Dog Eat Dog - Any thoughts?
Chris Keil
local hobby shops and it looked promising, but I've sworn off buying things
sight unseen anymore. The premis looked like the players were CEO's of
various corperations who were moving to destroy the enviroment through
wanton use of resources. It looked kinda neat.
Roger
with six people and it was fairly agonizing. The real problem was the amount of
downtime between turns and the lack of interaction with other players. Some
people were taking their turns and wandering off to watch the Bills game for 15
or 20 minutes before things came back around to them...and they didn't miss a
thing.
zo...@world.std.com wrote:
> In article <858hkb$d50$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Chris Keil"
> I played a six player game the other night. While it was "kinda neat", the
> "Monopoly-stye" randomness made it painful for some. As you move around
> the board you can randomly land on places that make it impossible for you
> to accomplish anything on your turn (i.e. preventing manufacturing or
> extracting resources or others). In the six player game this just seemed
> to make things take too long before you get anything done. Maybe it would
> be better with fewer players (I guess I am a little biased because I came
> in hopelessly last ; ) ). On the plus side I did kind of like the
> tounge-in-cheek theme of advancing the corporation while destroying the
> environment. Some mechanisms were pretty good like balancing between the
> quick gain and strip-mining you land versus slow growth with sustainable
> extraction.
>
> -->Paul
>
> --- an extremely clever signature goes here ----
Mark Jackson
a) Waste Mismanagement, Inc., is a great idea in theory but not in practice.
(This company 'recycles' smog into products, thereby extending the life of the
game.) I'd play 4-5 without it in play.
b) You have more control than you realize... careful planning and deal-making
can make a HUGE difference. (Esp. dealing with Corrupt Politicians and their powers.)
I like the game... it's a good solid 7 for 4-5 players in my book.
--
Let me explain....no, there is too much. Let me sum up.
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
Mark Jackson
Nashville, TN
zo...@world.std.com
Richard Dewsbery
price of products is too wide a spread when companies will only produce
10-15 items in a game. Next timne we play (IF there is a next time) we use
average dice (which may also help with the movement - another problem where
too large a spread of random numbers restricted the control players had).
Oh, and I agree that Waste Mismanagement should not be used if there are
fewer than 6 players. in our game, with 6, WM was able to clean up the
board every round!
Richard
Mark Jackson <game...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3878090A...@bellsouth.net...
Michael T. Richter
news:858hkb$d50$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> Just wondering if anyone has seen/played this game, I saw it at one
> of the local hobby shops and it looked promising, but I've sworn off
> buying things sight unseen anymore. The premis looked like the
> players were CEO's of various corperations who were moving to
> destroy the enviroment through wanton use of resources. It looked
> kinda neat.
My impression of it boiled down to "I paid how much for a Greenpeace rant?
I can get those for free by watching anything with Dr. Suzuki in it on CBC."
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Richard Heli
zo...@world.std.com wrote:
> In article <858hkb$d50$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Chris Keil"
> <cjk...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Just wondering if anyone has seen/played this game, I saw it at one of the
> >local hobby shops and it looked promising, but I've sworn off buying things
> >sight unseen anymore.
Tried it once with 4 players and it seemed to pretty much play itself. I found
hardly any interesting choices to make. Perhaps I was just lucky and/or perhaps
it gets better by adding the other 2 players, who are significantly different in
"powers" than the first four.
richar...@hotmail.com
America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
Outside of abstract strategy games, all I recall is games where dice
govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
rule. I know wargames are a general exception to this rule.
I am curious what is it about American games that make them
so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
- Richard Hutnik
In article <zosa1-08010...@10.0.2.15>,
zo...@world.std.com wrote:
> I played a six player game the other night. While it was "kinda
neat", the
> "Monopoly-stye" randomness made it painful for some. As you move
around
> the board you can randomly land on places that make it impossible for
you
> to accomplish anything on your turn (i.e. preventing manufacturing or
> extracting resources or others). In the six player game this just
seemed
> to make things take too long before you get anything done. Maybe it
would
> be better with fewer players (I guess I am a little biased because I
came
> in hopelessly last ; ) ). On the plus side I did kind of like the
> tounge-in-cheek theme of advancing the corporation while destroying
the
> environment. Some mechanisms were pretty good like balancing between
the
> quick gain and strip-mining you land versus slow growth with
sustainable
> extraction.
>
> -->Paul
>
> --- an extremely clever signature goes here ----
>
--
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.
Glenn Kuntz
>I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>
>- Richard Hutnik
I think the reason is 3-fold:
1. It's often easier/cheaper to modify an existing thing than
to develop/invent/design something entirely new & original.
2. On the flip side, I think most people are more comfortable
learning something with a bit a familiarity vs. something
completely different. This generally applies more to adults
than to kids.
3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
"action" taking place and/or the only factor of
unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
& kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
game.
--
The CROKINOLE Board
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
Stefanie Kethers
>
> richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I am curious what is it about American games that make them
> >so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
> >
> >- Richard Hutnik
>
> I think the reason is 3-fold:
>
> 3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
> "action" taking place and/or the only factor of
> unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
> the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
> & kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
> to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
> game.
>
Uh, "parents" equals "Dad"? That's a new one to me ;-)
Anyway, I think there's a big difference between games
where luck dominates the whole game, and games with some kind
of luck factor. I guess Richard was talking about the former,
while you were defending the latter.
Cheers,
Stefanie
Glenn Kuntz
>Glenn Kuntz wrote:
>>
>> richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>> >so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>> >
>> >- Richard Hutnik
>>
>> I think the reason is 3-fold:
>>
>>[..]
>> 3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
>> "action" taking place and/or the only factor of
>> unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
>> the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
>> & kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
>> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
>> to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
>> game.
>>
>
>Uh, "parents" equals "Dad"? That's a new one to me ;-)
Parents equals Dad? No, I didn't say that. I was making a
general observation, and IME, in this culture, Dads are *more
often* the more aggressive competitors around the game table.
(If not, why aren't more gaming groups gender-balanced? But
lets not go there... ;-) This may be changing along with
other cultural trends, but the numbers still run toward Dad at
this point - no sleight on Moms was intended.
>
>Anyway, I think there's a big difference between games
>where luck dominates the whole game, and games with some kind
>of luck factor.
I agree with that entirely.
>I guess Richard was talking about the former,
>while you were defending the latter.
No, I was also talking about the former, and I was making an
observation - not defending anything. I'm not sure it makes
any difference anyway.
Geenius at Wrok
> I think below is a reason why I dislike most games produced in
> America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
> amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
> governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
> game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
> Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
Well, first off, most -new- games in America are of the party game genre.
In these games, the use of a board, pawns and dice -- when they're used at
all -- are more a sort of scorekeeping mechanism than they are central to
the game mechanics.
Most American mainstream games -- it sounds like these are the ones you're
mainly talking about -- have actually been around for quite a long time.
They predate most of the innovations in game mechanics that we've been
spoiled by lately. I'm inclined to think that the real problem isn't
"American overreliance on die-rolling as a game mechanic" but "lack of any
serious American game development effort."
> Outside of abstract strategy games, all I recall is games where dice
> govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
> company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
> rule.
Yet if you look at Cheapass' most widely praised games -- Kill Dr. Lucky,
Lord of the Fries, Button Men, Falling and Brawl -- only one, Button Men,
is completely dice-centric, and in that game there's no movement for the
dice to govern. Lord of the Fries offers a choice between choosing menu
orders randomly or tactically, and the other three don't use dice at all.
When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from setup,
from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by definition
an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that certain
negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots of
people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Geenius at Wrok
> Glenn Kuntz wrote:
>
> > 3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
> > "action" taking place and/or the only factor of
> > unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
> > the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
> > & kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
> > would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
> > to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
> > game.
>
> Uh, "parents" equals "Dad"? That's a new one to me ;-)
He's talking about the American family game-playing model, in which Mom
says, "You folks have fun, I'll just watch."
richar...@hotmail.com
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> Well, first off, most -new- games in America are of the party game
genre.
> In these games, the use of a board, pawns and dice -- when they're
used at
> all -- are more a sort of scorekeeping mechanism than they are central
to
> the game mechanics.
Well, actually, I discounted party games when I wrote earlier. I was
focusing on boardgames which depend on the components to make the game
happen. In these games, there seems to be a reliance upon dice governed
movement.
> Most American mainstream games -- it sounds like these are the ones
you're
> mainly talking about -- have actually been around for quite a long
time.
> They predate most of the innovations in game mechanics that we've been
> spoiled by lately. I'm inclined to think that the real problem isn't
> "American overreliance on die-rolling as a game mechanic" but "lack of
any
> serious American game development effort."
Yes, I am speaking about games you see at Toys R Us, Kay-Bee, etc...
heck, even hobby stores. I compare the likes of German games to
American stuff, and the American games are far more governed by luck.
The differece is so pronounced, that is why games from Germany get
lumped together in a single category, usually. There are exceptions of
course. What is it about the typical American designer that makes them
throw a big dose of luck into their mix of games?
Look over all the games on the Toys R Us shelf, and find games that
are considered "strategy" titles. Luck rampant in them also. Ever try
Sequence? I have tried this turkey (sorry to be so hard, but I can't
believe someone hyped this game up as being great to me). Lionheart?
Can you see ton of luck? Risk and Axis and Allies? Well, marginally
better, but come on! And in the hobby stores, you get more of the
same. Cheapass will be discussed below.
> Yet if you look at Cheapass' most widely praised games -- Kill Dr.
Lucky,
> Lord of the Fries, Button Men, Falling and Brawl -- only one, Button
Men,
> is completely dice-centric, and in that game there's no movement for
the
> dice to govern. Lord of the Fries offers a choice between choosing
menu
> orders randomly or tactically, and the other three don't use dice at
>all.
Yeah, look at them. Seriously tell me that luck doesn't play a large
roll in a person's success in them. My railing is not against the use
of dice, but the dominance of luck in titles.
> When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from
setup,
> from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by
definition
> an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that
certain
> negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots
of
> people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
I am not railing against luck in general. Just that American games
seem dominated by the luck element, for the most part. If it weren't
for German games, I wouldn't have know that things could be different.
It seems in the American mindset, you either have theme driven
luckfests, or sterile abstract strategy games. German games seem able
to give games heavily dominated by strategy and tactics but also some
chrome around them.
- Richard Hutnik
Pitt Crandlemire
>richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>>so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>>
>
>I think the reason is 3-fold:
>
>1. It's often easier/cheaper to modify an existing thing than
>to develop/invent/design something entirely new & original.
I'm sure that's reasonably accurate though certainly not very admirable. And,
FWIW, I don't buy the argument that it's fiscally responsible for the big US
game companies to continue to rehash old standards because they know they'll
sell. I'm not suggesting they bet the farm on a new game or mechanic but there
are any number of examples in US business where innovation sells and sells very
well. In the gaming industry, Rio Grande Games comes to mind, for example.
>2. On the flip side, I think most people are more comfortable
>learning something with a bit a familiarity vs. something
>completely different. This generally applies more to adults
>than to kids.
I strongly disagree with this. I realize that you're only describing what you
believe to be the reasons for the actions of others, Glenn, but I think this
argument, to the extent that it is valid, is particularly specious. I
regularly have the opportunity to introduce European style games with
interesting mechanics and themes to casual, formerly MB/PB only game players.
The reaction I get, almost without exception, is one of surprise, extreme
interest, and a desire to play more of the same. I frequently get comments
making disparaging comparisons to the "traditional" US fare available at TRU or
other such retail channels.
I think that the average US consumer who already has an interest in board or
card games for family and adults is more than prepared for innovation and
novelty. The don't demand it, unfortunatdly, beause most of them don't know
they have a choice.
>3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
>"action" taking place and/or the only factor of
>unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV).
I'm not sure how accurate this is. I know that a lot of casual gamers of my
acquaintance don't seem to mind games with a high luck factor. Whether or not
that means they don't know any better or they would equate "luck" with
"randomness" is another matter.
>Also, randomizers are
>the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
>& kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
>to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
>game.
But there are so many much better ways! Start the lesser skilled players in a
more favorable position, give them easier to achieve victory conditions,
provide them with additional starting resources, etc. Mechanics of this nature
allow direct and fair competition between players of different skill levels
without introducing randomness. All that does is teach kids that games are no
fun and not serious entertainment because skill doesn't really matter.
-Pitt Crandlemire
pi...@syncon.com
kas...@acadia.net
> Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
> govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
> company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
> rule.
It seems to me that this is true only if we are talking about
mass-market games produced by Hasbro subsidiaries.
If we think in really broad terms, as Richard suggests, then *most*
American games are designed and produced independently, by small game
publishers, and they cover such a broad range of types and themes and
gaming mechanisms that it's pretty hard to make sweeping general
statements.
Cheap Ass Games, which Richard mentions, is one example of an
innovative smaller company. But how about Columbia? Fantasy Flight?
Not to mention West End, Metagaming, Gallo Glass, Steve Jackson Games...
The list is endless.
The problem with the American game industry is probably similar to
the problem with American publishing, American music, American
filmmaking, and most other industries that involve creativity and
artistry. A small number of giant companies dominate the supply side of
the market. They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
Meanwhile, out there is the vast spaces of the U.S.A., countless
brilliant game designers/musicians/writers/filmmakers are creating
wonderful things that reach only a fraction of the potential audience,
because they are not being packaged and sold by the majors. Hardcore
fans of any given genre -- games, recordings, comix, you name it -- know
that you really have to dig to find the coolest stuff. Here on RGB
right now we've got lively discussions about Disk Wars, Kings & Things,
Swords & Sorcery, Monsters Ravage America, and other titles that don't
fit the mass-market "Ameritrash" mold. This doesn't make them any less
American.
--
Ich brauche nicht immer meiner eigenen Meinung zu sein.
I need not always be of my own opinion.
-- Heinrich Heine
Glenn Kuntz
>Glenn Kuntz <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>>>so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>>>
>>
>>I think the reason is 3-fold:
>>
>>1. It's often easier/cheaper to modify an existing thing than
>>to develop/invent/design something entirely new & original.
>
>I'm sure that's reasonably accurate though certainly not very admirable. And,
>FWIW, I don't buy the argument that it's fiscally responsible for the big US
>game companies to continue to rehash old standards because they know they'll
>sell.
I agree it may not be admirable, but I'm not sure why you don't
think it's fiscally responsible for a game company to further
exploit a previous success(?)
How many collectors editions of Monopoly are out now?
How many 18XX games are there?
How many SoC expansions/variants are we now up to?
>I'm not suggesting they bet the farm on a new game or mechanic but there
>are any number of examples in US business where innovation sells and sells very
>well. In the gaming industry, Rio Grande Games comes to mind, for example.
No argument from me!
>
>>2. On the flip side, I think most people are more comfortable
>>learning something with a bit a familiarity vs. something
>>completely different. This generally applies more to adults
>>than to kids.
>
>I strongly disagree with this. I realize that you're only describing what you
>believe to be the reasons for the actions of others, Glenn, but I think this
>argument, to the extent that it is valid, is particularly specious.
You may be right. I base my observation on reactions of people
I teach games to, which for the most part, is the public at
large (rather than gamers/game enthusiasts.) I have a heck of
a time getting folks (again, for the most part - YMMV) to play
*anything* with a foreign sounding name or infamiliar
subject/theme, or that has a rule set larger than one page.
>I
>regularly have the opportunity to introduce European style games with
>interesting mechanics and themes to casual, formerly MB/PB only game players.
>The reaction I get, almost without exception, is one of surprise, extreme
>interest, and a desire to play more of the same.
I wish I could find your players! :-) I don't mean to say I
never find *any* interested folks (sorry if anyone got that
impression,) - I was speaking in generalities.
>I frequently get comments
>making disparaging comparisons to the "traditional" US fare available at TRU or
>other such retail channels.
Likewise.
>
>I think that the average US consumer who already has an interest in board or
>card games for family and adults is more than prepared for innovation and
>novelty.
This is interesting. Does John Q. Public (the average American
boardgame consumer) *have* an interest in board/card games, and
what is the extent of that interest?
As to the second part (are they more prepared for innovation &
novelty?) I still don't think so - I still think that most
folks are generally averse to change/innovation - but I'll keep
an open mind. (I would expect opinions/reactions on this group
to be quite different from those of folks out on the street.)
I would also expect folks' acceptance of new/innovative/novel
games to be commensurate with their level of interest in these
types of games, so yes, generally speaking, people who are into
games (gamers) are more likely to be intersted in new &
different games than non-gamers.
>The don't demand it, unfortunatdly, beause most of them don't know
>they have a choice.
I agree with this also.
>
>>3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
>>"action" taking place and/or the only factor of
>>unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV).
>
>I'm not sure how accurate this is. I know that a lot of casual gamers of my
>acquaintance don't seem to mind games with a high luck factor. Whether or not
>that means they don't know any better or they would equate "luck" with
>"randomness" is another matter.
Well, admitedly, #3 was some of the kid in me getting out. How
many kids (or adult gamers, for that matter) have you seen make
a sacred ritual out of rolling dice? ;-) Rolling dice *is*
fun. So is drawing a card, spinning a tee-totum, or flipping a
coin. It's the excitement and anticipation of the imminent.
>
>>Also, randomizers are
>>the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
>>& kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
>> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
>>to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
>>game.
>
>But there are so many much better ways! Start the lesser skilled players in a
>more favorable position, give them easier to achieve victory conditions,
>provide them with additional starting resources, etc.
Now you sound like me during the "never throw a game" thread.
:-)
>Mechanics of this nature
>allow direct and fair competition between players of different skill levels
>without introducing randomness. All that does is teach kids that games are no
>fun and not serious entertainment because skill doesn't really matter.
I agree, I agree! Well-designed, well balanced games don't
need to rely unnecessarily heavily on randomizers, but they can
be/all too often are (unfortunately) an easy fix.
>
>
>-Pitt Crandlemire
> pi...@syncon.com
Richard Heli
I got a lucky event such that I was able to "mine" both items that I
needed.
I then hired some extra workers and was producing a new item each turn
whereas most of the other players were producing something every other
turn. No nasty events came up that I could not deal with, usually
involving
hiring just a couple of temps, nor were there any politicians that could
hurt
me. I didn't spend any money on politicians either -- why should I
waste
money on them after all since I was leading. I was making money so fast
that it was difficult to hide it all from the tax man and eventually
won.
Geenius at Wrok
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000111104940.26862B-100000@merlin>,
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>
> > Yet if you look at Cheapass' most widely praised games -- Kill Dr. Lucky,
> > Lord of the Fries, Button Men, Falling and Brawl -- only one, Button Men,
> > is completely dice-centric, and in that game there's no movement for the
> > dice to govern. Lord of the Fries offers a choice between choosing menu
> > orders randomly or tactically, and the other three don't use dice at all.
>
> Yeah, look at them. Seriously tell me that luck doesn't play a large
> roll in a person's success in them. My railing is not against the use
> of dice, but the dominance of luck in titles.
And I'm saying that in all of those, luck is a factor, but it's not -the-
factor. A player with higher skill will still regularly, even if not
universally, beat the player with lower skill, even if the only real
difference in skill is whether you "get it" or not.
> > When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from setup,
> > from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by definition
> > an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that certain
> > negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots of
> > people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
>
> I am not railing against luck in general. Just that American games
> seem dominated by the luck element, for the most part. If it weren't
> for German games, I wouldn't have know that things could be different.
And I'm just saying that the reason for that isn't an American "mind-set"
but the fact that America just isn't doing very much to develop new game
mechanics, while Germany is doing a lot. If more Americans saw benefit
(read: dinero) in developing new games, I bet they would show just as much
creativity as the Germans. I just don't think the incentive is there in
the minds of most of the people who would be developing them.
What you have in America is a whole lot of thirsty horses that have no
idea where to find water and a market dominated by companies that have
profited handsomely by making delicious hay and see no reason to change
their strategy. Little by little, small game stores and game companies
are leading those horses to water ... but it's going to take a -lot- of
that before the market offers anything other than hay.
richar...@hotmail.com
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> What you have in America is a whole lot of thirsty horses that have no
> idea where to find water and a market dominated by companies that have
> profited handsomely by making delicious hay and see no reason to
change
> their strategy. Little by little, small game stores and game
companies
> are leading those horses to water ... but it's going to take a -lot-
of
> that before the market offers anything other than hay.
Gee, I am reminded of a local hobby store near me that started stocking
German games because I requested them and bought some. The set of Rio
Grande stuff has grown.
On the getting people interested front, I was in the store today, and
some middle aged woman came in asking for Settlers of Catan there. I
asked her who she was buying for, and she said herself, because she
tried the game and liked it. I told here there were even better German
style games out there. So, I guess it is a matter of time. =)
Jeff Simons
think it's relevant here too.)
As someone who dislikes too much randomness in games (i.e., Monopoly,
Axis vs Allies, War in the Pacific, etc.), I am a little surprised by
some of the comments about Dog Eat Dog and the luck factor. Compare it
to Rail Baron. In Rail Baron, couple of bad rolls early in the game and
you're sitting around for hours waiting to lose. One of the reasons I
dislike Mississippi Queen and Settlers of Cataan is that I find bad die
rolls to be crippling.
Obviously, we have played Dog Eat Dog many times, with many different
groups of people. (We have been working on it since 1982!) I agree that
at first glance, or even second or third, it seems that die-rolls can
hurt your chances to win. But what we have discovered is that the game
is tremendously forgiving of bad die rolls, when you know the system
well enough to exploit it. And while this might make it a tougher entry
level game for some, it means that replay value is very high.
At one point, we were toying with the idea of using 1-3 dice for
movement, allowing players to choose the number of dice to use each
time. We even thought about letting them choose how much they wanted to
move entirely. (Admittedly, the board squares were a little different
then.) While seasoned gamers thrived with those rules, beginners and
mainstream gamers were totally lost.
There is a familiarity to dice rolling games where you move around the
board that seems to be necessary for mainstream acceptance. So we chose
not to buck the current, and instead to make the game more challenging
on the high end, in strategy and rules exploitation. I know this is a
pretty strong statement, but none of the games I have played in since
the final design (well over 100) were the same as any other. We have
put in so many checks, balances, punches and counter-punches that even
the same group of players, playing the same divisions, end up playing
each game differently.
When we demo the game and are there to show new players all the ins and
outs, they seem to uniformly love it. Some players grasp the nuances
instantly, and are stabbing their best friends or spouses in the back
before the first round is even done. Other players take longer to
figure it out, but by the last few turns are so good at blocking others,
using red tape cards to overturn advantages, and cutting deals that
exclude leaders that dark horse upset victories are frequent.
What we tried to create was a game that was inviting to newcomers, but
would be satisfying on a repeat basis to seasoned gamers.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
--
Jeffrey Simons
President,
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
Makers of Dog Eat Dog, Blue vs Gray, and STASH
"We're Game If You Are!"
richar...@hotmail.com
kas...@acadia.net wrote:
> It seems to me that this is true only if we are talking about
> mass-market games produced by Hasbro subsidiaries.
I think the premise I am claiming is most true in the main Hasbro
line of products. However, I think it may be true to a lesser extent in
other games. Maybe the American culture is more tolerant of luck in
their games that other nationalities.
> If we think in really broad terms, as Richard suggests, then
*most*
> American games are designed and produced independently, by small game
> publishers, and they cover such a broad range of types and themes and
> gaming mechanisms that it's pretty hard to make sweeping general
> statements.
Again, I say there are exceptions to the rule. But, German games, as
a rule, seem to have a wider variety of new game mechanics to them.
> Cheap Ass Games, which Richard mentions, is one example of an
> innovative smaller company.
They do have some innovation in themes. As far as being dominated by
luck, I would say that most of their games are. Then again, they are
meant to be quick filler games, so I won't knock them for that. I have
some of their games also, as filler games.
>But how about Columbia? Fantasy Flight?
Now, you are in the area of wargames. Wargames, by nature, are
their own beast.
> Not to mention West End, Metagaming, Gallo Glass, Steve Jackson
Games...
> The list is endless.
Well, leave out games that are wargamish by nature. How many low
complexity, tactically dominant games, with a theme, are produced by
American companies? Not too many. This is a reason why German games
have been popular. They fill the niche of being games you can spring on
casual gamers while holding the interest of hardcore gamers. It seems
that in addition to sometimes falling into the dominated by luck angle,
American games designers are likely to add more complexity to their
games to appeal to more hardcore gamers.
It is almost a case of things going to an extreme. Either you have
hardcore complex games on one side, or low complexity luckfests on the
other hand, by American game designers.
> The problem with the American game industry is probably similar to
> the problem with American publishing, American music, American
> filmmaking, and most other industries that involve creativity and
> artistry. A small number of giant companies dominate the supply side
of
> the market.
In actuality, it is more like one dominates, and that is Hasbro.
>They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
> easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
> narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
> number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
I think the Toys R Us factor plays a role in this. I am curious to
see if Acquire ever appears in Toys R Us.
> Meanwhile, out there is the vast spaces of the U.S.A., countless
> brilliant game designers/musicians/writers/filmmakers are creating
> wonderful things that reach only a fraction of the potential audience,
> because they are not being packaged and sold by the majors.
That is true to some extent. The premise I am pondering is if the
American culture is more interested in having luck and familar game
mechanics in their games that other cultures. I think of many of the
potential game designers out there who think they have a cool idea, and
it is merely another "-opoly" game. Or "Risk, with a twist". Or the
next "Trivial Pursuit", etc... Think of the average game inventor in
America. What is s/he trying to hawk? Either a luckfest game, which is
a twist on what you get at Toys R Us, or an abstract strategy game.
This is the mindset, and the rule. Again, the "Ameritrash" mentality.
(Ameritrash being my variant on the term "Eurotrash" that gets thrown
around in some circles).
>Hardcore
> fans of any given genre -- games, recordings, comix, you name it --
know
> that you really have to dig to find the coolest stuff.
It seems the designers of hardcore games in America have the tendency
to make their games more and more complex, with more and more rules.
>Here on RGB
> right now we've got lively discussions about Disk Wars,
I can't comment on this one.
>Kings & Things,
Ya can't count games designed by the freak of nature Tom Wham =). I
do mean that in a nice way, by the way. Tom Wham's games are noted for
their luck element by the way.
> Swords & Sorcery,
Won't comment on that.
>Monsters Ravage America,
You don't remember the artwork, do you? :-P hehehe.
>and other titles that don't
> fit the mass-market "Ameritrash" mold. This doesn't make them any
> less American.
Well, perhaps...
I think, mulling over this discussion, there is a tendency for American
games to make situations more engaging/challenging/unpredictable for
players by either increasing the complexity of the rules game, or by
pumping up the luck element in the game. An interesting note is how a
good number of German games tend to avoid this. They are able to have
captivating play, without either falling into the trap of loading up on
rules, or by making the luck factor high.
Greg Fleischman
richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I am curious what is it about American games that make them
> so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>
> - Richard Hutnik
>
>
I think the answer is simple (but my answer will be long!). In this
country, games are equated with toys with companies and consumers, and not
as a legitimate form of entertainment for older teens through adults.
Because of this impression, the audience they appeal to is only kids.
Factor in then that they must compete with the newest whiz-bang toys, and
there is no wonder the expense of nice materials and the involved
development needed to produce something appealing to all ages, or
individually to various ages, is not justifiable.
Assuming that companies like AbacusSpiele, Kosmos, etc., are profitable,
what is different about Europe that allows great development and quality
materials in games? The only thing I can think of is that games ARE a
legitimate form of entertainment there, on a par with books, movies, etc.
Here, ask someone if they would be interested in playing a game, and they
look at you like you asked them if they wanted to play with Mr. Potato
Head.
I haven't followed the thread about chess, but I think the overwhelming
following and coverage chess gets, and to a lesser extent other traditional
games like backgammon and go, gives these games a different aura. So, the
answer to the question above is that most American game companies promote
what American consumers want. And most of the late teenage through adult
consumers aren't interested in games. So instead of getting Settlers of
Catan, we get Loopin' Louie. Granted, there are a handful of great,
non-traditional adult games here, like Acquire. But I can understand how
there won't be many more until people see games as something more
sophisticated than a kids toy and worthy of the price equivalent to a
hardcover book.
And, finally, about Dog Eat Dog. I also wondered about this game after
seeing it in a games store. From the postings about this game, it seems
that it, like other adult-oriented games, can't seem to break away from
kids games mechanics. This is not to say that the degree of luck defines
the difference between adult and kids games. Rather it is how luck is used
by itself or blended with strategy. I still like the game Can't Stop,
which uses much luck. Monopoly is ok, but it is so disappointing to see
how many games having different themes wind up being just a Monopoly
knock-off. Maybe greater exposure over time to German games, with their
nicer components, unique themes and mechanics and challenging play, will
people be willing to pay the higher prices and accept that games can be
entertaining across all age groups.
Greg
Mark Jackson
>
> (I posted this in response to "Why all the bellyaching about luck" but I
> think it's relevant here too.)
> As someone who dislikes too much randomness in games (i.e., Monopoly,
> Axis vs Allies, War in the Pacific, etc.), I am a little surprised by
> some of the comments about Dog Eat Dog and the luck factor. Compare it
> to Rail Baron. In Rail Baron, couple of bad rolls early in the game and
> you're sitting around for hours waiting to lose. One of the reasons I
> dislike Mississippi Queen and Settlers of Cataan is that I find bad die
> rolls to be crippling.
Settlers I see... but MS Queen?! The only die roll is for which way the river goes!
> When we demo the game and are there to show new players all the ins and
> outs, they seem to uniformly love it. Some players grasp the nuances
> instantly, and are stabbing their best friends or spouses in the back
> before the first round is even done. Other players take longer to
> figure it out, but by the last few turns are so good at blocking others,
> using red tape cards to overturn advantages, and cutting deals that
> exclude leaders that dark horse upset victories are frequent.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is based on what different
people are looking for in a gaming experience - and/or what they expect.
Dog Eat Dog LOOKS like a Monopoly-track roll & move with a little trading
thrown on... but the trading/negotiating/messing around is only limited by the
rules & your imagination. By their own admission, the designers chose NOT to
give all the possible strategies in the rules to allow players to discover them.
I had a similar experience with a very different game, Medieval Merchant. Weak
reviews on r.g.b. kept me from purchasing MM... but then I had an opportunity
to play with Jay Tummelson (Rio Grande) teaching us the game and explaining
some strategy. It's become my favorite "rail" game.
> What we tried to create was a game that was inviting to newcomers, but
> would be satisfying on a repeat basis to seasoned gamers.
> Anyway, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
Thanks, Jeff... it's nice to get to talk to the designer(s)!
Justin B. Green
the _board_game market): collectible card games; where 90% of the luck
comes as you're buying the darn things...or perhaps even before that: when
whatever factors came together in your life to enable you to throw money
away like it was toilet paper. CCG's TRULY put the "trash" in Ameritrash
(but Americans ain't the only ones buying them).
That said, I personally think a little more credit should be given to
Cheapass, QED, Steve Jackson, etc., and their more luck-based games. I
prefer "German" games myself, and play them most often, but when I play
one of those American games, it can be like a breath of fresh air. Yes,
they're lighter, but they also tend to have more character and humor
(which sometimes stem directly from the random factors). Plus, with dice,
a different kind of tension develops, stemming from the loss of control,
that can give a game a palpable narrative. (Man, I'm really talking out
my (cheap)ass now!)
Leaving America for the classics: Poker, backgammon, and bridge have
random factors at their cores that really give drama to games that most
people admit require plenty of "skill" to win consistently. Personally,
there's nothing in chess, go, or Tigris & Euphrates for that matter, that
compares to climaxes of calling your best friend's bluff with the straight
you drew into, or rolling that double 4 EXACTLY when you needed it.
-----------
One last tangent: when growing up, my mother and my friends' mothers were
much more reliable and cutthroat game opponents than the dads were. Yes,
the dads were more competitive, but it was usually limited to sports (or
work, of course). For the most part, they could care less about games,
and you'd consider yourself lucky if they bothered to learn the rules!
This pattern will probably be broken when my wife and I have a family,
however...
ASF
American game.
Christian Killoran
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85f82s$vek$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think below is a reason why I dislike most games produced in
> America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
> amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
> governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
> game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
> Outside of abstract strategy games, all I recall is games where dice
> govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
> company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
>
> so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>
> - Richard Hutnik
When I first read this post my jaw almost hit the keyboard! I've been a
gamer for about 25 years, playing American games almost exclusively until a
few years ago when I was exposed to some of the titles called "German" games
here on r.g.b. I instantly took a shine to many of these games because they
were different from what I was used to...but they certainly didn't strike me
as being less luck dependent - quite the opposite.
From where I sit, the American game scene has been divided into two very
different categories: "children's games" in which luck all but decide the
winners, and "serious games" (including but not limited to wargames) where
luck can be managed out of the picture. Just for fun, let me compare some
titles and you tell me which game is more luck dependent.
Ameritrash: Circus Maximus
Eurotrash: Formula De
Ameritrash: We the People
Eurotrash: Elfenlands (oops! Designer nationality!) how bout Bohnanza?
Ameritrash: Panzergruppe Guderian
Eurotrash: Tikal
Ameritrash: Gunslinger
Eurotrash: Ursuppe
Richard, the reason I found your comment so ironic is because I play the
European games when I want something light, fast, and lucky enough that
anybody can win. I'm glad they're around because they fill a niche that
American publishers can't or won't fill. But I sure don't consider them to
be the brain challenging pinnacle of gaming.
Geenius at Wrok
> In article <387B8B...@acadia.net>,
> kas...@acadia.net wrote:
>
> >They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
> > easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
> > narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
> > number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
>
> I think the Toys R Us factor plays a role in this. I am curious to
> see if Acquire ever appears in Toys R Us.
Hasbro has already said it won't. The Avalon Hill line will be shopped to
specialty game stores, not the mass-market stores.
But then again, why should Toys 'R' Us sell it? Here we are complaining
about how the U.S. game industry treats games as if they were toys and
wishing it gave games full credit for being what they are. With that
mind-set, no one should expect to find games for sale in a -toy- store --
they should be looking for them in -game- stores. As long as the public
thinks "toy" when it hears "game" -- and consequently only shops for games
in toy stores -- the games that are produced for it will be nothing more
than toys. Yet another reason why we need not only a robust game industry
but a robust game -retail- industry.
> That is true to some extent. The premise I am pondering is if the
> American culture is more interested in having luck and familar game
> mechanics in their games that other cultures. I think of many of the
> potential game designers out there who think they have a cool idea, and
> it is merely another "-opoly" game. Or "Risk, with a twist". Or the
> next "Trivial Pursuit", etc...
A lot of people think the American public is very conservative and will
only buy something that seems familiar. To an extent, this is true.
However, it overlooks the fact that heavy advertising can make -anything-
seem familiar, whether it is or not. Politicians win elections that way
all the time. Give any game a Hasbro marketing budget (and the
distribution to back it up), and it will be a success.
Thomas C. Perconti
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.1000111194957.4537E-100000@merlin...
> > kas...@acadia.net wrote:
> >
> > >They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
> > > easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
> > > narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
> > > number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
> >
> > I think the Toys R Us factor plays a role in this. I am curious to
> > see if Acquire ever appears in Toys R Us.
>
> specialty game stores, not the mass-market stores.
>
> But then again, why should Toys 'R' Us sell it? Here we are complaining
> about how the U.S. game industry treats games as if they were toys and
> wishing it gave games full credit for being what they are. With that
> mind-set, no one should expect to find games for sale in a -toy- store --
> they should be looking for them in -game- stores. As long as the public
> thinks "toy" when it hears "game" -- and consequently only shops for games
> in toy stores -- the games that are produced for it will be nothing more
> than toys. Yet another reason why we need not only a robust game industry
> but a robust game -retail- industry.
Toys 'R' Us should sell games for the same reason they sell books, bicycles,
models, crafts, greeting cards, video games, mini stereo systems, and
diapers. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling that there are some
"hidden agendas" at work that prevent the "more substantial" boardgames from
appearing on the shelves of TRU.
Wasn't MB's GameMasters series (overall) a successful line? I can remember
when these first came out they were flying off store shelves even though they
were easily the most expensive games in the store. I'm not convinced that
non-trivial games wouldn't sell in TRU. It's difficult to buy something when
it isn't on the self.
But I guess we'll never know for sure.
--
Tom Perconti (aka SpeedRacer: Lancelot of the Information Superhighway)
Horror e-Comic Demo: http://members.tripod.com/~Perconti/dawncomic.zip
The Unofficial Home Page of Cadaco's All-Star Baseball Game:
http://members.tripod.com/~Perconti/cadaco/
Julian
>dislike Mississippi Queen and Settlers of Cataan is that I find bad die
>rolls to be crippling.
Is there a die in MQ? Or do you mean curve of the river? Not a greatly
significant problem, imo.
I accept the Settlers point which is why you need to place carefully.
--
Regards
Julian
Melbourne, Australia
Robert Chang
<fis...@p3.net> wrote:
> Agreed. Monopoly-style games suck. I personally will never buy another
> American game.
That has to be one of the dumbest absolute statements I've heard in a
while. Remain skeptical about US company releases? Sure. Never buy
another Monopoly variant? Definitely. But never buy a game made by a US
company? That's just setting yourself up to eat crow. You never know
where the next great game is going to come from.
-bob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= b...@soda.berkeley.edu = It is now pitch black. You are likely to =
= go...@uclink.berkeley.edu = be eaten by a grue. --Zork =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg J. Schloesser
> A lot of people think the American public is very conservative and will
> only buy something that seems familiar. To an extent, this is true.
> However, it overlooks the fact that heavy advertising can make -anything-
> seem familiar, whether it is or not. Politicians win elections that way
> all the time. Give any game a Hasbro marketing budget (and the
> distribution to back it up), and it will be a success.
A great big AMEN to that!! I have been preaching this to whoever will listen
... proper marketing is the key. You can't expect to place an adult game on
the shelves of Toys R Us where it will get lost between the latest Pokemon
Monopoly and Toy Story 2 board games. Give adult board games their own
section and advertise, advertise, advertise them. They will sell.
Coincidentally, I have an article on the very same subject which will appear
on an upcoming issue of the Games Cafe.
--
Greg J. Schloesser
The Westbank Gamers: http://home.earthlink.net/~gschloesser/
Mik Svellov
Greg Fleischman wrote:
> Assuming that companies like AbacusSpiele, Kosmos, etc., are profitable,
> what is different about Europe that allows great development and quality
> materials in games?
Please note that Europe is *not* different to America in this respect. It is only in Germany that this special culture exsist.
Mik
Jeff Simons
Interestingly enough, our sales of Dog Eat Dog in Europe and Germany far
outpace our sales in America.
Also, I don't think anyone here has described the Dog Eat Dog game
mechanic, which has nothing to do with Monopoly and is not exactly a
"kid game mechanic."
In Dog Eat Dog, you must set up a production cycle, exploit variable
market conditions, and wheel and deal with other players in an
unstructured, clever-deals-are-rewarded sort of way. The variably paced
degradation of the nature squares alone is an innovative concept.
I guess I'm getting a litle defensive, but in all honesty, it's painful
to watch a game that doesn't have the problems that are being described
slammed for having those problems.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Toys 'R' Us should sell games for the same reason they sell books, bicycles,
>models, crafts, greeting cards, video games, mini stereo systems, and
>diapers. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling that there are some
>"hidden agendas" at work that prevent the "more substantial" boardgames from
>appearing on the shelves of TRU.
TRU *does* sell games. Every TRU I've been in has a games section;
there's a TRU on Long Island where the game section is larger than
some hobby shops I've been in.
TRU sells games for children. That should surprise no-one; TRU is a
store for *children's goods*. Every item they sell is geared towards a
market of children.
TRU has no interest in adult games for an adult audience.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Neil Carr
whole randomness issue in reference to Dog eat Dog. I think the game
is interesting and look forward to having my own copy of the game. I
just started to go into phenomenological mode on the nature of random
movement allowances. Being at work it's sometimes hard to properly
review what you've written to rgb when at any moment the boss may come
by to see what you are up to.
Neil Carr
Dallas MetroGamers
http://www.earthsea.com/metrogamers/
richar...@hotmail.com
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> Hasbro has already said it won't. The Avalon Hill line will be
shopped to
> specialty game stores, not the mass-market stores.
>
> But then again, why should Toys 'R' Us sell it? Here we are
complaining
> about how the U.S. game industry treats games as if they were toys and
> wishing it gave games full credit for being what they are. With that
> mind-set, no one should expect to find games for sale in a -toy- store
I think a reason why Hasbro bought Avalon Hill was to gain THE most
well known name in the hobby store game business. Hasbro had been
interested in pursuing this niche market for awhile, because it makes
money.
> they should be looking for them in -game- stores. As long as the
public
> thinks "toy" when it hears "game" -- and consequently only shops for
games
> in toy stores -- the games that are produced for it will be nothing
more
> than toys. Yet another reason why we need not only a robust game
industry
> but a robust game -retail- industry.
Maybe this is a reason for having the Avalon Hill brand. The brand
lets them release titles for more hardcore gamers, without people
instantly associating their games with being "stupid". Kind of the
reverse of what you spoke of. I think all that needs to take place to
help build a more robust gaming industry is for Hasbro to package a
catalog with more of their "hardcore" games in it, and put it in the
likes of Monopoly, etc...
> A lot of people think the American public is very conservative and
will
> only buy something that seems familiar. To an extent, this is true.
> However, it overlooks the fact that heavy advertising can make
-anything-
> seem familiar, whether it is or not. Politicians win elections that
way
> all the time. Give any game a Hasbro marketing budget (and the
> distribution to back it up), and it will be a success.
If you consider most games are purchased as gifts for other people,
then the familarity factor stands to be very true.
richar...@hotmail.com
Dog". I saw it in a local hobby store, and was curious about it. When
someone posted about the game being like Monopoly, I went into my whole
soapbox hatred of people making Monopoly clones with a twist (labelled
these games Ameritrash). I would like to get more information on your
game. I am always rooting for the American game makers to produce
interesting games.
- Richard Hutnik
In article <387D5979...@qedgames.com>,
Jeff Simons <jeffs...@qedgames.com> wrote:
> Greg:
> Interestingly enough, our sales of Dog Eat Dog in Europe and Germany
far
> outpace our sales in America.
> Also, I don't think anyone here has described the Dog Eat Dog game
> mechanic, which has nothing to do with Monopoly and is not exactly a
> "kid game mechanic."
> In Dog Eat Dog, you must set up a production cycle, exploit variable
> market conditions, and wheel and deal with other players in an
> unstructured, clever-deals-are-rewarded sort of way. The variably
paced
> degradation of the nature squares alone is an innovative concept.
> I guess I'm getting a litle defensive, but in all honesty, it's
painful
> to watch a game that doesn't have the problems that are being
described
> slammed for having those problems.
--
Richard Heli
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
> "Thomas C. Perconti" <srac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Toys 'R' Us should sell games for the same reason they sell books, bicycles,
> >models, crafts, greeting cards, video games, mini stereo systems, and
> >diapers. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling that there are some
> >"hidden agendas" at work that prevent the "more substantial" boardgames from
> >appearing on the shelves of TRU.
>
> TRU *does* sell games. Every TRU I've been in has a games section;
> there's a TRU on Long Island where the game section is larger than
> some hobby shops I've been in.
>
> TRU sells games for children. That should surprise no-one; TRU is a
> store for *children's goods*. Every item they sell is geared towards a
> market of children.
>
> TRU has no interest in adult games for an adult audience.
And apparently not doing that well either (source: Publishers Weekly):
Detailed sales reports about the Christmas season confirm earlier
impressions that the flush economy, high stock market (at least until the
end of 1999) and relatively warm weather made the 1999 holiday season one
of the strongest ever.
Among the trends: warehouse clubs and other discount stores had the
strongest sales; specialty and luxury stores for the most part did well;
department stores had mixed results. For example, sales at Costco outlets
open at least a year were up 18%. Wal-Mart comp-store sales were up 9.1%.
Neiman Marcus was up 14.4%. At Talbots, comp-store sales rose 11.8%.
Among the laggards: Toys R Us reported sales at stores open at least a year
were down 2%.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Christian Killoran" <xm...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> When I first read this post my jaw almost hit the keyboard! I've been
a
> gamer for about 25 years, playing American games almost exclusively
until a
> few years ago when I was exposed to some of the titles called "German"
games
> here on r.g.b. I instantly took a shine to many of these games
because they
> were different from what I was used to...but they certainly didn't
strike me
> as being less luck dependent - quite the opposite.
I think it depends on which games you look at, as far as the German
games go. There are a good dose of German games that have less luck
involved. I tend to like these games more than the luck driven games.
I will agree that German games are more light weight than the hardcore
strategy games.
> From where I sit, the American game scene has been divided into two
very
> different categories: "children's games" in which luck all but decide
the
> winners, and "serious games" (including but not limited to wargames)
where
> luck can be managed out of the picture. Just for fun, let me compare
some
> titles and you tell me which game is more luck dependent.
I think this is a later point I touched on. Games in America seem to
fall into either of the two camps, making it real hard for a serious
gamer to introduce games to non-gamers and play games they would enjoy.
> Ameritrash: Circus Maximus
> Eurotrash: Formula De
This is a good analogy.
> Ameritrash: We the People
> Eurotrash: Elfenlands (oops! Designer nationality!) how bout
Bohnanza?
This is a bad analogy. You are comparing a wargame to a light party
game. Compare Pit to Bohnanza would be better. And, I would take
Bohnanza over Pit any day.
> Ameritrash: Panzergruppe Guderian
> Eurotrash: Tikal
Again, a bad comparison. Pick an American game out that is closer to
Tikal. Survive perhaps? How about CheapAss's Something Jack game? By
the way, do you consider Tikal with the advanced auction rules for the
pieces to be heavily luck driven?
> Ameritrash: Gunslinger
> Eurotrash: Ursuppe
What does gunfighting have to do with Amoebas?
> Richard, the reason I found your comment so ironic is because I play
the
> European games when I want something light, fast, and lucky enough
that
> anybody can win.
>
>I'm glad they're around because they fill a niche
that
> American publishers can't or won't fill. But I sure don't consider
them to
> be the brain challenging pinnacle of gaming.
Well, again, it depends on the game. Some German games, while being
low in complexity, do offer a lot of strategic thinking. Others are
more light weight. Again, I think my main venting, besides the luck
angle, is that American games, unless they pile on the rules, tend to
have stale game mechanics to them. German and European games tend to
make captivating games without piling on a ton of complexity. When it
comes to lower complexity games, I am far more likely to find more
tactically challenging games with less luck in German games than
American, unless you speak abstract strategy.
- Richard Hutnik
Jeff Simons
I was starting to feel a little embattled. It's tough when you're a
small company trying to do big things. Our non-collectible Civil War
card game, Blue vs Gray, has gotten rave reviews from pundits, and while
it has sold very well for a war game, hasn't sold a fraction as much as
any of the collectible card games out there. In Essen, we were told by
Germans that Dog Eat Dog was one of the first German Style games to come
out of America, but in America, some people won't look at us because
we're not German.
(As a company driven by content and quality we have the smallest profit
margins of any company I know of because of it).
Anyway, if you want to know more about us, I suggest two places. One,
our website, at www.qedgames.com. We pride ourselves on our customer
service and information delivery. And two, the ConsimWorld discussion
board at www.consimworld.com. While ConsimWorld is admittedly more
wargame oriented, they do get into some serious dicussions about game
design all the time. You may even find an entire thread devoted to some
of your favorite games. You'll also find designers galore there, often
discussing the whys and wherefores of their "babies."
Geenius at Wrok
> TRU sells games for children. That should surprise no-one; TRU is a
> store for *children's goods*. Every item they sell is geared towards a
> market of children.
>
> TRU has no interest in adult games for an adult audience.
I haven't been in a Toys 'R' Us in a -long- time, but doesn't it sell
Hasbro's yuppie game line (Taboo, Scattergories, etc.)? I'd count those
as adult games for an adult audience. Plus, TRU also sells quite a few
children's games aimed at an adult audience. :-)
Christian Killoran
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85istm$m65$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well, again, it depends on the game. Some German games, while being
> low in complexity, do offer a lot of strategic thinking. Others are
> more light weight. Again, I think my main venting, besides the luck
> angle, is that American games, unless they pile on the rules, tend to
> have stale game mechanics to them. German and European games tend to
> make captivating games without piling on a ton of complexity. When it
> comes to lower complexity games, I am far more likely to find more
> tactically challenging games with less luck in German games than
> American, unless you speak abstract strategy.
I think you put your finger on why I admire many of the German games - they
often achieve a decent amount of "skill factor" WITHOUT a massive legalistic
rulebook. I can't argue that American games in the "serious" category are
very good at this.
P.S. Richard...my game comparison analogies were not intended to compare
themes. I apologize if I didn't explain myself very well. I tried to pair
up games that might compete for playing time among my own circle of gaming
buddies. In any case, I'm happy to jump up on top of your anti-luck soapbox
so long as the comments don't add up to America bashing!
