Jamaica is a board game for 2-6 players, published by relative newcomers GameWorks, distributed in the U.S. by Asmodee, and designed by Bruno Cathala, Sebastien Pauchon, and Malcolm Braff. Players race pirate ships around the island of Jamaica, while shooting cannons at each other and stealing treasures.
Here’s a reminder of my scoring categories:
Components – Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility – How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth – Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme – Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun – Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it’s over?
Components: It may be a little early in my career to break convention, but when I write a “10” out of “10” in a category, I mean that the game fulfilled every hope and expectation I had, and did it with style. Jamaica not only did that, but found ways to make components useful and beautiful that I hadn’t even imagined. The actual artwork for both the board and the cards is absolutely gorgeous, and probably the best artwork I’ve ever seen for a boardgame. It’s all very thematic, especially in the ways that the card actions are depicted in the art. The card art even makes a panorama when you lay the cards side-by-side. It’s bright, colorful, fresh, and easily the biggest draw of the game. The game has very clever and utilitarian components as well; the box is shaped like a treasure box and has the most efficient and detailed insert I’ve ever seen. There is a specific, perfectly-sized space for everything. The goods that are used in-game are stored in the front of the chest (in wisely curved-bottom compartments) for easy access during play, without having to dump the bits everywhere. Among all the beautiful details, though, the gameplay-relevant information stands out clearly, and the dice are sturdy and large. A minor complaint is that although it’s clever and lovely that the rules are laid out like a treasure map, it can take a few extra seconds to check a rule – but that’s negligible since the rules are so few. The only other gripe is the price, and I may be a bit biased since I traded for the game, so I didn’t feel that sting so directly. I can’t say enough about how wonderful the components are, even with a $60 MSRP. 11/10
Accessibility: Every time I have taught this game to someone, I have found myself finishing with something like, “And… well… that’s it!” I’m used to much longer explanations. Once you know the theme of the game (pirates racing ships around Jamaica) the gameplay elements become immediately obvious: load the holds, move the ship, pay to dock, fight other ships, find some treasure. I have only one minor gripe, and it seems to be common among the games of both Bruno Cathala and Sebastien Pauchon. There is one minor rule that trips people up, and it’s that when you clear a hold to make room for something new, it must be of a different type than what you are loading. I’ve found similar rules in other games, and I think these designers just let the theme come first, and then add more rules to clear out any degenerate gameplay. Maybe this doesn’t always work, but it works just fine when the theme fits so well that it makes the rest of the gameplay immediately obvious. 9/10
Depth: Jamaica is a free-spirited game with a lot of dice rolling. It reminds me a lot of Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean and how he’d just do whatever he felt like and roll with the consequences. That means that this game is a lot of tactics and luck and certainly some skill, but not a whole lot of strategy. It’s somewhat mitigated by the fact that everyone has the same 11-card deck, so you can do some card counting to plan, but if you’re looking to pull off a long con, you won’t have the means to do it here. 4/10
Theme: As I already mentioned, the theme of this game makes the gameplay intuitive, and in turn the gameplay makes the theme even more engaging. Not only are the actions obvious things that pirates would do, but the high level of luck and tactics makes for a free-wheeling feel that you see in a lot of pirate-themed media. You won’t have to explain to anyone why they would bother to make a certain move – it’s so simple a pirate could understand it. The brilliant artwork is of course another part that deepens the theme, and there’s a background story in the instruction manual for each of the six characters, which led to other players wanting to pick their color based on the character’s story – a really clever and fun addition. 10/10
Fun: Certainly this category is already a matter of opinion, but your level of enjoyment will vary wildly depending on the kind of game you like to play. If you want to test your wits in a game of skill, this game will leave you frustrated when the illusion of strategy disappears. If you like a game with lots of interaction and excitement, you’ll find yourself laughing and cheering throughout. There’s very little downtime since each player makes an action each turn; the only extended downtime is combat, but watching two other players duke it out is almost as exciting as actually doing it. 8/10
Average: 8.4/10
Bias: 8/10
You’ll often hear that Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, and Dominion are the key gateway games to this hobby, but none of them offer the excitement and confrontation that you get out of a game of Jamaica. It’s prettier, funnier, and louder than all of those, still with a reasonable amount of player control. I’d say lack of exposure and the price tag are the only things that keep it from being a premiere gateway game. If you want to introduce someone to the hobby, or simply want a rambunctious pirate party, Jamaica is worth your time and money.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Board Game Review: Dixit
Dixit is a party game for 3-6 players, designed by Jean-Louis Roubira, published by Libellud and distributed in the U.S. by Asmodee. You’ve probably already heard of it, since it won the 2010 Spiel des Jahres.
Here’s a reminder of my scoring categories:
Components – Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility – How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth – Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme – Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun – Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it’s over?
Components – Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility – How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth – Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme – Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun – Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it’s over?
Components: The first thing you’ll notice about this game is the box cover’s beautiful art. The second thing you’ll notice is that the oversized cards for the game are nothing but gorgeous paintings, each one unique. It is truly some of the most beautiful, serene, subtly strange artwork I’ve ever seen. Each painting is full of tiny interesting minutiae that are extremely useful for actually playing the game. As a cute twist, the inside of the game includes a scoring track within the box, with little rabbit meeples (rabbeeples!) to keep track of scoring. The game is absolutely gorgeous.
I have some complaints about the box though. The first is just that the box is ridiculously big for what amounts to a scoring track and some cards. Second, the area in the middle to hold the cards doesn’t work very well with the expansion, Dixit 2. I had to flip the scoring track over in the box to fit everything in. A minor inconvenience – the real complaint is that for people who like to buy a lot of games, shelf space is at a premium, and this box is too big. 9/10
Accessibility: The most obvious comparison to make with this game is Apples to Apples, but even if you’ve never played that game, actually playing this game is mind-numbingly easy. All you need to know is that you pick a card from your hand, say anything you want, and everybody else picks a card to match your description. Everyone else votes, and you want some people to vote for yours, but not all or none. Wanting “just some” votes is a very clever twist, and makes people think long and hard about what they want to say, sometimes with hilarious results. The scoring, when first explained, sounds very confusing, but it’s necessary to justify that people actually play correctly (i.e. actually vote for which card they think is actually yours, instead of “throwing” their vote). If you have an experienced player keeping score, then it’s really a non-issue, but it does put a dent of complexity in an otherwise very simple game. 9/10
Depth: It should be clear up front that this game is a party game, and so it’s meant more for laughter than to test skill. That being said, it does offer some very interesting decisions. You’ll want to look at your hand throughout other people’s turns and think long and hard about the references you can make off of what they say, as well as what you’ll want to say during your own upcoming turn. The options are endless, especially because the tiny details in the artwork allow you to make tricky references that some may not catch at first glance. The only complaint is that the game can suffer intensely from abuse of inside jokes, making sure to exclude one or two people and get the points that you want. Trying to ban such references would be ridiculous, but they’re probably not in the spirit of the game. As long as everyone plays fair, you’ll have plenty to think about, but nowhere near as much as in an actual strategy game. The game will also lose some replayability after you’ve seen all 84 cards several times, but with Dixit 2 already out and Dixit 3 on the way, that won’t really be a problem for too long. 8/10
Theme: Although Dixit doesn’t have a particular obvious theme, the real question is whether or not you feel a sense of immersion, whether the game takes you somewhere else. This can come from the artwork or the mechanics. It’s hopefully clear that the artwork will transport you to a magical dreamland that no one else could have found. Marie Cardouat’s artwork is absolutely integral to this game. Mechanically, most of what you’re going to hear are pop culture references, but occasionally, someone will bust out something poetic like “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” or “You can’t be any poorer than dead,” giving the game an overarching story whose dots you can connect inside your own mind. 9/10
Fun: I don’t know what to say here other than the obvious. If you enjoy smiling, laughing, stories, art, bunnies, or any combination of the above, you’re destined to have a good time with this game. We rarely remember who won or lost, but we always remember having a good time. 10/10
Average: 9/10
Bias: 9/10
If you’re tired of playing Apples to Apples or Loaded Questions, or if even if you aren’t, you owe it to yourself to give Dixit a try.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
...but also staying here.
If you've ever been to Bruno Faidutti's website (www.faidutti.com), he has a very cool feature called the Ideal Game Library, where he keeps track of games he thinks are worth having around. I intend to use this blog (or maybe eventually another website) to do the very same, except I intend to add a little more detail, in particular, I will have excerpts on why games were excluded (and if the game it isn't in either side, then I haven't played it yet). I'll list the parameters and whatnot after I begin the process of picking what games go where, and hopefully will have some convenient links to keep the whole thing organized. Actual game reviews will be on meepletown, and I'll link to them here. These will be more like rants. So this is the post just to say, keep checking back, there will be cool content here in the future.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Moving to MeepleTown!
Starting next year, I'm going to write for meepletown.com, and posts here will show up about 2 weeks after that... so... see you in a bit. :)
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The problem with pure auction games.
Last weekend, I was finally able to get my first 5-player game of Cyclades in. Cyclades sure seems like a wargame, but the goal of the game is actually economic: be the first player to build two metropolises. Furthermore, to do any particular action in the game, you must win an auction for the Greek god that grants that action: you need Ares to move troops, Poseidon for ships, Zeus to get discounts, etc. It was a great game, easily my favorite of the night. It got me thinking why the very lauded bidding games of Reiner Knizia (Ra, Taj Mahal, Modern Art) have fallen a bit flat for me, and I think I have the answer.
In a game like Cyclades, after you win the auction, you are simply setting up the turn order and what options you have for your turn... but then you actually take turns, and through this process, you "feel" the benefit of the bid that you won. You tangibly utilize your bid on Ares by buying troops and taking over other islands, and after the turn is over, you have a bit more of an understanding of which god you need next and how much money you're willing to spend. It's a very good system.
On the other hand, in a game like Ra or Taj Mahal, when you win your bid, you collect some tokens or tiles, and then... that's it. Rinse and repeat. The only tangible way of understanding, or maybe I should say appreciating, the result of your bid is the resultant change in score. However, at least for me, that isn't the least bit satisfying. Especially since both of those games have static scoring. The only difference here is that in Modern Art, when popularity is determined for each artist at the end of the round, you can see if your gambits paid off as much as you thought they would. But that satisfaction is short-lived, and isn't tangible until the end of the round. Furthermore, it's something easily ruined by other players. Though your plans in Cyclades might be ruined later on, in the moment that you take your turn and perform your actions, you can feel the satisfaction of earning the right to those moves. (Well, I guess I should also add that in Ra, the benefit of gaining a new, higher sun in a bid is something that you will use to some satisfaction in the following round.)
I'm not trying to say that any of these Knizia designs are poorly designed, because these are probably the best in their genre. For me, though, there's no joy in bidding just to bid. I want to experience the benefit of the bid, directly within the game. And none of those three games give that feeling much at all. I wonder if Amun-Re is different.
In a game like Cyclades, after you win the auction, you are simply setting up the turn order and what options you have for your turn... but then you actually take turns, and through this process, you "feel" the benefit of the bid that you won. You tangibly utilize your bid on Ares by buying troops and taking over other islands, and after the turn is over, you have a bit more of an understanding of which god you need next and how much money you're willing to spend. It's a very good system.
On the other hand, in a game like Ra or Taj Mahal, when you win your bid, you collect some tokens or tiles, and then... that's it. Rinse and repeat. The only tangible way of understanding, or maybe I should say appreciating, the result of your bid is the resultant change in score. However, at least for me, that isn't the least bit satisfying. Especially since both of those games have static scoring. The only difference here is that in Modern Art, when popularity is determined for each artist at the end of the round, you can see if your gambits paid off as much as you thought they would. But that satisfaction is short-lived, and isn't tangible until the end of the round. Furthermore, it's something easily ruined by other players. Though your plans in Cyclades might be ruined later on, in the moment that you take your turn and perform your actions, you can feel the satisfaction of earning the right to those moves. (Well, I guess I should also add that in Ra, the benefit of gaining a new, higher sun in a bid is something that you will use to some satisfaction in the following round.)
I'm not trying to say that any of these Knizia designs are poorly designed, because these are probably the best in their genre. For me, though, there's no joy in bidding just to bid. I want to experience the benefit of the bid, directly within the game. And none of those three games give that feeling much at all. I wonder if Amun-Re is different.
Strategy Post: Dominion
I'll get around to talking about pure-auction games eventually, but today here is something I wrote a while ago about Dominion strategy (excluding anything that might change with the addition of the Prosperity expansion, which makes quite a difference.) I'm now up to 65% win-rate on BSW with close to 500 games, so I stand by the comments I made in this post, though most of them are beginner's tips.
I'm no master at Dominion, but after 250 plays on BSW with about a 60% win ratio (no idea if that is good), I've learned a few basic things I thought I'd share.
1.) The first few turns: Every time you play this game, you begin on the first two turns either with a 4/3 or 5/2 split of money. You will most likely buy 2 cards, then reshuffle your 12-card deck for turn 3. This game exponentially punishes early mistakes/rewards early advantages, so these turns are crucial. Here are the common things I see -
1a.) Buying two terminal actions: by "terminal" I mean actions that do not give extra actions. For example, say you bought a Woodcutter and a Smithy. When drawing 5 cards out of 12, you've got a decent shot at drawing both actions, and thus having one card just being dead in your hand. And even if it's not a HUGE percentage, say you just draw the Smithy. Then you play the Smithy, and now you've drawn 8 out of 12 cards - do you really think it is unlikely that you will now have the Woodcutter wasting space in your hand? On one of those turns (probably the turn with 3 money), you should have bought a Silver that you could actually use.
1b.) Buying a Village: Village is a great, and very stupid, card. It is so good, though, that people play it terribly and make it eve more annoying. Let's say you buy a Village and another action, or a Village and a Silver (since you could not buy a Gold in the first few turns, and you wouldn't buy a Copper or Estate, I'd think). Let's compare both scenarios to if you'd bought a Silver instead of the Village:
If you bought the Village and another action, and you draw them both, you play both and are very excited. Your hand consists of whatever you drew from the Village, the 3 other cards, and whatever happened from the action. The card you drew from the Village is either a Copper or an Estate. If the Village has been a Silver, you would have still played your other action, but the card you drew with the Village would be a Silver instead, which is better than either a Copper or an Estate. You blew it.
If you only draw the other action, it doesn't matter - UNLESS your action draws you into the now-unplayable Village, that you wish was a silver.
If you only draw the Village and don't draw into the other action, you are looking at a Copper or an Estate from the draw, that you wish was a Silver.
The other scenario, where you have a Village, and a Silver as your two buys is even more obvious: That Village, when first played, translates merely into another Copper or Estate.
So, to summarize, buying a Village before you actually have two actions to use it with (especially in the first two turns) is always worse than buying a Silver.
1c) Not buying a Chapel: If the Chapel is available, you should buy it immediately, even on your 3 with a 3/4 split. If you do not, and your opponent does, and they play it correctly, you will lose. I could rant forever about the Chapel, but safe to say that at least among the cards available on BSW, no other strategy can trump the Chapel, which is unfortunate, as it's the only "broken" card I've found in the game so far. This scenario is not as important as the other two.
2) In general, people undervalue Silver and Gold and overvalue their Coppers and Estates.
2a) Estates: These do not help you until the game is actually over. Depending on how many turns you take, you are denying yourself that many cards in your hand, over and over. It is prudent to trash these as soon as possible, whether it be with Remodel, Upgrade, Chapel, or whatever else. Now, if there is no good trashing card available, then you have to make do. Certainly in some scenarios you may try to get an advantage first - for example, in a set with the Baron, you may end up keeping them the whole time. And Islanding them may be better than Trashing them, depending on the setup. But in general, you have to realize these are a measily one point - and especially now that Prosperity adds ways to score points in more efficient ways (i.e. Monument), it's time to let go.
2b) Copper: Next to Estates and Curses, Copper is the worst card you can have in your deck! Buying extra Copper is a very common thing to do when you first play, but every Copper you add decreases the likelihood of drawing everything else, and almost everything else is better! I will sometimes buy Copper in the late game if it is becoming awkward and I keep drawing too many actions (due to my own fault) or too many Green/Curse cards (whether it be my fault or theirs), to try to even the distribution. And there are certainly cards that justify their purchase (Gardens, Coppersmith, Counting House). A corollary of this section is that you should never feel justified to utilize all your buys, or to even fully utilize your available Treasure. It is almost never correct to spend all extra buys, and to a lesser extent, it is not always correct to spend all of your Treasure just to feel like you maximized.
2c) Silver: Take a minute and look at the cards Chancellor, Woodcutter, and Swindler. They all give 2 coins, just like Silver, AND do something else. How is that fair to Silver? Is Silver a strictly worse card? No, because being an action is a DISADVANTAGE! You can run out of actions! You cannot run out of Treasure plays! The sooner you realize that your deck can only support a certain ratio of actions, the better. I make one caveat: Swindler is busted in the early game, so I would advocate buying that in one of the first two rounds, because it is so good then and so much worse later on. I would possibly even break my own rule above and buy two Swindlers in the first two turns, even though it is terminal.
2d) Gold: Things have changed quite a bit with Prosperity, but from at least the base set, Intrigue, and Seaside (Potions in Alchemy also make things awkward), I would say that Gold is a more powerful card than ANY of those action cards across all three seats. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Most every game I lose IRL in Dominion is because I am deceived by shiny new actions I haven't played with yet, and that's the curse of this game: People want to play with all the new cards, then do terrible, then hate the game because it isn't fun when you can't do anything (and is definitely an advantage of newer games like Ascension, where you can pretty much do whatever you want). I've said before Dominion is a game of discipline, and that's pretty much the key to the game.
I'm no master at Dominion, but after 250 plays on BSW with about a 60% win ratio (no idea if that is good), I've learned a few basic things I thought I'd share.
1.) The first few turns: Every time you play this game, you begin on the first two turns either with a 4/3 or 5/2 split of money. You will most likely buy 2 cards, then reshuffle your 12-card deck for turn 3. This game exponentially punishes early mistakes/rewards early advantages, so these turns are crucial. Here are the common things I see -
1a.) Buying two terminal actions: by "terminal" I mean actions that do not give extra actions. For example, say you bought a Woodcutter and a Smithy. When drawing 5 cards out of 12, you've got a decent shot at drawing both actions, and thus having one card just being dead in your hand. And even if it's not a HUGE percentage, say you just draw the Smithy. Then you play the Smithy, and now you've drawn 8 out of 12 cards - do you really think it is unlikely that you will now have the Woodcutter wasting space in your hand? On one of those turns (probably the turn with 3 money), you should have bought a Silver that you could actually use.
1b.) Buying a Village: Village is a great, and very stupid, card. It is so good, though, that people play it terribly and make it eve more annoying. Let's say you buy a Village and another action, or a Village and a Silver (since you could not buy a Gold in the first few turns, and you wouldn't buy a Copper or Estate, I'd think). Let's compare both scenarios to if you'd bought a Silver instead of the Village:
If you bought the Village and another action, and you draw them both, you play both and are very excited. Your hand consists of whatever you drew from the Village, the 3 other cards, and whatever happened from the action. The card you drew from the Village is either a Copper or an Estate. If the Village has been a Silver, you would have still played your other action, but the card you drew with the Village would be a Silver instead, which is better than either a Copper or an Estate. You blew it.
If you only draw the other action, it doesn't matter - UNLESS your action draws you into the now-unplayable Village, that you wish was a silver.
If you only draw the Village and don't draw into the other action, you are looking at a Copper or an Estate from the draw, that you wish was a Silver.
The other scenario, where you have a Village, and a Silver as your two buys is even more obvious: That Village, when first played, translates merely into another Copper or Estate.
So, to summarize, buying a Village before you actually have two actions to use it with (especially in the first two turns) is always worse than buying a Silver.
1c) Not buying a Chapel: If the Chapel is available, you should buy it immediately, even on your 3 with a 3/4 split. If you do not, and your opponent does, and they play it correctly, you will lose. I could rant forever about the Chapel, but safe to say that at least among the cards available on BSW, no other strategy can trump the Chapel, which is unfortunate, as it's the only "broken" card I've found in the game so far. This scenario is not as important as the other two.
2) In general, people undervalue Silver and Gold and overvalue their Coppers and Estates.
2a) Estates: These do not help you until the game is actually over. Depending on how many turns you take, you are denying yourself that many cards in your hand, over and over. It is prudent to trash these as soon as possible, whether it be with Remodel, Upgrade, Chapel, or whatever else. Now, if there is no good trashing card available, then you have to make do. Certainly in some scenarios you may try to get an advantage first - for example, in a set with the Baron, you may end up keeping them the whole time. And Islanding them may be better than Trashing them, depending on the setup. But in general, you have to realize these are a measily one point - and especially now that Prosperity adds ways to score points in more efficient ways (i.e. Monument), it's time to let go.
2b) Copper: Next to Estates and Curses, Copper is the worst card you can have in your deck! Buying extra Copper is a very common thing to do when you first play, but every Copper you add decreases the likelihood of drawing everything else, and almost everything else is better! I will sometimes buy Copper in the late game if it is becoming awkward and I keep drawing too many actions (due to my own fault) or too many Green/Curse cards (whether it be my fault or theirs), to try to even the distribution. And there are certainly cards that justify their purchase (Gardens, Coppersmith, Counting House). A corollary of this section is that you should never feel justified to utilize all your buys, or to even fully utilize your available Treasure. It is almost never correct to spend all extra buys, and to a lesser extent, it is not always correct to spend all of your Treasure just to feel like you maximized.
2c) Silver: Take a minute and look at the cards Chancellor, Woodcutter, and Swindler. They all give 2 coins, just like Silver, AND do something else. How is that fair to Silver? Is Silver a strictly worse card? No, because being an action is a DISADVANTAGE! You can run out of actions! You cannot run out of Treasure plays! The sooner you realize that your deck can only support a certain ratio of actions, the better. I make one caveat: Swindler is busted in the early game, so I would advocate buying that in one of the first two rounds, because it is so good then and so much worse later on. I would possibly even break my own rule above and buy two Swindlers in the first two turns, even though it is terminal.
2d) Gold: Things have changed quite a bit with Prosperity, but from at least the base set, Intrigue, and Seaside (Potions in Alchemy also make things awkward), I would say that Gold is a more powerful card than ANY of those action cards across all three seats. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Most every game I lose IRL in Dominion is because I am deceived by shiny new actions I haven't played with yet, and that's the curse of this game: People want to play with all the new cards, then do terrible, then hate the game because it isn't fun when you can't do anything (and is definitely an advantage of newer games like Ascension, where you can pretty much do whatever you want). I've said before Dominion is a game of discipline, and that's pretty much the key to the game.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thinking for yourself.
I'm from the Midwest, and football is a big deal here (so is basketball). I've never cared for sports of any type, and the level of fanaticism in this area has always boggled me. I've tried to ask people why they like football, if they've processed through for themselves what the appeal is, and all I ever get is dumb-founded stares. It's just.. football is... you know... what you do. No one seems to really have an explanation.
It was the same for me in high school with music. My older, "cool" friends had me listening to crap like KoRn and Limp Bizkit because that was the fashion. Now that they're long gone and I've got the old thinking cap screwed on right, I can be comfortable listening to heavy metal or Sarah McLachlan, whatever the heck I feel like. Sometimes groupthink is the devil.
It's no different with boardgames. If you are getting into boardgaming, you've probably found BoardGameGeek, which is really the only respectable boardgaming site around. One thing you'll quickly find is that people on their love to make suggestions that are sometimes nonsensical all in the name of advocating their own favorite games. You'll also find that it's "uncool" to enjoy "Ameritrash" games, i.e. American-style games where you attack and eliminate each other from competition. You'll also find that ratings on BGG largely dominate public opinion and even game sales!
What I found myself is after really enjoying some new-to-me classics like Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne, I found myself a blind fan of Reiner Knizia simply because he was so lauded; I mean, his games must be good. And I do like many of them - Through the Desert is a favorite and I'm really coming to enjoy Tigris & Euphrates. But not all of his games are that good, and especially among the higher-ranked on BGG, I really did not enjoy Samurai and Modern Art, and I'm growing bored with Ra and Taj Mahal (more about auction games coming soon). And you know what? That's okay. Despite the fact that a negative review of such a game on BGG would be harshly criticized, as my wife-the-therapist says, "You have a right to your feelings." If you don't like it, good! If you like a game that "sucks," good! I've really enjoyed Lost Cities: the Board Game despite its low rating, and now I find myself looking at the game Senji, considering purchase. It looks great, the rules are intriguing, and I enjoy every other game I've played by either designer. The only thing holding me back (apart from the high price) is the negativity surrounding the game on the 'Geek. And it's about time I said screw 'em and judged for myself. You should do the same.
It was the same for me in high school with music. My older, "cool" friends had me listening to crap like KoRn and Limp Bizkit because that was the fashion. Now that they're long gone and I've got the old thinking cap screwed on right, I can be comfortable listening to heavy metal or Sarah McLachlan, whatever the heck I feel like. Sometimes groupthink is the devil.
It's no different with boardgames. If you are getting into boardgaming, you've probably found BoardGameGeek, which is really the only respectable boardgaming site around. One thing you'll quickly find is that people on their love to make suggestions that are sometimes nonsensical all in the name of advocating their own favorite games. You'll also find that it's "uncool" to enjoy "Ameritrash" games, i.e. American-style games where you attack and eliminate each other from competition. You'll also find that ratings on BGG largely dominate public opinion and even game sales!
What I found myself is after really enjoying some new-to-me classics like Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne, I found myself a blind fan of Reiner Knizia simply because he was so lauded; I mean, his games must be good. And I do like many of them - Through the Desert is a favorite and I'm really coming to enjoy Tigris & Euphrates. But not all of his games are that good, and especially among the higher-ranked on BGG, I really did not enjoy Samurai and Modern Art, and I'm growing bored with Ra and Taj Mahal (more about auction games coming soon). And you know what? That's okay. Despite the fact that a negative review of such a game on BGG would be harshly criticized, as my wife-the-therapist says, "You have a right to your feelings." If you don't like it, good! If you like a game that "sucks," good! I've really enjoyed Lost Cities: the Board Game despite its low rating, and now I find myself looking at the game Senji, considering purchase. It looks great, the rules are intriguing, and I enjoy every other game I've played by either designer. The only thing holding me back (apart from the high price) is the negativity surrounding the game on the 'Geek. And it's about time I said screw 'em and judged for myself. You should do the same.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)