from MB,
PB,
> All-Fair, McLaughlin, Horsman, et al and you'll see...
And, there success in no way is completely related to how good they
are. Chess, etc... remains not because it is one of the top games on
the planet, but because it is a good game which managed to build a
community around it. Other superior games failed to build such a
community, so that they tend to hover around the edges as marginal
titles hardly played by anyone.
> > not because they were great. There is some merit to them, but that
> > doesn't mean they are great designs.
>
> Well "great" is in the eye of the player. ;-)
Well, keep in mind humans don't necesarrily stick with what is best,
but sometimes what is easiest to come by and what feels most
comfortable.
> I agree that part of classic abstract games' popularity and longevity
is due
> to easy replication, but I don't think people would bother to
replicate
> those games (it's *still* a lot of work) if they didn't enjoy playing
them
> over and over.
The large bulk of the population gets limited exposure to better
game designs, so then end up sticking with what is comfortable, and
that is what remains popular. A game may be "good enough" so people
stick with it, not knowing better stuff is out there.
> I have no opinion or argument on that point; I'm not a chess player
(or
> studier) :-)
I have played and studied chess enough to know that its kludgy rules
wouldn't go over well today, if it didn't have a built in community of
people playing it today.
Hans Bodlaender
>richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>...[]...
>> There are plenty of abstract strategy games that are superior to Chess,
>> but Chess still remains the number 1 known abstract strategy game.
>...[]...
>
>> - Richard Hutnik
>
>
> not to be antagonistic here, but i would like to see your list of
> abstract strategy games "better than Chess". and also i am not sure
> Chess is number 1. Go has a huge world following.
Actually, even in Japan, more people play Shogi than Go. Probably the number 1
known abstract strategy game would be Xiangqi, Chinese chess.
Hans Bodlaender
--
Hans Bodlaender - Department of Computer Science - Utrecht University
P.O. Box 80.089 - 3508 TB Utrecht - the Netherlands
ha...@cs.uu.nl http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hansb/index.html
Robert Jasiek
>>
- Octi (beats chess on strategic depth and also simplicity of rules)
- Grand Chess (the pieces result in a more logically symetric game)
- Domination/Focus (supports 2-4 players equally as well)
- Star (obscure game by the maker of Poly-Y)
- Olix (Knizia's Pente derivative)
<<
Might you give a short rules overview for each please?
--
robert jasiek
Stephen Tavener
> abstract strategy games "better than Chess". and also i am not sure
> Chess is number 1. Go has a huge world following.
My own criteria are:
1. Simple rules
2. No (known to me) forced draw/win from the opening position
3. First/second player doesn't have a significant advantage
4. No random element
Go
Trax
GIPF
Chase
Gyges
Avalam
TAMSK
ZERTZ
Char
Octi
Pyraos (Pylos)
Lines of Action
Amazons
Twixt (with pie rule)
... and I could come up with a few more if I rummaged through my
shelves.
TTFN,
Stephen
--
Stephen Tavener | There is no such thing
Games bought,sold,traded,played | as "just a cat"
http://www.scat.demon.co.uk/ | - Tanya Huff
richar...@hotmail.com
jas...@berlin.snafu.de wrote:
> richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> - Octi (beats chess on strategic depth and also simplicity of rules)
> - Grand Chess (the pieces result in a more logically symetric game)
Chess on a 10 by 10 board that adds a rook/knight and a
bishop/knight piece to the game. Grand chess was an example of a game
that adds these two pieces to the game for symetry in the rules.
http://www.chessvariants.com
> - Domination/Focus (supports 2-4 players equally as well)
Game consists of moving stacks of pieces. You can control
opponent's pieces as part of a stack. The amount of spaces the stack
moves depends on how big it is. Once a stack gets big enough, pieces
on the bottom are removed. If they belong to the person moving the
stack, the pieces go in a reserve. If they belong to an opponent, they
are removed from the game. Look up games on Sid Sackson for this one.
> - Star (obscure game by the maker of Poly-Y)
Played on a hexagon board, the shape of a hexagon. Players put down
pieces
> - Olix (Knizia's Pente derivative)
Go to the Knizia web site, by one of the Knizias that post on here.
This game focuses on forming different patterns on a board.
> Might you give a short rules overview for each please?
Well, for details, I will leave people to find the rest themselves.
Glenn Kuntz
news:8e324j$i2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8e25th$6792$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > Neither do most new themed games; as I said, the percentages are about
> > equal.
> A game with a theme will likely do better on the simple grounds that
> it, if done well, not only appeals to a person who likes games, but to
> a person who likes the theme of the game. What I am speaking about is
> sales.
That seems to fly in the face of your previous statement that most games are
bought as gifts. (Most mass-market games probably are.) I believe you said
something to the effect that abstracts are bought due to market recognition
and lower price. The people you speak of in the paragraph above appear to
be gamers or game-players, who are (unfortunately) not the "unwashed masses"
we've been talking about. If what you say above were true, all the Trivial
Pursuit special editions should do better sales-wise than the Genus
editions.
Actually, I believe theme is one of the reasons newer games are *not*
catching on with the general public. The themes are often too unfamiliar
(intimidating) to casual game players, or *so* topical as to be fast fads.
> It is likely an abstract strategy game will get played more
> than a theme driven game. Based on this point, two equally as good
> games as far as a design point goes, will sell more, if it has a theme
> attached to it that also appeals to people.
That seems to contradict itself. If the abstract game gets more
play/play-time, it's going to get more exposure to more opponents and
onlookers. Games sell games - not themes.
We should try an experiment: Take a reasonably good game, and put it in both
themed and non-themed form, and go out and play them and see which generates
the most interest. To make it fair, the non-themed version should be as
visually attractive as the themed version. (Of course this has already been
done to death with pachisi and others, but again, to make it fair, it should
be a "new" game.)
>
> > I didn't say that at all. I was just rebutting your contention that
> older
> > abstract games are still around just because they're old - not because
> > they're any good.
> No, I am saying they are still around because they built up a
> following of people that play them, more than anything else. I am not
> saying they suck (if they did, they would have disappeared), just that
> the years have allow such games to build up a following which has
> resulting in more people to spread the word about the game. This is a
> reason why the old games remain, along with easily to remember rules,
> and easily to replicate components. Success has a way to build on
> itself.
Ok, then I misunderstood you.
>
> > 1. Halma *is* still around.
> > 2. Chinese Checkers is known as Halma in many parts of the world
> today.
> > 3. How is Halma superior when they are virtually the same game?
> Halma is the older of the two games, but Chinese Checkers is the
> more popular of the two. Chinese checkers modified Halma.
I still don't see how that makes CC "superior" to Halma, unless you're
saying that popularity/sales equate to superiority, and I don't think you'd
dare to say that... :-) :-)
> > > A reason why they caught on is that they really
> > > were the only games back then available to people. This is the reason
> > > why.
>
> > I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. The Association of Game &
> Puzzle
> > Collectors (formerly American Game Collectors Association) and several
> > museums have archives and catalogs of games & game companies from that
> > period (I have a few myself). There were many games available, both
> > abstract and themed.
> And the large bulk of theme are Game of Goose derivatives, which is
> pretty much the same as it happens today.
No, actually, in the sources I have at my fingertips, the large bulk are
abstracts, skill & action, and themed card games. The reason for that is
that even then, rolling dice and moving pawns around a track probably bored
most people to tears, and they demanded a bit more of a challenge in
adult/family games.
Yes, there are many themed race games, but not all are Goose derivatives
(unless you want to sound like me talking about game archetypes - heaven
forbid! :-) There is one in particular that looks rather interesting - an
auto race game called... hmmm, it has no name listed other than "exciting
auto race" :-( There are multiple lanes in the track (inside lanes being
shorter than outside lanes) and 4 speed dials - the faster the speed, the
more hazards likely. This appears to be a bit more sophisticated than just
roll & move (Goose) - there is actually some thinking about which lane &
which speed to use.
I'm not saying that there weren't plenty of wild goose chases, but I think
you under-rate and underestimate what else was available. While I don't
have one available, the best source should be old Geo. S. Parker & PB
catalogs. Parker catered to more adult tastes in strategy games
(Chivalry/Camelot,) while companies like MB catered more to the
children/educational market.
> > There were still many failures - games which did *not* survive simply
> > because they were available. A stinker is still a stinker.
> It is true that a stinker is a stinker. However, the fact a game is
> good in and of itself in no way is a reason why it succeeds. A game
> needs more than being good to succeed.
Yes, it needs to be *played* and it needs to be fun/satisfying, however one
defines/perceives those.
> The reality is today, there are
> a wider selection of games to choose from.
Unquestionably.
> And my point is that newer
> games do provide superior play mechanics over multiple older game
> titles, chess included.
Then that includes newer abstract games as well.
> The older title will likely remain more
> popular than the superior newer title.
If it's really superior (and I think we'll have to agree that "superior" is
a very subjective term,) then it will endure. Themed games are really still
babes - they haven't been around long enough to determine if they'll endure
for as long as non-themed games. It will be interesting to see if themed
games can endure for centuries - or even for one century - with little or no
change. Monopoly (The Landlord's Game) is probably the closest yet - I
wonder how far it will make it into this century (or how far board games
will make it in general) Printed boardgames moved in on abstracts when
printing became cheaper than other mfg, yet the classics endured. I expect
that printed board games will endure in spite of electronic media (though
many/most will be converted as most abstracts can now be printed.)
> > Only the ones that weren't any good in the first place. The better
> ones
> > *are* still being sold today...
> This doesn't mean the BEST ones caught on, however. I am sure
> people can roll off a bunch of games they know which are superior to
> checkers, but checkers gets played more than these other superior
> titles.
Again, due to its simplicity, replayability, and easy reproduction (not to
mention adaptability - variants.)
Squails is such a game. It is essentially a classic, but as written, is so
bogged down with cumbersome scoring mechanics and vocabulary that it was
eventually replaced by another game that solved most of those hindrances.
> > I agree that part of classic abstract games' popularity and longevity
> is due
> > to easy replication, but I don't think people would bother to
> replicate
> > those games (it's *still* a lot of work) if they didn't enjoy playing
> them
> > over and over.
> The large bulk of the population gets limited exposure to better
> game designs, so then end up sticking with what is comfortable, and
> that is what remains popular. A game may be "good enough" so people
> stick with it, not knowing better stuff is out there.
Or, they stick with what is comfortable because what "gamers" consider
better games/designs just don't suit the tastes of the general population.
I don't think it has much at all to do with exposure - more with taste.
Fact is, most people (general population) don't want to spend more time
learning a game than playing it. If getting through the rules is (to them)
too much like work, they're going to find something different. IME, most of
the general public balks at any game that has rules longer than one side of
a sheet of paper (and the print better not be too small ;-) They want to
learn it in a few minutes, and play it in under an hour. (This is actually
a plus for many simpler abstracts.) German games are trying to take a stab
at this to some degree, but the designers/publishers haven't gotten it yet
that the unfamiliar themes and titles are turning a LOT of people away, as
are the venues in which their games are being sold. I think the market
(consumer mindset) must be quite different in Europe.
Patrick Carroll
Glenn says:
>Actually, I believe theme is one of the reasons newer games are *not*
>catching on with the general public. The themes are often too unfamiliar
>(intimidating) to casual game players, or *so* topical as to be fast fads.
I agree.
>> It is likely an abstract strategy game will get played more
>> than a theme driven game.
I agree.
>If it's really superior (and I think we'll have to agree that "superior" is
>a very subjective term,) then it will endure. Themed games are really still
>babes - they haven't been around long enough to determine if they'll endure
>for as long as non-themed games. It will be interesting to see if themed
>games can endure for centuries - or even for one century - with little or no
>change.
I agree. And my guess is that if the game is really good it may survive, but
the theme itself will change or be stripped away. For the same reason
Shakespeare is fairly often performed in modern dress, with obscure topical
lines edited out. In general, "theme" is far more ephemeral than underlying
game quality.
>> The large bulk of the population gets limited exposure to better
>> game designs, so then end up sticking with what is comfortable, and
>> that is what remains popular. A game may be "good enough" so people
>> stick with it, not knowing better stuff is out there.
>
>Or, they stick with what is comfortable because what "gamers" consider
>better games/designs just don't suit the tastes of the general population.
>I don't think it has much at all to do with exposure - more with taste.
>Fact is, most people (general population) don't want to spend more time
>learning a game than playing it. If getting through the rules is (to them)
>too much like work, they're going to find something different. IME, most of
>the general public balks at any game that has rules longer than one side of
>a sheet of paper (and the print better not be too small ;-) They want to
>learn it in a few minutes, and play it in under an hour.
I agree. And I'd add that most people don't want to even have to *read* that
single sheet of rules. They much prefer learning the game from someone who
already knows how to play.
***
Great discussion thread! Glenn has been saying everything I wanted to say, so
there's no point in my chiming in.
I'll just say one thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet. There can
be a certain aesthetic appeal to abstract games which, for some, is stronger
than the attraction to themes.
For instance, even though I don't play much chess anymore, I don't think
there's another game that comes close to the look & feel of a fine chess set.
It's not just the sculpted pieces themselves, but also the symmetry and "battle
array" setup. And the fact that it's detached from any specific theme--and can
therefore be symbolic of most anything one might imagine. IMHO, this aesthetic
factor doesn't just make chess a nice gift or display piece; it contributes to
its being a superior game.
Lots of mah-jongg fans admittedly claim it as their favorite game primarily
because of the beautiful set of tiles.
Now, if chess and mah-jongg had nothing *but* nice-looking components, I doubt
they'd be around anymore. A game has to have good underlying mechanics; it has
to be fun, interesting, and challenging. But I think it's unfair to dismiss
the components out of hand, as an incidental or unimportant part of what the
game is. For many people, the physical game-set--and sometimes also the
history and tradition behind it--is a primary consideration.
I myself have rejected the likes of Othello/Reversi and Abalone just because
they have the sterile, simplistic look of a modern mathematician's creation.
These games may be deeper or more challenging, or more play-balanced, than
chess. But I couldn't care less. Chess is way deeper and more challenging
than I'd ever be able to handle anyway--and it looks much better and has a
longer, richer tradition than the newfangled games.
As Glenn said, though, "superior" is a very subjective term. The "kludginess"
of chess may bother a mathematically oriented purist who's seeking a deep,
intellectually satisfying abstract contest. But to a liberal-arts gamer like
me, that "kludginess" is called *character*--and it's a very desirable thing.
I much prefer a game with it to one without it.
Furthermore, if a game has that kind of "character," it doesn't (IMHO) need
theme. An abstract game with character (e.g., chess, mah-jongg, classic card
games, dominoes, and so forth) has a certain "vaguely theme-like something"
which can last through the centuries, appealing to generation after generation.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
... SNIP ...
> > It is likely an abstract strategy game will get played more
> > than a theme driven game. Based on this point, two equally as good
> > games as far as a design point goes, will sell more, if it has a
theme
> > attached to it that also appeals to people.
>
> That seems to contradict itself. If the abstract game gets more
> play/play-time, it's going to get more exposure to more opponents and
> onlookers. Games sell games - not themes.
>
> We should try an experiment: Take a reasonably good game, and put it
in both
> themed and non-themed form, and go out and play them and see which
generates
> the most interest. To make it fair, the non-themed version should be
as
> visually attractive as the themed version. (Of course this has
already been
> done to death with pachisi and others, but again, to make it fair, it
should
> be a "new" game.)
... SNIP ...
Ok, the crux of the discussion is now focusing on the following. Is
this correct you are saying that a game having a theme is more of a
detriment to its success than if it had a theme?
If so, then this becomes the crux of the debate. Does a game having a
theme help or hurt its success?
I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
would cost the game's success.
Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
Robert Rossney
news:$vD41GAC...@scat.demon.co.uk...
[list of putatively better-than-chess abstract games snipped]
> Twixt (with pie rule)
Pie rule? What's that. I've never heard of it. (Mmmm, pie.)
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
William F. Campbell
>
> Pie rule? What's that. I've never heard of it. (Mmmm, pie.)
>
> Bob Rossney
The pie rule is a method of balancing certain two-player games where
the first player has an advantage. Basically it comes from the method
of evenly dividing a lice of (mmmm) pie between two people -- one
person cuts, the other chooses. So it's to the first players
advantage to cut the pie exactly in half, since he will presumably
always get a smaller piece otherwise.
In a game such as Twixt or Hex where the initial play in the center
gives the first player a strategic advantage (or even Go or Chess),
the pie rule can approximately cancel the advantage. First player
(white) moves, then second player chooses whether to play the white
pieces or the black pieces. So the first player tries to choose a
move that's neither too good (it'll get stolen) or too bad (he'll be
left with it).
A nice discussion of this and other game balancing rules (such as
bidding to play first, playing a set of games with equal chances at
going first, and playing two games simultaneously with opposite
pieces) can be found in R. Wayne Schmittberger's excellent, wonderful,
must-have, go out and buy it right now! book, New Rules For Classic
Games, 1992, pub. by John Wiley & Sons.
As an interesting mathematical aside, it is possible to construct "pie
rules" for more than two players. Even more interesting, it is
possible to construct rules that are not only fair, but everyone will
believe that they got a fair deal, which is quite a bit harder.
Bill Campbell
Robert Chang
> Ok, the crux of the discussion is now focusing on the following. Is
> this correct you are saying that a game having a theme is more of a
> detriment to its success than if it had a theme?
>
> If so, then this becomes the crux of the debate. Does a game having a
> theme help or hurt its success?
>
> I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
> that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
> strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
> that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
> would cost the game's success.
>
> Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
I would say that the merits of theme depend highly on your target audience.
I think that abstract games have a much better chance to appeal to
non-gamers. I say this because one of the problems about getting
non-gamers to play board games, is that they perceive them as childish.
Having a fanciful theme only feeds into that. Of course, this isn't always
true. Themes which have a personal connection to a non-gamer will probably
be appealing (Tikal to an archaeologist) and novelty/parody themes will
also probably do OK. I don't have any evidence to back this up, just my
own personal experiences.
-bob
--
Graham Wills
> I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
> that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
> strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
> that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
> would cost the game's success.
> Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
I'm very split on this. The empirical evidence indicates that succesful
games that are old are abstract in nature, but I find it easy to
believe that that's an artifact of production techniques rather than
real difference.
Myself, I like a variety of games with both thin and thick themes,
so I find no help there. Of modern successes, we have abstract games
such as trivial pursuit and themed games such as Monopoly. I can't
even decide if Scrabble is themed or unthemed.
My personal feeling, weak though it is, is that a theme helps people
start playing a game and influewnces them to try it, but that
the abstarct mechanisms underlying it are what keep them playing,
and that if they are played long enough (across generations), the
mechanisms are all that will survive.
Chess, for example, started more themed than it is now. Perhaps in
a century people will be playing Cattan, where a random set of
colored hexes are laid out and players place Nodes and Edges so as
to balance a set of colors being earned and allow purchase of new
Edges and Nodes. Perhaps that will be success.
- Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Glenn Kuntz
news:8e4fcb$dh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8e45gp$65d2$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> ... SNIP ...
>
> > > It is likely an abstract strategy game will get played more
> > > than a theme driven game. Based on this point, two equally as good
> > > games as far as a design point goes, will sell more, if it has a
> theme
> > > attached to it that also appeals to people.
> >
> > That seems to contradict itself. If the abstract game gets more
> > play/play-time, it's going to get more exposure to more opponents and
> > onlookers. Games sell games - not themes.
> >
> > We should try an experiment: Take a reasonably good game, and put it
> in both
> > themed and non-themed form, and go out and play them and see which
> generates
> > the most interest. To make it fair, the non-themed version should be
> as
> > visually attractive as the themed version. (Of course this has
> already been
> > done to death with pachisi and others, but again, to make it fair, it
> should
> > be a "new" game.)
>
>
> Ok, the crux of the discussion is now focusing on the following. Is
> this correct you are saying that a game having a theme is more of a
> detriment to its success than if it had a theme?
Let me answer what I *think* you meant, rather than what you typed... ;-)
As you say below (in essence) it depends on the theme. Monopoly's theme
worked because it was about fantasizing being a real estate tycoon during
the Depression. It was something most people could relate to. OTOH, most
German-style and other niche themed games cater to a much smaller
demographic, hence will never gain the popularity of a Monopoly.
When you think about it, many of what the general public considers perennial
favorites (modern big sellers) are devoid (or nearly devoid) of theme...
Sorry, Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit, cards & dominoes, popular abstracts...
I'm not saying that theme doesn't sell; it certainly does
> If so, then this becomes the crux of the debate. Does a game having a
> theme help or hurt its success?
Assuming you mean success as sales (as you previously stated) I would say it
depends on the particular game, theme, and target audience. It could do
either.
> I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
> that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
> strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
> that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
> would cost the game's success.
I don't think people who play board games for fantasy represent the public
at large; I think most of the general public plays the occasional boardgame
as a (or part of a) social thing.
Themes that are too specialized or unfamiliar are going to be turn-offs to
large segments of the general population. Themes that large(r) numbers of
people can relate to in some way are (logically) more likely to become
commercial successes.
A note here: Game designers are artists. A lot of them don't (and
shouldn't) necessarily care about pleasing huge numbers of players at the
expense of compromising their designs/visions, and some *prefer* to cater to
small specific audiences. God Bless them for this! As we've all agreed
here before, a commercial success does not necessarily a great game make
(and vice versa).
> Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
> - Richard Hutnik
The CROKINOLE Board
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
Glenn Kuntz
1. Most abstract games are 2-player games, and as such, are perceived to be
more intimate (personal) than multi-player games.
2. Abstract games are perceived to be "heavier" (more strategy-oriented)
than themed games.
These perceptions may also figure into the success of themed vs. non-themed
games.
*standard disclaimers apply ;-)
Patrick Carroll
>theme help or hurt its success?
I'll qualify my two cents' worth by saying I have no experience with selling
games. I've just bought lots of 'em in my time and spent quite a few years
thinking about and discussing and playing games with people.
My gut feeling is that theme probably does help sell games--simply because
people browsing for games (as gifts or for themselves) are likely to be
attracted by a box cover which presents some sort of popular or dramatic theme.
But then again, I think that's almost an irrelevant point. So what if Marge is
browsing through a game store and, spotting a board game about beer drinking,
says to herself, "Gosh, I'll bet Homer would just love a game like this!" Poor
Homer has to fake gratitude and hope Marge doesn't notice that he never plays
the game--because he likes drinking beer, not playing games about beer.
The real question is, are themed games more likely to be *played* than
non-themed games? Sales has nothing to do with it; it's how often games get
played that's interesting. And how long they keep being played before they're
overshadowed by some newer, better game.
If we consider this question, I think Glenn has been right on the mark. Theme
is basically a flash in the pan--and a possible turn-off to many people who
open a game box for the first time. If Homer does open the beer-drinking game,
he'll only play it if his daughter Lisa can quickly read the rules and teach
him to play; no way is he going to read the rules himself--not even if they're
just a page long. Yet Homer will gladly show up every Friday night for the
regular poker game--a game nobody in his gaming group has ever read the rules
to.
OTOH, an elaborate game with a fantasy theme may be very attractive to Lisa,
who happens to be a fan of Tolkien. Having read all Tolkien's works, now she
can vicariously explore Middle Earth in this fascinating board game. Even if
the rulebook is as thick as a telephone directory, Lisa may still delve into
the game. But she's is a nerdy reader, not just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill
person. Since she already loves to read, a thick rulebook is just the ticket
for her. But she'll never get her dumb brother Bart to play. Not even if
she's willing to patiently teach him the basic rules. Because Bart, like most
ordinary people, doesn't have the patience to sit and learn that much.
And what's Bart's favorite game? Probably a computer video game. But when
Homer was Bart's age, and was stuck indoors on a rainy day, he never played
anything more complex than Aggravation. Even Monopoly and Clue were much too
complicated for his taste. More likely, he'd slip away and shoot craps--or
make up a game that involved setting up toy soldiers and knocking them down
with a rubber-band gun.
So, who plays games like chess, go, shogi, bridge, checkers, and
nine-men's-morris? Probably Bart's nerdy friend Milhouse. This
thick-spectacled brain is just the sort of oddball who'd look at games and see
something really cool--something worth applying oneself to and getting good at.
Everyone around him can see that Milhouse is wasting his life on these
intellectual pastimes, but he himself is sure that there's something very
special about games which everyone else is overlooking. Still, it's a lot
easier for Milhouse to get someone to play checkers with him than it is for
Lisa to get someone to play the monstrous, heavily themed Tolkien game. At
least Milhouse doesn't have a ream of rules to read before the game can start.
And who does Settlers of Catan appeal to? Lisa! She's been wanting all her
life to get family members to play a game with her, but her kind of game was
always too involved for them. With Settlers, she can get her mom and dad--and
maybe even Bart--to play. Maybe it's not as satisfying to her as the fantasy
monstrosity, but at least it's a game everyone else can tolerate.
Which games get played the most? Games which are easy to teach and learn,
fast-moving and reasonably short, aesthetically pleasing, challenging but not
overwhelming, interesting but not too involved--and fun for all. Theme factors
in at only two points: (1) as a lure to get a shopper to pick up a game in the
first place, and (2) as a sop for the literary types who just like theme for
its own sake. Oh, and maybe at a third point: (3) to provide some reassurance
that the game is not too serious, like chess or bridge; theme can make a game
look friendly and less intimidating (and when it serves as a mnemonic device,
theme can make a game actually *be* less intimidating & more friendly).
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Christopher Bourassa
"escape" and a "fantasy" is getting more irksome each time you mention it.
Can you honestly say that gamers play games for "the fantasy" of it?
Gamers play games for the games. Simple. The wargamer doesn't play a
wargame because he wants to pretend that he's in the tank. He wants to
show that he has superior tactics. I also don't believe that a themed game
would sell better than a non themed game because I don't believe that
gamers truly care about theme. It's the gameplay that counts. Games are
like movies in this regard. Maybe a game or movie may look nice, but if
there isn't anything underneath most people will not enjoy it. I have many
hobbies, but if I saw two games at a gaming store I would not buy the one
that had the theme necessarily. If I saw two games, one of which had a
theme I was very interested in and another without a theme (or one that I
didn't have any interest in) which happened to be from Alan R. Moon or
Reiner Knizia, I would buy that game. Why? Because of the history.
Because the gameplay will be exciting. That is what attracts games to
people.
richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <8e45gp$65d2$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> ... SNIP ...
>
> > > It is likely an abstract strategy game will get played more
> > > than a theme driven game. Based on this point, two equally as good
> > > games as far as a design point goes, will sell more, if it has a
> theme
> > > attached to it that also appeals to people.
> >
> > That seems to contradict itself. If the abstract game gets more
> > play/play-time, it's going to get more exposure to more opponents and
> > onlookers. Games sell games - not themes.
> >
> > We should try an experiment: Take a reasonably good game, and put it
> in both
> > themed and non-themed form, and go out and play them and see which
> generates
> > the most interest. To make it fair, the non-themed version should be
> as
> > visually attractive as the themed version. (Of course this has
> already been
> > done to death with pachisi and others, but again, to make it fair, it
> should
> > be a "new" game.)
>
> ... SNIP ...
>
> Ok, the crux of the discussion is now focusing on the following. Is
> this correct you are saying that a game having a theme is more of a
> detriment to its success than if it had a theme?
>
> If so, then this becomes the crux of the debate. Does a game having a
> theme help or hurt its success?
>
> I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
> that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
> strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
> that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
> would cost the game's success.
>
> Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
nates
> If so, then this becomes the crux of the debate. Does a game having a
> theme help or hurt its success?
>
> I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
> that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
> strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
> that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
> would cost the game's success.
>
> Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
> - Richard Hutnik
what do we mean by "success"? is it sales? yeah, then more themed
games are sold than if they werent themed. well, it shouldnt be sales.
more people buy mcdonalds hamburgers than chateau briand steaks.
should it be "the amount of literature published that is devoted to
this game"??? here is where chess gets a big boost over Octi....
just how should we measure success? *
curiously, Chess itself is themed. the pieces are named after some kind
of King Arthur-style ficton. would people take it up as much if the
pieces were instead stacked chips (1 high for pawns, 2 for knights, 3
for bishops, 4 for rooks, 5 for the queen and 6 for the king) and given
plain names like "ones", "twos", threes", "fours", the "five" & "six"?
Go, on the other hand, uses pieces that are not intended to be anything
other than a simple physical realization of their abstraction.
- nate
* "we measure success one move at a time!" - Smith & Barney
Christian Killoran
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e4fcb$dh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Ok, the crux of the discussion is now focusing on the following. Is
> this correct you are saying that a game having a theme is more of a
> detriment to its success than if it had a theme?
>
> theme help or hurt its success?
>
> I would say a game is more likely to have success if it has a theme
> that appeals to people, than one that has no theme (aka, an abstract
> strategy game). You seem to be saying differently. It sounds to me
> that you are saying that appealing to gamers who play games for fantasy
> would cost the game's success.
>
> Anyone else care to join in on this and add their 2 cents?
Here's my 2 cents (and it's probably worth just that). In most cases, theme
issues don't matter much to me. I enjoy both heavily themed games as well
as games that have no theme at all. I also hate some games that fall into
both categories. I think the games I admire most, though, are those where
theme elements genuinely add to the game - either in helping teach/learn the
game, or influencing gameplay itself. Games where the theme seems "tacked
on" often bug me more than they should.
Bottom line - do themes make games more successful? Sometimes yes,
sometimes no. It's one of the last things I look at when evaluating a game.
Geenius at Wrok
> Ok, the crux of the discussion is now focusing on the following. Is
> this correct you are saying that a game having a theme is more of a
> detriment to its success than if it had a theme?
>
> If so, then this becomes the crux of the debate. Does a game having a
> theme help or hurt its success?
My guess is that it helps in the short term but doesn't help (I wouldn't
go as far as to say "hurts") in the long term. The main reason is that
the sole function of the theme is to add imaginative appeal by drawing on
elements that the players will think are "neato." For example, I think
Japanese stuff is neato, so I find Samurai more enjoyable than if it had
incorporated a theme of, say, gold prospecting, which is not neato to me.
Over time, however, cultural referents shift. In the '80s, I thought '70s
stuff was about as un-neato as anything could get. Actually, I still
think so, but a lot of people younger than I am see the '70s differently.
Certain staple games such as Careers and Life are good examples -- over
time they become less relevant because people don't make the same
assumptions about what constitutes a typical life or career. On the other
hand, Monopoly is buying and selling real estate; that hasn't really
changed at all.
And that's just over the course of a few decades. Many modern card games
can be traced back a century or more. Chess as we know it dates back to
the 15th century, and its predecessors are maybe twice that old. Go can
be plausibly dated to 500 BC. What theme could we possibly have in common
with someone from 2,500 years ago? Even war is a flimsy signifier to
attach to chess or go. These games have survived mainly because they're
geometric. Lines, squares and circles. Card games are just a matter of
counting and matching. Civilizations rise and fall, but math is still
math.
Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that Settlers is built to last
than other people are, because its theme isn't trendy or transient. Like
Monopoly, it almost exists outside time. Exploring an unpeopled island
isn't going to be suddenly rendered irrelevant by social events. On the
other hand, look at how difficult it's been for Trivial Pursuit, a game
that couldn't exist without a widely shared popular culture, to remain
relevant and interesting for just 15 years.
There's another factor that I think is at least as important as theme, and
that's copyright. Anyone with a little skill and the right materials can
make a functional chessboard or set of dominoes. In theory, it should be
no more difficult to do the same with a Scrabble set (or, as has been
observed here, a Lost Cities deck), but people just don't. Copyright
seems to be something of a one-way door: Battleship, Balderdash,
Scattergories, Pictionary, Yahtzee and Mastermind were all parlor and/or
pencil-and-paper games (called salvo, dictionary, Guggenheim, picture
charades, yacht and jotto) before they were trademarked and mass-produced,
and now hardly anyone plays them without buying the commercial products.
Yet very few commercially produced games devolve into what you might call
"vernacular" versions. The most likely reason aside from complexity is
copyright.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Patrick Carroll
>
>1. Most abstract games are 2-player games, and as such, are perceived to be
>more intimate (personal) than multi-player games.
Hmmm. Then again, one history I read said that chess started out as a 4-player
game with dice, and evolved over the generations into a 2-player game without
dice. Then there's the likes of pachisi and Chinese checkers, for 4-6 players.
And if we count card & domino type games as "abstract" there are probably more
many-player than 2-player games out there.
The pattern that seems to strike me is: abstract (i.e., non-explicitly-themed)
games seem to fall into two categories: (1) multi-player, usually *with* a
chance element, and (2) 2-player, usually *without* a chance element
(backgammon being a notable exception).
If the 2-player games are more intimate, maybe it's in the sense of "OK, now
that it's just us, let's put the dice away and go head-to-head." In a sense,
that seems kinda like anti-intimacy to me. It's as if the struggle gets
fiercer.
>2. Abstract games are perceived to be "heavier" (more strategy-oriented)
>than themed games.
Except when there's a luck element present. To me, a game is still abstract
(i.e., not explicity themed) even if it involves dice or cards. (That wouldn't
fly in rec.games.abstract; but it seems to suit this discussion.)
Add dice or a spinner, and an abstract game immediately loses that perception
of "heaviness."
>These perceptions may also figure into the success of themed vs. non-themed
>games.
Maybe. My thoughts are:
1. An abstract game with no chance element is perceived as a serious "thinking
person's" game--more work than play, but with admirable intellectual depth.
Best suited for just two players.
2. An abstract game with dice or some other randomizer is perceived as a
light, just-for-fun gamble of a game--more play than work, and suitable for any
number of players.
3. Theme can ameliorate the "heaviness" perception of strategy-type games to
some degree. It does so by adding rules, and usually surface playing area as
well. In short, it introduces breadth to the game, thus calling players'
attention away from the game's strategic depth. Players more often get lost or
feel the game is just too big or complex to master, so they settle for taking
their best shot & seeing what happens. That's almost like there being a chance
element present.
4. When both theme and a chance element is present (and they almost always do
go hand-in-hand), the game is probably taken least seriously--by everyone
*except* those who are really into the theme. On one hand, there's the dicey
aspect, which takes the edge off competition; and at the same time, there's the
imaginative theme, which calls players' attention away from sheer abstract
reasoning. But if the game is designed as a serious simulation, those who are
into the battle or adventure or whatever is being presented may take it quite
seriously.
Then again, there are players who take all games seriously--and others who take
all games as just for fun.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Paul (Seriously Fun Games)
<bour...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>I also don't believe that a themed game
>would sell better than a non themed game because I don't believe that
>gamers truly care about theme. It's the gameplay that counts.
I wouldn't downplay the importance of theme, though certainly theme
alone won't carry a game too far. There are plenty of games with
great themes that tanked because of poor gameplay. OTOH, to me, a
game without a theme is like toast without butter. My wife and I love
Caesar & Cleopatra, but we probably wouldn't like it as much if it was
played with ordinary playing cards. You need to have style to go with
the substance (as with any consumer product, from silverware to cars).
For that reason I disagree with your assertion that theme has no
effect on sales.
Paul
Seriously Fun Games
http://ww.seriouslyfungames.com
Patrick Carroll
>to me, a
>game without a theme is like toast without butter. My wife and I love
>Caesar & Cleopatra, but we probably wouldn't like it as much if it was
>played with ordinary playing cards. You need to have style to go with
>the substance
I agree. But style varies with taste. Personally I think "ordinary" playing
cards have *more* style than the C&C cards or any other "themed" cards. And
it's precisely because I happen to admire classic style more than trendy or
topical styles.
Besides, one can always use his imagination to fill in whatever "theme" would
graphically portray. An advantage of doing that is that it customizes every
game to one's individual taste--and does so dynamically, so that as one's taste
changes, his imagination stays in step.
If I happen to hate ancient Rome, C&C might be a turn-off for me for that
reason alone, no matter how good a game it is. But if we're playing gin rummy
instead, you can be picturing ancient Rome & Egypt, while my imagination roams
to the American Civil War or something else.
Just a thought for the day.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
richar...@hotmail.com
Christopher Bourassa <bour...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
> I must be honest and say that your argument about gamers who play
games for
> "escape" and a "fantasy" is getting more irksome each time you
mention it.
> Can you honestly say that gamers play games for "the fantasy" of it?
play games. Some people like the fantasy element to the game. For a
person who plays RPGs, for example, the fantasy element is more
important than for someone who plays chess.
> Gamers play games for the games. Simple. The wargamer doesn't play a
> wargame because he wants to pretend that he's in the tank. He wants
to
> show that he has superior tactics.
You overly simplify. One motivation for some wargamers is to
reenact a famous battle to do historical "what-if", and see if the
historical results could of been different. To say that no wargamers
cares about a game having a good theme and a game with realistic result
begs the question: if this is so, then why are there complaints by
grognards about a game generating bogus historical results or not
being "realistic". And why do some historical battles sell better than
others?
>I also don't believe that a themed game
> would sell better than a non themed game because I don't believe that
> gamers truly care about theme. It's the gameplay that counts.
Again, it depends on the type of people. If Warhammer weren't a
minitures game, involving pieces you painted that look like tiny
troops, would it be as popular? People pour hours into painting their
minitures, and designing semi-realistic battlefields for a reason, and
it isn't just because they like to do art. RPGs are also nearly
completely driven by theme or backstory. Heck, the Fading Suns RPG
wouldn't be as cool or as much of interest if it weren't for the wacky
hybrid space age-dark ages backstory it has.
>Games are
> like movies in this regard. Maybe a game or movie may look nice, but
if
> there isn't anything underneath most people will not enjoy it.
I don't think you may want to refer to a movie as an example. They
storyline of the movie is what appeals to people. It has something
there, beyond the basic mechanics of filmmaking, that appeals to a
person. For example, if I like westerns, I am more apt to see a
western than some well done movie about two men talking in a diner for
the entire film. I see it, because I like westerns, even if it is
inferior to the two men talking in the diner film. (How many films were
more popular, and generated more revenue than "My Diner with Andre"?).
>I have many
> hobbies, but if I saw two games at a gaming store I would not buy the
one
> that had the theme necessarily. If I saw two games, one of which had
a
> theme I was very interested in and another without a theme (or one
that I
> didn't have any interest in) which happened to be from Alan R. Moon or
> Reiner Knizia, I would buy that game. Why? Because of the history.
> Because the gameplay will be exciting. That is what attracts games to
> people.
It attracts some people to it. However, I can give you multiple
counterexamples against this. Themes are a double edge sword, but some
games are dependent on theme to work. If I run wargames past a
wargaming group, they are far more likely to want to play it than a
German game. The simple fact is that it is the theme that sells the
game to these people.
Glenn Kuntz
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e6p1d$sov$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> Themes are a double edge sword...<snip>
There ya go! :-D
Graham Wills
> >2. Abstract games are perceived to be "heavier" (more strategy-oriented)
> >than themed games.
Not true for wargames.
> 1. An abstract game with no chance element is perceived as a serious "thinking
> person's" game--more work than play, but with admirable intellectual depth.
> Best suited for just two players.
Agreed.
> 2. An abstract game with dice or some other randomizer is perceived as a
> light, just-for-fun gamble of a game--more play than work, and suitable for any
> number of players.
Bridge would be a strogn counter-example. Abstract with randomizer and
as deadly serious as you want it to be.
> 4. When both theme and a chance element is present (and they almost always do
> go hand-in-hand), the game is probably taken least seriously--by everyone
> *except* those who are really into the theme.
Again, war games are an example of a large genre that is heavily themed
and often has a high chance element (EG battles in blue vs. gray most
commonly are decided 2/3 by chance, 1/3 by superiority), yet are
taken very seriously.
-Graham
richar...@hotmail.com
>
> <snip>
>
> > Themes are a double edge sword...<snip>
>
> There ya go! :-D
However, abstract games have no edge to them, and no advantage. A
theme, at least, gives the game something that makes it stand out as
being different. An abstract strategy game is usually percieved as
just a conglomeration of arbitrarily picked rules that are just chosen
for some unknown reason that is not apparent by reading over the rules
or observing the game rules. This freedom can result in a more elegant
design that one that is bound to a theme, however. But, a game with a
theme attached will more likely have neato looking pieces that
captivate the perspective buyer of the game. Given a choice between a
triangle/dome/square or a soldier/knight/automobile, the more theme
based looking piece will capture the perspective buyer of the game
better. Of course, this is assuming that both pieces are made with
equal craftmanship and components.
So, to sum up this round, a theme does give a game quicker sell to
someone who is interested in that theme.
richar...@hotmail.com
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
> I agree. But style varies with taste. Personally I think "ordinary"
playing
> cards have *more* style than the C&C cards or any other "themed"
cards. And
> it's precisely because I happen to admire classic style more than
trendy or
> topical styles.
Well, you are a person who thought dominos was the ultimate game at
one time, so I think we need to discount you from the sample size of
usual people, unless it can be documented that most people have a
liking for games just because they are classics, and are into
tradition. By the way, style does count in a game, but theme also is a
way to invoke style into the game. It gives the style of a game a
purpose.
> Besides, one can always use his imagination to fill in
whatever "theme" would
> graphically portray. An advantage of doing that is that it
customizes every
> game to one's individual taste--and does so dynamically, so that as
one's taste
> changes, his imagination stays in step.
Some people can. But ask fans of Axis and Allies, and games
with "little plastic men" to use the cardboard counters found in a
usual wargame, with NATO symbols on it, and they will balk at you.
Some people just need stuff that is tangible to get into the mood. The
same goes with fans of miniatures. Myself, I have the game Space Hulk,
and I left my figures unpainted in it. For others, that would just be
heresy. Heck, I would even play Space Hulk without the plastic minis,
but others won't.
> If I happen to hate ancient Rome, C&C might be a turn-off for me for
that
> reason alone, no matter how good a game it is. But if we're playing
gin rummy
> instead, you can be picturing ancient Rome & Egypt, while my
imagination roams
> to the American Civil War or something else.
Tell me how in the living begebbers does Rummy remind you of the
Civil War? I am sorry, but I don't think of Lee or Grant when I form a
meld.
By the way, in my case, I do fall into the camp where I don't care
about the theme, but gameplay comes first. But, when I think you talk
to casual gamers, a theme would be important to them.
- Richard Hutnik
> Just a thought for the day.
And some more...
Myrddin Emrys
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net>:
>As you say below (in essence) it depends on the theme. Monopoly's theme
>worked because it was about fantasizing being a real estate tycoon during
>the Depression. It was something most people could relate to. OTOH, most
>German-style and other niche themed games cater to a much smaller
>demographic, hence will never gain the popularity of a Monopoly.
>
>When you think about it, many of what the general public considers perennial
>favorites (modern big sellers) are devoid (or nearly devoid) of theme...
>Sorry, Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit, cards & dominoes, popular abstracts...
I would like to point out that this argument might be heading in slightly
the wrong direction. I'm reminded of the argument that Ice Cream sales in
Florida cause murders... the more Ice Cream sold in Florida, the higher the
violent death rate. Of course, the real reason is heat, but a simple
correlation might point to Ice Cream as the cause.
Some popular abstract games are a theme in and of themselves... Trivial
Pursuit is such. The theme is trivia, and the game nearly defines the genre.
I think Scrabble should also be classified in this manner. They are thinking
games, totally reliant on mental acuity, and their theme is the mental area
they exercise.
Others you named are popular because of the very low cost of entry. A deck
of cards is common, versatile, and mobile. Any game which is based on a card
deck will be more common per 'fun unit' than a game based on proprietary
game pieces and boards.
Poker is an interesting combination of these... it is a thinking game, with
significant social factors, played with a generic deck of cards, and with
the thrill of risk tossed in.
The games that I see as most equivalent to a 'themed game' are Sorry,
Pacheesi, and other similar boardgames. However, I don't think that Chess,
Sorry, Pacheesi, or others (such as... umm... that one with the popper thing
in the middle of the board that has two dice inside) that have abstract
themes and proprietary boards are much different in popularity than themed
games with proprietary equipment.
What I *do* think abstract games have an advantage in is LONGEVITY and
INTERNATIONALITY. Since they are not based upon the memes popular at the
time and location of their conception, and are not tied to popular cultural
references, they can transfer unchanged from country to country and year to
year. This means that the most popular abstract games can live on for
potentially hundreds of years.
A game such as, say, pokemon trading cards, can be very popular, sell
millions of units, and still be a very good game (and it is too... well
designed and well balanced, with good depth of play). But because it is tied
so tightly to a particular theme it immediately gives itself a 'timebomb'...
as the cultural ties dwindle and fade, so does the game. However, new games
of nearly equal gameplay but with a new theme can 'carry the torch'. This is
also true of games like Trivial Pursuit and 'Life', both of which are
updated periodically with newer versions to keep up with the times.
Finally, some games have themes, but they are very enduring they have lasted
quite a long time... these include Monopoly and Chutes and Ladders. Both
games have somewhat 'generic' themes that are not too tied to a particular
culture or time... real-estate and playgrounds are pretty universal I think.
They share the advantages of abstract games (not tied to a particular time
or society) and those of themed games (having a visual and mental reference
for the actions of the game). Chutes and Ladders in particular would suffer
greatly without the theme... it is a very bland game in the abstract.
$0.2
Myrddin
Christopher Bourassa
clearly. I meant to say that theme is not as important to most of us as
is the gameplay.
"Paul (Seriously Fun Games)" wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:33:36 -0400, Christopher Bourassa
> <bour...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> >I also don't believe that a themed game
> >would sell better than a non themed game because I don't believe that
> >gamers truly care about theme. It's the gameplay that counts.
>
> I wouldn't downplay the importance of theme, though certainly theme
> alone won't carry a game too far. There are plenty of games with
> great themes that tanked because of poor gameplay. OTOH, to me, a
> game without a theme is like toast without butter. My wife and I love
> Caesar & Cleopatra, but we probably wouldn't like it as much if it was
> played with ordinary playing cards. You need to have style to go with
Dave Boyd
> Tell me how in the living begebbers does Rummy remind you of the
>Civil War? I am sorry, but I don't think of Lee or Grant when I form a
>meld.
Patrick lives a rich life of the mind... maybe TOO rich, if you know what
I mean... ;^)
--
Dave Boyd
Cosmic Encounter: the best game ever
Dennis Matheson
<9ojegscqnfasqp52c...@4ax.com>...
>>snip<<
>(such as... umm... that one with the popper thing in the middle of the
board that has
>two dice inside)
"Pop-o-matic" Trouble
--
"Sometimes I think the web is a big plot to keep people like me away from
normal society." --- Dilbert
den...@mountaindiver.com --- http://www.mountaindiver.com
den...@gamepile.com --- http://www.gamepile.com Updated!
Christopher Bourassa
this argument I assumed that we were talking about board games or card
games. One thing I think we should make clear is whether wargames and
miniature games can be classified as "theme". You mention wargames fairly
often, and I suspect that you are a wargamer. I'm not sure how you or
others feel about it, but I would categorize wargames and miniature games as
types of games. Wargames and miniatures games certainly have a theme within
them whether it be individual battles of famous wars or an entire campaign,
but I don't think we can call the game itself a theme.
I mention this because I think it's difficult to compare a wargame to an
abstract strategy game. A wargamer would likely purchase a wargame with
very little theme before he would purchase an abstract strategy game with a
theme he likes because he prefers wargames. To compare themed games vs.
non-themed games, I think, we need to compare and contrast games within a
similar category. For example, how would a themed strategy game compare to
an abstract strategy game?
I still don't agree that people play games for the "fantasy" aspect. People
play games, in my opinion, for the human interaction and because of the
competition. It's a social gathering. Personally, I don't know anyone who
tries to immerse themselves into the "fantasy" of the game. But obviously
we have different opinions on this.
You argue that some wargames do not generate accurate, historical results
and thus, it is proof of the importance of theme. This is illogical to me.
What does the theme have to do with realistic, or historically accurate
results? Rather, it is the gameplay which would affect the results, and not
the theme. This is just more proof of the importance of excellent gameplay
over theme.
And I have no doubt that the wargamers you know would rather play a wargame
than a German strategy game. This can be expected. Is this supposed to be
a valid point in your argument? I do not know for certain, but I'm willing
to bet that basketball players would rather play a game of basketball than a
wargame. Basketball is their hobby! It isn't really a fair comparison of
theme vs. non-theme.
richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <39060F2F...@ma.ultranet.com>,
> Christopher Bourassa <bour...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
> > I must be honest and say that your argument about gamers who play
> games for
> > "escape" and a "fantasy" is getting more irksome each time you
> mention it.
> > Can you honestly say that gamers play games for "the fantasy" of it?
> You have to keep in mind, there are multiple motivations why people
> play games. Some people like the fantasy element to the game. For a
> person who plays RPGs, for example, the fantasy element is more
> important than for someone who plays chess.
>
> > Gamers play games for the games. Simple. The wargamer doesn't play a
> > wargame because he wants to pretend that he's in the tank. He wants
> to
> > show that he has superior tactics.
> You overly simplify. One motivation for some wargamers is to
> reenact a famous battle to do historical "what-if", and see if the
> historical results could of been different. To say that no wargamers
> cares about a game having a good theme and a game with realistic result
> begs the question: if this is so, then why are there complaints by
> grognards about a game generating bogus historical results or not
> being "realistic". And why do some historical battles sell better than
> others?
>
> >I also don't believe that a themed game
> > would sell better than a non themed game because I don't believe that
> > gamers truly care about theme. It's the gameplay that counts.
Patrick Carroll
>Florida cause murders... the more Ice Cream sold in Florida, the higher the
>violent death rate. Of course, the real reason is heat
Is it? Are you sure? Heat, crowding, and culture clashes might all be part of
the problem. But the sugar content of ice cream could certainly be a factor
too.
> Chutes and Ladders in particular would suffer
>greatly without the theme...
FYI, the game was originally Snakes & Ladders. It's a pretty ancient game,
IIRC, originally from India, where it's intended to teach the basics of karma.
The playground theme is a recent American addition (my wife tells me the game
is still Snakes & Ladders in Canada).
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Christopher Bourassa
purchase of a game rather than theme. Cost, familiarity with the game designer
or company, mood, etc. all contribute. This argument has been simplified to one
factor, but in reality this is not the case.
Myrddin Emrys wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:50:44 -0400, we received this message from
> "Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net>:
>
> >As you say below (in essence) it depends on the theme. Monopoly's theme
> >worked because it was about fantasizing being a real estate tycoon during
> >the Depression. It was something most people could relate to. OTOH, most
> >German-style and other niche themed games cater to a much smaller
> >demographic, hence will never gain the popularity of a Monopoly.
> >
> >When you think about it, many of what the general public considers perennial
> >favorites (modern big sellers) are devoid (or nearly devoid) of theme...
> >Sorry, Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit, cards & dominoes, popular abstracts...
>
> I would like to point out that this argument might be heading in slightly
> the wrong direction. I'm reminded of the argument that Ice Cream sales in
> Florida cause murders... the more Ice Cream sold in Florida, the higher the
Patrick Carroll
>Some people just need stuff that is tangible to get into the mood.
Sure. But other people don't. That's all I was saying.
>> If I happen to hate ancient Rome, C&C might be a turn-off for me for
>that
>> reason alone, no matter how good a game it is. But if we're playing
>gin rummy
>> instead, you can be picturing ancient Rome & Egypt, while my
>imagination roams
>> to the American Civil War or something else.
> Tell me how in the living begebbers does Rummy remind you of the
>Civil War? I am sorry, but I don't think of Lee or Grant when I form a
>meld.
No? But you do think of Caesar and Cleo when you play C&C? What does that
tell us--that I have an overactive imagination, or that yours is lame and needs
a graphic crutch? (For the record, I *don't* really think of the Civil War,
usually, when I play gin rummy. But I could if I chose to; and that was my
point. If I were playing C&C, it'd be hard for me to even *choose* to think of
Lee & Grant.)
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>this argument I assumed that we were talking about board games or card
>games.
Board wargames *are* board games, aren't they? Miniatures and RPGs may not be
exactly--but even they use a table or battle board quite often. To me, this
type of game is just the extreme of what is meant by the word "theme." They're
games in which the theme is expanded, detailed, and elaborated to the point
where it's more prominent than the underlying game system.
> I mention this because I think it's difficult to compare a wargame to an
>abstract strategy game. . . . To compare themed games vs.
>non-themed games, I think, we need to compare and contrast games within a
>similar category. For example, how would a themed strategy game compare to
>an abstract strategy game?
First we'd need to know where to draw the line. Is Settlers a themed strategy
game? If we add the Stadte & Ritter expansion, does it become a wargame? Is
Axis & Allies a true wargame, or just a themed strategy game? What about
Cosmic Encounter? SFB? If we're going to be confined to a category, we need
to know the boundaries of that category.
>I still don't agree that people play games for the "fantasy" aspect. People
>play games, in my opinion, for the human interaction and because of the
>competition. It's a social gathering.
That's certainly not true of solitaire gamers. It's probably not true of many
RPGers either. It's true of social gamers. But is that the category we're
looking at--social games? This is the first mention I've heard of it.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>theme, at least, gives the game something that makes it stand out as
>being different.
Dominoes have something that makes them stand out as unique: the distinctive
double-numbered tiles. Checkers has something that makes it stand out as
unique: the jumping move, and the tradition behind the game (like that famous
Norman Rockwell painting of checker players in the general store). Othello has
something that makes it stand out as unique: the flipping of two-toned disks
when bracketed by opposite-colored disks. I think *every* abstract game has
something that makes it stand out as being different.
>An abstract strategy game is usually percieved as
>just a conglomeration of arbitrarily picked rules that are just chosen
>for some unknown reason that is not apparent by reading over the rules
>or observing the game rules.
I've always perceived abstract games as well-constructed sets of carefully
designed rules. And I've assumed that the reason the game was designed that
way is that the designer-artist intended to produce the unique game effect that
I experience when I play the game. That's quite sufficient. The game doesn't
have to be associated with any physical-world phenomena for me to understand
what it is and appreciate its beauty and value. An abstract game is to a
themed game as abstract art is to realistic art. Both have their place.
> This freedom can result in a more elegant
>design that one that is bound to a theme, however. But, a game with a
>theme attached will more likely have neato looking pieces that
>captivate the perspective buyer of the game.
Or put off a prospective buyer who considers the "neato looking" pieces
childish, or representative of a theme he happens to dislike. For example, I
was intrigued by the new AH game "Battle Cry"--until I saw those stupid "neato
looking" plastic soldiers. That soured me on the game right away.
> Given a choice between a
>triangle/dome/square or a soldier/knight/automobile, the more theme
>based looking piece will capture the perspective buyer of the game
>better. Of course, this is assuming that both pieces are made with
>equal craftmanship and components.
It depends on the buyer. Some folks think soldiers, knights, and automobiles
are silly, childish, or just too realistic for their more abstract taste. Some
people like Risk better than Axis & Allies just because Risk is a little more
abstract & stylized. Others find even Risk too realistic, and regard chess and
go as "wargames" better suited to their taste.
>So, to sum up this round, a theme does give a game quicker sell to
>someone who is interested in that theme.
>
>- Richard Hutnik
I suppose that's true. But I don't think it "sums up this round" very well.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
It's certainly true that some games have managed to burst out of their
stereotypes. Bridge is definitely perceived as a serious game, even though it
has a chance element. At tournament levels, backgammon and many other "dicey"
games are taken quite seriously. Still, I think that if we're talking about
people browsing unfamiliar games in a game shop, they're likely to think of the
dicey games as lighter & less serious than the all-skill games.
As to wargames--one person has already suggested they be excluded from this
discussion. They sort of constitute a separate category all their own. As a
passing remark, I'll just say that I think many wargames do fall outside the
stereotype I outlined below--but it's partly because the *theme* (historical
battles, campaigns, or wars) is a serious subject. Some wargamers believe
they're studying or practicing for the real thing--that their game strategy &
tactics could be effectively applied to actual war.
Naturally, if one takes the theme seriously, he's going to take the game
seriously. Likewise, if someone takes dice rolling seriously, he's going to
take any game with dice seriously. As I said in my closing note, some people
take all games seriously.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Alan Kwan
wrote:
>A game such as, say, pokemon trading cards, can be very popular, sell
>millions of units, and still be a very good game (and it is too... well
>designed and well balanced, with good depth of play).
It is not, IMHO. The game is reasonable, but it is too rare-centered
(on those powerful rare "basic" pokemon which has high HP and both a
cheap 1-energy attack and a higher attack). Many of the essential
Trainers (such as Prof. Oak and Pokemon Trader) are rare, too. The
game may look great initially, but it gets boring soon because the
depth is really limited.
>But because it is tied
>so tightly to a particular theme it immediately gives itself a 'timebomb'...
>as the cultural ties dwindle and fade, so does the game.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / ta...@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Dimension S editor: http://www.digiweb.com/~dimension-sega/
Cliff
<20000426175442...@ng-ck1.aol.com>:
>(my wife tells me the game is still Snakes & Ladders in
>Canada).
And also in the UK.
--
-Cliff-
"One day the world will look upon research upon animals as it now
looks upon research on human beings." --Leonardo Da Vinci
http://www.drhadwentrust.org.uk/
Glenn Kuntz
news:39076AFD...@ma.ultranet.com...
> I think you are correct, because there are many factors in contributing to
the
> purchase of a game rather than theme. Cost, familiarity with the game
designer
> or company, mood, etc. all contribute. This argument has been simplified
to one
> factor, but in reality this is not the case.
I don't see it as simplified, but rather, focused. At one point Richard
made a qualifying statement to the effect, "all other factors being equal".
Perhaps you missed that.
Glenn Kuntz
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e7gkr$p1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> By the way, in my case, I do fall into the camp where I don't care
> about the theme, but gameplay comes first. But, when I think you talk
> to casual gamers, a theme would be important to them.
>
> - Richard Hutnik
I tend to interact with roughly equal numbers of hobby gamers vs.casual game
players. I try to take a peek at (or ask about) the contents of their game
closets, and ask questions about what they play, how, why, etc. Very often,
they will say that theme is important, yet when you look at the closet
contents ( a mix of just about everything) and ask a few questions, they are
often surprised themselves that theme means less to them than they thought
vs. other attributes.
I see theme as icing on the cake. In your previous example of Space Hulk
(seen it - never played it, so I'm not sure if it's considered a board game
or a miniatures game - probably a hybrid), I agree that theme (*some* kind
of theme) is important. But that same theme could be expressed with
anything -paper & pencil, cardboard counters, small miniatures, the really
cool ones they have (both painted or unpainted), stuffed animals, or
full-scale robots. The theme is obviously very important to the
designers/publishers and players. I think finding the right balance of
quality components (in this case) is what makes this game - not the theme in
and of itself.
Would *this* game do as well without any theme whatsoever? I don't think
so. Theme has been tied too closely to genre, mechanics, and components.
OTOH, Acquire has changed themes quite a few times since its first
inception - it's the icing on the cake. It could be reworked several
different ways theme-wise, and still be a great game. In its current Hasbro
incarnation (just saw the box for the first time yesterday), they've gone
from hotel chains to corporate mergers. Why do you think Hasbro did this?
I think to expand its somewhat limited hobby market interest by utilizing a
theme more familiar/less specific. (They've also made other marketing
changes in components - the big plastic building caps - artwork, packaging,
etc.)
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I tend to interact with roughly equal numbers of hobby gamers
vs.casual game
> players. I try to take a peek at (or ask about) the contents of their
game
> closets, and ask questions about what they play, how, why, etc. Very
often,
> they will say that theme is important, yet when you look at the closet
> contents ( a mix of just about everything) and ask a few questions,
they are
> often surprised themselves that theme means less to them than they
thought
> vs. other attributes.
I think the crux of the argument is does a game having a theme hurt
it more than it helps? If this is so, then just about all games should
be themeless. But, I would reply to this that the game would then be
pointess.
> I see theme as icing on the cake. In your previous example of Space
Hulk
> (seen it - never played it, so I'm not sure if it's considered a board
game
> or a miniatures game - probably a hybrid), I agree that theme (*some*
kind
> of theme) is important. But that same theme could be expressed with
> anything -paper & pencil, cardboard counters, small miniatures, the
really
> cool ones they have (both painted or unpainted), stuffed animals, or
> full-scale robots. The theme is obviously very important to the
> designers/publishers and players. I think finding the right balance
of
> quality components (in this case) is what makes this game - not the
theme in
> and of itself.
Space Hulk wouldn't work if it involved stuff animals. Some game
mechanics are molded and shaped around the theme. Space Hulk, for
example, is a take off on the Alien movies where a small group of space
marines fight off a hoard of aliens who want to steal the bodies of
humans. The mechanics of the game are simple, and molded to fit the
mechanics. They are secondary to the mechanics of the game.
> Would *this* game do as well without any theme whatsoever? I don't
think
> so. Theme has been tied too closely to genre, mechanics, and
>components.
And other games are also.
> OTOH, Acquire has changed themes quite a few times since its first
> inception - it's the icing on the cake. It could be reworked several
> different ways theme-wise, and still be a great game. In its current
Hasbro
> incarnation (just saw the box for the first time yesterday), they've
gone
> from hotel chains to corporate mergers. Why do you think Hasbro did
this?
> I think to expand its somewhat limited hobby market interest by
utilizing a
> theme more familiar/less specific. (They've also made other marketing
> changes in components - the big plastic building caps - artwork,
packaging,
> etc.)
Would Acquire work if it merely consisted of putting block on the
board for points (aka Manhatten)? I think that it wouldn't work at all.
Yes, it would be playable, but players would go, huh? Why would I be
doing this or that? A theme/backstory/etc... gives the game a purpose.
Yes, there are some games of the abstract strategy variety, which don't
have a theme/backstory to them. They are pure play mechanics. However,
I would say that they intrinsically have less appeal than if they had a
theme of some sort.
Hasbro makes money off of sticking themes on games that appeal to
people. This is why they do 20 varieties of Monopoly.
Patrick Carroll
>it more than it helps?
Hurt or help in what way? Sales? Frequency of play? Popularity? Longevity?
I think each of these is a separate issue. And it sounds to me like everyone
agrees theme, in many cases, probably helps initial sales. But who really
cares, besides the shop that sold it? Do people *play* the game after it has
been bought--that's the real question.
>Yes, there are some games of the abstract strategy variety, which don't
>have a theme/backstory to them. They are pure play mechanics. However,
>I would say that they intrinsically have less appeal than if they had a
>theme of some sort.
I'm sure that's true for you. But true in general? I'm not at all sure. One
morning at a coffee shop, I saw a game called "Octopus Dominoes" (or something
like that) on the game shelf. It was just dominoes, but a special board &
tiles were used to make it look like players were extending the tentacles of an
octopus as they played. The theme didn't do anything for me. I wonder if it
does much for kids.
Same goes for The Great Dalmuti and other thinly disguised traditional card
games. Why should I pay for a special deck of cards to use for a game I can
play with a standard deck? The pictures on the cards just don't add enough to
make them worth the money. And I'd rather have the versatility of traditional
playing cards.
So, it's definitely true that theme is sometimes a turn-off for some potential
buyers. I know, because I've personally been turned off by it a number of
times.
In fact, I got fed up with wargaming a few years back, precisely because I got
tired of the specific theme each game had. If someone could package a generic
"military history/art/science" game--one that would cover all periods of
history, tactically, operationally, and strategically, with just one manageable
set of rules--I'd probably be happy with it. But why should I buy a game that
portrays *just* the battle of Gettysburg, and then another which portrays
*just* the battle of Shiloh (with a whole different scale, ruleset, etc.)? It
soon gets difficult and confusing.
One great benefit of abstract games is that they're free from connections to
anything specific, limited, or real. When I'm playing a Gettysburg game, if
it's good I end up saying, "I sure wish there were a game like this on Shiloh."
And then when I find the Shiloh game, I want a similar game on the Atlanta
campaign--or I want the Shiloh game to zoom in on more tactical detail, or the
Gettysburg game to zoom out to more strategic breadth. There's always
something missing. But if I'm playing shogi, it's just shogi; since there's no
explicit theme, I can't complain about the theme being too limited. Inasmuch
as there is any kind of "theme" to an abstract game (shogi and chess *can* be
regarded as war games), it depends on my imagination--and my imagination can
shrink or expand as I see fit.
That's why this game buff has turned from heavily themed games toward classic,
abstract games.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Myrddin Emrys
ta...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan):
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:52:19 -0500, Myrddin Emrys <myr...@iosys.net>
>wrote:
>
>>A game such as, say, pokemon trading cards, can be very popular, sell
>>millions of units, and still be a very good game (and it is too... well
>>designed and well balanced, with good depth of play).
>
>It is not, IMHO. The game is reasonable, but it is too rare-centered
>(on those powerful rare "basic" pokemon which has high HP and both a
>cheap 1-energy attack and a higher attack). Many of the essential
>Trainers (such as Prof. Oak and Pokemon Trader) are rare, too. The
>game may look great initially, but it gets boring soon because the
>depth is really limited.
Ahh. I never played it long enough to get any truly good cards, so perhaps I
did not encounter the unbalancing cards you did.
Perhaps a better example in that case would be Magic. Despite its failings
(such as the requirement to keep buying new cards or lose the competitive
advantage), it is a game with good balance and depth of play. Hence, its
continuing popularity in the face of competition.
Myrddin
Myrddin Emrys
Christopher Bourassa <bour...@ma.ultranet.com>:
>I still don't agree that people play games for the "fantasy" aspect. People
>play games, in my opinion, for the human interaction and because of the
>competition. It's a social gathering. Personally, I don't know anyone who
>tries to immerse themselves into the "fantasy" of the game. But obviously
>we have different opinions on this.
I think that, as in all things, there are exceptions both ways. I,
personally, do not like RPGs that do not focus on magic and magical aspects
of the world. Forgotten Realms and Shadowrun are two systems I like...
Ravenloft, RuneQuest, and Paranoia are a few I do not. It's a little hard to
explain, but the theme is important to me... it sets the tone of the game.
AD&D in general is focused on heroism... the 'no injuries' combat system is
a reflection of that. I like that. I also like their magic system... not the
manner in which you cast spells (memorization bites), but the way spells are
described and designed... balance has nothing to do with real-world logic,
but only with the arbitrary spell descriptions. Odd as it may seem, I far
prefer arbitrary spells to logical game-system designed spells. They have
more flavor, more reality to me than some arbitrary spell like 'Force Bolt
II'.
I find it more difficult to immerse myself into a mileau that I do not
identify with. I do not read spy vs spy novels, so I do not identify with
Paranoia. I do not read horror so I do not identify with Ravenloft. And
RuneQuest... I dunno, I just didn't like it in general, can't remember the
specifics. I think the talking duck race sorta threw me off.
Myrddin
Glenn Kuntz
news:8e9erh$rh7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think the crux of the argument is does a game having a theme hurt
> it more than it helps?
I think the crux of the discussion has changed several times during its
course! ;-)
I've *never* argued that having a theme hurts any game more than it helps.
> If this is so, then just about all games should
> be themeless. But, I would reply to this that the game would then be
> pointess.
I would agree in many cases. In others, it probably makes little, if any,
difference.
> > I see theme as icing on the cake. In your previous example of Space
> Hulk
> > (seen it - never played it, so I'm not sure if it's considered a board
> game
> > or a miniatures game - probably a hybrid), I agree that theme (*some*
> kind
> > of theme) is important. But that same theme could be expressed with
> > anything -paper & pencil, cardboard counters, small miniatures, the
> really
> > cool ones they have (both painted or unpainted), stuffed animals, or
> > full-scale robots. The theme is obviously very important to the
> > designers/publishers and players. I think finding the right balance
> of
> > quality components (in this case) is what makes this game - not the
> theme in
> > and of itself.
> Space Hulk wouldn't work if it involved stuff animals.
I was being facetious. (Though the best miniatures scenario I ever played
in used a 12" rubber Godzilla [old Japanese style] as a dragon. Didn't hurt
the theme [St. George & the Dragon] a bit.)
> Some game
> mechanics are molded and shaped around the theme.
Yes, I think we covered that, and I agree.
> Space Hulk, for
> example, is a take off on the Alien movies where a small group of space
> marines fight off a hoard of aliens who want to steal the bodies of
> humans. The mechanics of the game are simple, and molded to fit the
> mechanics. They are secondary to the mechanics of the game.
>
>
> > Would *this* game do as well without any theme whatsoever? I don't
> think
> > so. Theme has been tied too closely to genre, mechanics, and
> >components.
> And other games are also.
Certainly.
>
> > OTOH, Acquire has changed themes quite a few times since its first
> > inception - it's the icing on the cake. It could be reworked several
> > different ways theme-wise, and still be a great game. In its current
> Hasbro
> > incarnation (just saw the box for the first time yesterday), they've
> gone
> > from hotel chains to corporate mergers. Why do you think Hasbro did
> this?
> > I think to expand its somewhat limited hobby market interest by
> utilizing a
> > theme more familiar/less specific. (They've also made other marketing
> > changes in components - the big plastic building caps - artwork,
> packaging,
> > etc.)
> Would Acquire work if it merely consisted of putting block on the
> board for points (aka Manhatten)? I think that it wouldn't work at all.
> Yes, it would be playable, but players would go, huh? Why would I be
> doing this or that? A theme/backstory/etc... gives the game a purpose.
Since it actually began as a pencil & paper game, and the theme was added
later, it seems it would - and did.
> Yes, there are some games of the abstract strategy variety, which don't
> have a theme/backstory to them. They are pure play mechanics. However,
> I would say that they intrinsically have less appeal than if they had a
> theme of some sort.
Well, now we *are* back to the original premise. Guess we'll have to agree
to disagree, or put this discussion into a closed loop! :-)
>
> Hasbro makes money off of sticking themes on games that appeal to
> people. This is why they do 20 varieties of Monopoly.
Well, yes. It's part of the whole collectibles phenomenon/fad, which IMHO
has reached new lows of excess and greed.
richar...@hotmail.com
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
> Hurt or help in what way? Sales? Frequency of play? Popularity?
Longevity?
> I think each of these is a separate issue. And it sounds to me like
everyone
> agrees theme, in many cases, probably helps initial sales. But who
really
> cares, besides the shop that sold it? Do people *play* the game after
it has
> been bought--that's the real question.
I think we are back to the original question poised in the first
posting, does the fact the game is abstract result in it being a better
design. I am saying it can, but also going themeless can result in a
game that, while elegantly designed, has no purpose in it. I am
thinking of Zertz at this moment, which represents what in reality?
> I'm sure that's true for you. But true in general? I'm not at all
sure. One
> morning at a coffee shop, I saw a game called "Octopus Dominoes" (or
something
> like that) on the game shelf. It was just dominoes, but a special
board &
> tiles were used to make it look like players were extending the
tentacles of an
> octopus as they played. The theme didn't do anything for me. I
wonder if it
> does much for kids.
I will say that a gaming having a theme is more likely to have neato
bits then one that doesn't.
> Same goes for The Great Dalmuti and other thinly disguised traditional
card
> games. Why should I pay for a special deck of cards to use for a game
I can
> play with a standard deck? The pictures on the cards just don't add
enough to
> make them worth the money. And I'd rather have the versatility of
traditional
> playing cards.
However, some people get into the whole Dalmuti thing, with the
ordering the peon players around and whatnot. Minus this theme, and I
don't think people would get into it as much. I believe "Cheapass Games
" are similar in this regard. Maybe Mr. Earnest could be brought into
this mix. He will testify that his more theme oriented games sell
better and are enjoyed more than his more dry strategy games. I am sure
he would say theme is VERY important to a game's long-term success. I
am thinking of "Before I Kill You Mr. Bond" at this moment, which is a
fun little game, IF you get into the Austin Powers sort of mood.
Outside of roleplaying supervillians in it, the game really sucks. If
you just go through the motions, then the game sucks.
> So, it's definitely true that theme is sometimes a turn-off for some
potential
> buyers. I know, because I've personally been turned off by it a
number of
> times.
And for some people, they just won't touch a game unless it has a
theme of interest to them. Thus, a themeless game doesn't fly.
> In fact, I got fed up with wargaming a few years back, precisely
because I got
> tired of the specific theme each game had. If someone could package a
generic
> "military history/art/science" game--one that would cover all periods
of
> history, tactically, operationally, and strategically, with just one
manageable
> set of rules--I'd probably be happy with it. But why should I buy a
game that
> portrays *just* the battle of Gettysburg, and then another which
portrays
> *just* the battle of Shiloh (with a whole different scale, ruleset,
etc.)? It
> soon gets difficult and confusing.
Ok, now you are touching on the simulation area. There is a debate
in wargaming circles of a generic universal wargaming set vs specific
battles having their own rules. Yes, a universal one would work, but
some battles have their own quirks that mean having their own set of
rules would work better for.
Will see how well Battlecry handles Civil War battles.
> One great benefit of abstract games is that they're free from
connections to
> anything specific, limited, or real. When I'm playing a Gettysburg
game, if
> it's good I end up saying, "I sure wish there were a game like this on
Shiloh."
> And then when I find the Shiloh game, I want a similar game on the
Atlanta
> campaign--or I want the Shiloh game to zoom in on more tactical
detail, or the
> Gettysburg game to zoom out to more strategic breadth.
While this is true, a game will often lose a ton of atmosphere if it
is themeless. Done right, a game's theme will give the game atmosphere,
which is one thing some people play games for.
>There's always
> something missing. But if I'm playing shogi, it's just shogi; since
there's no
> explicit theme, I can't complain about the theme being too limited.
Inasmuch
> as there is any kind of "theme" to an abstract game (shogi and chess
*can* be
> regarded as war games), it depends on my imagination--and my
imagination can
> shrink or expand as I see fit.
When you play an abstract game, are you imagining anything at all?
Myself, I just view the game as a giant puzzle I am trying to unravel.
> That's why this game buff has turned from heavily themed games toward
classic,
> abstract games.
What gaming world are you thinking of when you play chess, for
example?
- Richard Hutnik
--
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
Christopher Bourassa
valid.
Christopher Bourassa
important to me. But what does interest me besides the creator of the game?
Let's say that I'm looking at two games by Reiner Knizia, neither of which has a
theme that interests me. Which one do I buy? The one with the best bits.
Often a game will attract me (and many others, I'm sure) by the quality of the
bits.
Glenn Kuntz wrote:
> <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8e7gkr$p1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> <snip>
>
> > By the way, in my case, I do fall into the camp where I don't care
> > about the theme, but gameplay comes first. But, when I think you talk
> > to casual gamers, a theme would be important to them.
> >
> > - Richard Hutnik
>
> I tend to interact with roughly equal numbers of hobby gamers vs.casual game
> players. I try to take a peek at (or ask about) the contents of their game
> closets, and ask questions about what they play, how, why, etc. Very often,
> they will say that theme is important, yet when you look at the closet
> contents ( a mix of just about everything) and ask a few questions, they are
> often surprised themselves that theme means less to them than they thought
> vs. other attributes.
>
> I see theme as icing on the cake. In your previous example of Space Hulk
> (seen it - never played it, so I'm not sure if it's considered a board game
> or a miniatures game - probably a hybrid), I agree that theme (*some* kind
> of theme) is important. But that same theme could be expressed with
> anything -paper & pencil, cardboard counters, small miniatures, the really
> cool ones they have (both painted or unpainted), stuffed animals, or
> full-scale robots. The theme is obviously very important to the
> designers/publishers and players. I think finding the right balance of
> quality components (in this case) is what makes this game - not the theme in
> and of itself.
>
> Would *this* game do as well without any theme whatsoever? I don't think
> so. Theme has been tied too closely to genre, mechanics, and components.
>
Christopher Bourassa
will probably only appeal to a select group, the result is that others aren't
interested. For example, a game about archaelogy might appeal to
archaeologists, but probably won't appeal to too many other groups.
Glenn Kuntz wrote:
> <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8e9erh$rh7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I think the crux of the argument is does a game having a theme hurt
> > it more than it helps?
>
> I think the crux of the discussion has changed several times during its
> course! ;-)
> I've *never* argued that having a theme hurts any game more than it helps.
>
> > If this is so, then just about all games should
> > be themeless. But, I would reply to this that the game would then be
> > pointess.
>
> I would agree in many cases. In others, it probably makes little, if any,
> difference.
>
> > > I see theme as icing on the cake. In your previous example of Space
> > Hulk
> > > (seen it - never played it, so I'm not sure if it's considered a board
> > game
> > > or a miniatures game - probably a hybrid), I agree that theme (*some*
> > kind
> > > of theme) is important. But that same theme could be expressed with
> > > anything -paper & pencil, cardboard counters, small miniatures, the
> > really
> > > cool ones they have (both painted or unpainted), stuffed animals, or
> > > full-scale robots. The theme is obviously very important to the
> > > designers/publishers and players. I think finding the right balance
> > of
> > > quality components (in this case) is what makes this game - not the
> > theme in
> > > and of itself.
> > Space Hulk wouldn't work if it involved stuff animals.
>
> I was being facetious. (Though the best miniatures scenario I ever played
> in used a 12" rubber Godzilla [old Japanese style] as a dragon. Didn't hurt
> the theme [St. George & the Dragon] a bit.)
>
> > Some game
> > mechanics are molded and shaped around the theme.
>
> Yes, I think we covered that, and I agree.
>
> > Space Hulk, for
> > example, is a take off on the Alien movies where a small group of space
> > marines fight off a hoard of aliens who want to steal the bodies of
> > humans. The mechanics of the game are simple, and molded to fit the
> > mechanics. They are secondary to the mechanics of the game.
> >
> >
> > > Would *this* game do as well without any theme whatsoever? I don't
> > think
> > > so. Theme has been tied too closely to genre, mechanics, and
> > >components.
> > And other games are also.
>
> Certainly.
> >
> > > OTOH, Acquire has changed themes quite a few times since its first
> > > inception - it's the icing on the cake. It could be reworked several
> > > different ways theme-wise, and still be a great game. In its current
> > Hasbro
> > > incarnation (just saw the box for the first time yesterday), they've
> > gone
> > > from hotel chains to corporate mergers. Why do you think Hasbro did
> > this?
> > > I think to expand its somewhat limited hobby market interest by
> > utilizing a
> > > theme more familiar/less specific. (They've also made other marketing
> > > changes in components - the big plastic building caps - artwork,
> > packaging,
> > > etc.)
> > Would Acquire work if it merely consisted of putting block on the
> > board for points (aka Manhatten)? I think that it wouldn't work at all.
> > Yes, it would be playable, but players would go, huh? Why would I be
> > doing this or that? A theme/backstory/etc... gives the game a purpose.
>
> Since it actually began as a pencil & paper game, and the theme was added
> later, it seems it would - and did.
>
> > Yes, there are some games of the abstract strategy variety, which don't
> > have a theme/backstory to them. They are pure play mechanics. However,
> > I would say that they intrinsically have less appeal than if they had a
> > theme of some sort.
>
> Well, now we *are* back to the original premise. Guess we'll have to agree
> to disagree, or put this discussion into a closed loop! :-)
> >
> > Hasbro makes money off of sticking themes on games that appeal to
> > people. This is why they do 20 varieties of Monopoly.
>
> Well, yes. It's part of the whole collectibles phenomenon/fad, which IMHO
> has reached new lows of excess and greed.
>
Christopher Bourassa
a board. Fine. So even blackjack would be a board game if I placed a piece of
wood on the table. Semantics.
Patrick Carroll wrote:
> >I will agree that theme is vital to a role playing game, but for the sake of
> >this argument I assumed that we were talking about board games or card
> >games.
>
> Board wargames *are* board games, aren't they? Miniatures and RPGs may not be
> exactly--but even they use a table or battle board quite often. To me, this
> type of game is just the extreme of what is meant by the word "theme." They're
> games in which the theme is expanded, detailed, and elaborated to the point
> where it's more prominent than the underlying game system.
>
> > I mention this because I think it's difficult to compare a wargame to an
> >abstract strategy game. . . . To compare themed games vs.
> >non-themed games, I think, we need to compare and contrast games within a
> >similar category. For example, how would a themed strategy game compare to
> >an abstract strategy game?
>
> First we'd need to know where to draw the line. Is Settlers a themed strategy
> game? If we add the Stadte & Ritter expansion, does it become a wargame? Is
> Axis & Allies a true wargame, or just a themed strategy game? What about
> Cosmic Encounter? SFB? If we're going to be confined to a category, we need
> to know the boundaries of that category.
>
> >I still don't agree that people play games for the "fantasy" aspect. People
> >play games, in my opinion, for the human interaction and because of the
> >competition. It's a social gathering.
>
Christopher Bourassa
ones, not any game that can be played on a board like Patrick Carroll suggests)
and card games. Roleplaying games are, of course, different.
Myrddin Emrys wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:51:11 -0400, we received this message from
> Christopher Bourassa <bour...@ma.ultranet.com>:
>
> >I still don't agree that people play games for the "fantasy" aspect. People
> >play games, in my opinion, for the human interaction and because of the
> >competition. It's a social gathering. Personally, I don't know anyone who
> >tries to immerse themselves into the "fantasy" of the game. But obviously
> >we have different opinions on this.
>
Steve Okonski
> Actually, I think it is possible for a theme to hurt a game. Since any theme
> will probably only appeal to a select group, the result is that others aren't
> interested. For example, a game about archaelogy might appeal to
> archaeologists, but probably won't appeal to too many other groups.
>
The theme won't limit the appeal, provided the game's elements are fun,
entertaining, interesting, challenging, etc. For example, the Indiana Jones
movies are enjoyed by more than just archaeologists.
TLDreaming
>will probably only appeal to a select group, the result is that others aren't
>interested. For example, a game about archaelogy might appeal to
>archaeologists, but probably won't appeal to too many other groups.
>
Excellent point. I think "Titan: The Arena" is a perfect example. My friends
who game regularly love the game. But we cannot convince our non-gamer friends
and spouses to even consider the game because the "Mythical Beast" theme is way
too "D&D Geeky" for them. Hell, the game is a fun bidding battle --but they
won't touch it.
-Fez
Patrick Carroll
>way on
>a board. Fine. So even blackjack would be a board game if I placed a piece
>of
>wood on the table. Semantics.
What I said was:
>> Board wargames *are* board games, aren't they?
I don't think semantics are much of a problem there. Rather, I think you're
dodging the issue. Is a typical hex-grid board wargame not a board game? And
if you don't think it is, then do you think Axis & Allies is a board game?
What about Settlers of Catan with the Staedte & Ritter variant? If you think
some of these are board games and others are not, where do you draw the line,
and why?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>>Inasmuch
>> as there is any kind of "theme" to an abstract game (shogi and chess
>*can* be
>> regarded as war games), it depends on my imagination--and my
>imagination can
>> shrink or expand as I see fit.
Richard asks:
> When you play an abstract game, are you imagining anything at all?
>Myself, I just view the game as a giant puzzle I am trying to unravel.
My reply:
As I said above, chess and shogi (and go, and checkers, and other "abstract"
games) are often thought of as war games. In fact Bell, in his published study
of board games around the world, categorizes such games as war games. I think
there's certainly enough stylistic representation of battle in chess, shogi,
and Chinese chess to make anyone who plays these games lightly imagine
battle--if only vaguely, in the back of their mind.
I do see your point, btw. In fact, I prefer games like chess to games like
checkers precisely because it's easier to imagine chess as a highly stylized
representation of battle. It's hard to picture checkers as representing much
of anything (not impossible, but hard to imagine). When I play Othello
(reversi), it does seem pretty much just like a sterile, disassociated puzzle
to me--which is why I like it a lot less than chess (which seems vaguely like
battle) and go (which has been described as an abstract representation of
strategic warfare--though I've had friends call it the "Airborne Ranger game"
because the "men" seem to fall out of the sky onto the board).
So, in some so-called abstract games, there's enough symbolism to imaginatively
build something out of. I've read, for instance, that mancala (wari/awari)
suggests "the hunt" to some of the African tribes who play the game. In their
imagination, the pebbles are animals being hunted. To cite another example,
I'd guess that at least some bridge players have likened the "contract" to an
actual business contract--thus making the game of bridge at least vaguely and
stylistically representative of business dealings.
True, such symbolic "themes" don't strike the imagination as forcefully or
explicitly as realistic themes (the kind you've been talking about). But then
again, symbolic themes have the advantage of being applicable to many different
real-world things, not just one particular thing.
Let's take this out into left field, just for the fun of it. A cartomancer
(one who uses playing cards for fortune telling) mentally assigns symbolic
value to every card in the deck--so that the pack of cards as a whole
potentially represents anything and everything in the universe (all neatly
arranged into 52 categories). So, whenever a cartomancer plays a card game,
the patterns of cards that turn up will always tell stories (if he/she chooses
to interpret the cards during the game). If the cards are telling stories,
there's some kind of "theme" going on in this supposedly abstract game. But
it's a very subjective theme. If two cartomancers are playing the game, each
may get a different "story" from the cards.
OK, maybe that's far-fetched. My point, I guess, is just that there can be
symbolism even in "abstract" games. And wherever there's symbolism, there's
meaning--so long as a player uses his imagination to interpret the symbols and
get at the meaning.
Even in a game with just circular pieces and square pieces--interview a number
of people and ask them which are the male pieces and which are the female
pieces. I'll bet most people say the round ones are female and the square ones
male. May not make sense, but our minds are conditioned to make such
associations. When we do, we start seeing shapes, colors, etc. as symbols--and
looking for meaning in them. From that comes a sort of story, or theme--albeit
usually a vague one.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Glenn Kuntz
Glenn Kuntz <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:8ea8dq$7vls$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> I've *never* argued that having a theme hurts any game more than it helps.
I take this back and eat my own words; I *did* argue that (what was I
thinking when I wrote the above?), but I'll try to clarify.
I don't think having a theme in and of itself hurts a game, but I *did* say
(to the effect) that some very specific themes can hurt by limiting the
prospective audience/market, vs. more general familiar themes.
Glenn Kuntz
> This brings up another interesting point. As I've stated, theme isn't
that
> important to me. But what does interest me besides the creator of the
game?
> Let's say that I'm looking at two games by Reiner Knizia, neither of which
has a
> theme that interests me. Which one do I buy? The one with the best bits.
> Often a game will attract me (and many others, I'm sure) by the quality of
the
> bits.
When I'm game shopping, I'm often thinking, "Who am I going to play this
with?" or "Who am I going to find that *will* play this?"
I have many games that, while I think they're really great/cool (Ubi, for
one), no-one else does, so they sit for years without ever being played, yet
I can't bring myself to part with them. So I've learned to ask the above
questions before making future acquisitions.
Patrick Carroll
>When I'm game shopping, I'm often thinking, "Who am I going to play this
>with?" or "Who am I going to find that *will* play this?"
So do I. And the honest answer, in my case, is usually "Probably no one."
It's rare that I meet up with anyone who'll play games for any reason other
than to humor me, or to kill an hour or so once in a blue moon, on a rainy day.
>I have many games that, while I think they're really great/cool (Ubi, for
>one), no-one else does, so they sit for years without ever being played, yet
>I can't bring myself to part with them.
Same here. But that applies to almost all the games I've ever owned. It
pretty much defines the gaming hobby from my perspective.
>So I've learned to ask the above
>questions before making future acquisitions.
And I've learned to shrug off the answer I always get, and get into the games I
like anyway--no matter what anyone else thinks of them, or whether they'll
actually get played.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Dave Boyd
<big snip>
> I will say that a gaming having a theme is more likely to have neato
>bits then one that doesn't.
Hmm. Can you really say that? I guess it depends on your definition of
"neato" and "more likely". If you like wood, then abstract games are more
likely to have wooden pieces, yes? And I think that Tamsk has the coolest
pieces of any game I've seen recently. Sand timers as playing pieces!
Wow! And abstract games are more likely to be made as "coffee table"
games, with arbitrarily expensive pieces. Examples include those three
Goldsieber games last year. Hmm, where would we place Ta Yu? Abstract or
themed? I suppose we can definitely say it's a poor simulation...
Can you give examples to support your point? What are the neatest pieces
you've seen recently? Or ever, for that matter? I'm sure we can all
predict what Patrick will say: he has many times stated his preference for
refined, classic beauty in his game pieces, a la Staunton chessmen. I must
say I agree with him to a certain extent. But I'll also say that when I
buy a monster wargame, it isn't to play, but merely to revel in the
componentry, cardboard though it may be. (Ah, The Longest Day!)
It it just that most of the new games you look at are German, and they
mostly have neat bits, and they are mostly themed? Or do you look at Gipf,
and say "Enh", and "Through the Desert", and say "Woo!"?
--
Dave Boyd
Cosmic Encounter: the best game ever
richar...@hotmail.com
boy...@amsworld.com (Dave Boyd) wrote:
... SNIP ...
> It it just that most of the new games you look at are German, and
they
> mostly have neat bits, and they are mostly themed? Or do you look at
Gipf,
> and say "Enh", and "Through the Desert", and say "Woo!"?
My take is that Through the Desert wouldn't be the same, if it
weren't for the thin caravan theme around it. And, I would also add
that the little "polypocket camels" (Bruno's quote), make the game more
accessable to non-gamers than if it had components that were the same
as a Go set. Compare Olix to Through the Desert, and Through is
definitely more accessable to people. Both games are similar, mind you.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I take this back and eat my own words; I *did* argue that (what was I
> thinking when I wrote the above?), but I'll try to clarify.
>
> I don't think having a theme in and of itself hurts a game, but I
*did* say
> (to the effect) that some very specific themes can hurt by limiting
the
> prospective audience/market, vs. more general familiar themes.
I think a theme can turn off some people to a game, but it also may
cause some people to get more interested in the game. For example, I
know people who prefer Fury of Dracula over Scotland Yard, simply
because it has a Dracula theme to it (a finely integrated one into the
game, and no way would Fury work if it weren't for the theme).
However, one could even argue further that a "themeless game" has a
theme unto itself, that being no theme. And, just as a certain theme
can turn people off, a themeless game can turn others off.
Christopher Bourassa
not. I am not referring to games such as Axis & Allies, which cannot be compared
to the traditional sense of wargames. I love Axis & Allies, and I've even played
some enjoyable wargames over the years, but wargames are not boardgames in my
opinion. Many are played on a board, but I would put them in a separate
category. There isn't anything wrong with wargames and miniatures games, but I
don't put them in the same category as board games. I also don't consider
customizable card games to be card games. They would be a separate category.
The Maverick
>
> There isn't anything wrong with wargames [snip]
> but I don't put them in the same category as board games.
I'd say you are in a very small minority... Plenty of people come to
rec.games.board (a board game discussion group) to discuss wargames!
;-)
the Mav
--
Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I
http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick/index.html
The Classic Microgames Museum
http://maverick.brainiac.com/cmm/index.html
The Space and Fantasy Gamer's Guide
http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/index.html
Christopher Bourassa
considered to be boardgames.
Patrick Carroll
>don't put them in the same category as board games. . . .
That's a curious point of view, since board wargames obviousy *are* board games
in a literal sense. But I do see your point.
If we're talking about the effect of "theme" on the sales appeal of a game on a
store shelf, it makes a difference whether the game is one of The Gamers'
"brigade series" Civil War games or Caesar & Cleopatra. The wargame is likely
to appeal, in the first place, only to people who already know about wargames,
or to those who might be interested in becoming wargamers. C&C, on the other
hand, might appeal to most anyone.
But then there are the in-between games: games with a military theme, which
are "wargames lite." Axis & Allies, Risk, Samurai--and probably Hasbro/AH's
new Battle Cry, from the looks of it. A casual game buyer might look at them
and just see an intriguing theme that adds interest to a presumably fun,
playable game. A wargamer, OTOH, might look askance at these games and guess
that they lack substance (or "realism").
So, I agree that it makes sense to divide games into categories before we study
the effect of theme on "ordinary" games. I just think there's going to be a
gray area where it's hard to decide whether or not such-and-such is truly a
wargame.
Also, I think the categories kind of undermine the purpose of studying the
effect of theme. I think gamers often become wargamers or RPGers or CCGers
*because* of a strong attraction to the theme. That is, they decide at some
point that military history (or sci-fi/fantasy or whatever) appeals to them
more strongly than the light, social fun of casual game playing. So they
consciously seek out games with a heavy, elaborate theme that they like. This
process is part of the effect that theme has on the gaming world. Those who
are drawn into it and become dyed-in-the-wool wargamers may never again be
satisfied with Risk or Axis & Allies; now they've been "spoiled" by rich,
realistic wargames--and simpler, more abstract games pale in comparison.
We might even say there are basically three kinds of gamer: (1) the abstract
gamer, who objects to any theme at all, and who just wants a great, clean
game-system; (2) the light-theme gamer, who likes a thin veneer of theme over a
great game-system; and (3) the heavy-theme gamer, who likes games with tons of
theme to get immersed in--and preferably a great game-system buried way down
underneath.
Obviously, themed games are going to be a turn-off to the abstract gamer. But
on the other hand, they're going to be a necessity for the heavy-theme
gamer--and too little theme will be a turn-off for him.
I think the main question this thread has dealt with is: how many shoppers in
a typical game store are abstract gamers, how many are light-theme gamers, and
how many are heavy-theme gamers?
Glenn has been arguing (if I got it right) that the shoppers are probably split
between abstract gamers and light-theme gamers (with just a fringe group being
heavy-theme gamers). Richard has been arguing (if I got him right) that most
shoppers are light-theme gamers--with both abstract gamers and heavy-theme
gamers being fringe groups.
Now Christopher wants to say, "Let's just forget about the heavy-theme gamers
for purposes of this discussion." And so the question is: do we agree that
the heavy-themers are never going to account for a big portion of game sales &
success?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Geenius at Wrok
> It's all opinion, of course. I just don't see how wargames can be
> considered to be boardgames.
!!
You mean, aside from being played on a board?
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
The Maverick
>
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Christopher Bourassa wrote:
> > It's all opinion, of course. I just don't see how wargames can be
> > considered to be boardgames.
>
> !!
>
> You mean, aside from being played on a board?
There must be something elusive about his point that we are missing.
Larry Welborn
>
> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Christopher Bourassa wrote:
> > > It's all opinion, of course. I just don't see how wargames can be
> > > considered to be boardgames.
> >
> > !!
> >
> > You mean, aside from being played on a board?
>
> There must be something elusive about his point that we are missing.
> ;-)
>
> the Mav
>
Maybe it is because "board" is not in the name "wargame". Hence
"wargame" isn't a "boardgame". So if we called it "warboardgame" or
"boardwargame" or "gameboardwar" it would perhaps qualify as a
"boardgame".
Hey, it makes about as much sense as the rest of this sub-thread.
Larry
--
Note: To Reply remove "Not" from the e-mail address