Game Review ideas

[YourMathTeacher]

I think the difficulty code can be just Easy, Moderate, Challenging.

That is way too subjective and broad to really be very useful imo.

LOL... and your system isn't subjective? 

[Prof Underwood]

I think the difficulty code can be just Easy, Moderate, Challenging.

That is way too subjective and broad to really be very useful imo.

LOL... and your system isn't subjective? 

My system is trying to get the input of a variety of people, which I think makes it a bit less subjective.  And even if my system is just as subjective it is certainly less broad than simply 3 levels of difficulty.  Your system would put Scotland Yard (3) in the same category (easy) as Candyland (1) despite there actually being quite a difference between them even if they both are pretty easy.  It would put Samaurai Swords (7) in the same category (moderate) as Star Wars: Epic Duels (4) despite there actually being quite a difference between them as well.  It would put Advanced Squad Leader (10) in the same category (challenging) as Fortress America (8.) despite there actually being quite a difference between them, too.  That is why your system does not seem useful.  It just doesn't really give a good picture of how hard it will be to teach a game to my young kids or my teenage students or my adult friends.

[YourMathTeacher]

Your system has Checkers at a Moderate difficulty. Any kid can move and jump checkers. 

If you want to do it your way, then why did you say:

Good idea YMT.  If you'll make the thread and keep it updated, then I'll sticky it for you

It sounds like you want your hand in this, so just do it your way, and I'll stand clear.

[TimMierz]

I would propose a scale somewhat like this:
10 - Advanced Squad Leader
9 - (I don't know what goes here)
8 - Fortress America, Battlestar Galactica
7 - Lord or the Rings RISK (trilogy edition), Samaurai Swords, RISK 2210 AD
6 - Chess, Diplomacy, Shadows Over Camelot, Arimaa, RoboRally
5 - RISK, Stratego, Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, Acquire, Dominion
4 - Blokus, Star Wars:Epic Duels, Heroscape, Twixt
3 - Scotland Yard, Clue, Battleball, Othello, Backgammon, Checkers
2 - Mancala, Connect-4, Dominoes, Battleship, Monopoly
1 - Candyland, Chutes & Ladders, Yahtzee

I would put Mage Knight Board Game or Runewars as 9 on your scale.

For comparison, BoardGameGeek uses a "weight" rating, 1 to 5, from very light to very heavy. Each user can enter whatever they believe the appropriate weight to be, and the site provides an average. Here are their weight ratings for your games:

10
Advanced Squad Leader: 4.7

8
Fortress America: 2.6
Battlestar Galactica: 3.2

7
Lord of the Rings Risk Trilogy: 2.3
Risk 2210: 2.7
Samurai Swords: 2.9

6
Chess: 3.8
Diplomacy: 3.4
Shadows Over Camelot: 2.5
Arimaa: 3.6
RoboRally: 2.5

5
Risk: 2.1
Stratego: 1.9
Settlers of Catan: 2.4
Ticket to Ride: 1.9
Pandemic: 2.4
Acquire: 2.5
Dominion: 2.4

4
Blokus: 1.8
Star Wars Epic Duels: 1.7
Heroscape: 2.3
Twixt: 2.4

3
Scotland Yard: 2.0
Clue: 1.7
Battleball: 1.5
Othello: 2.2
Backgammon: 2.0
Checkers: 1.8

2
Mancala: 1.7
Connect 4: 1.2
Dominoes: 1.4
Battleship: 1.2
Monopoly: 1.7

1
Candyland: 1.1
Chutes & Ladders: 1.0
Yahtzee: 1.2


Part of the problem of this is the conflation of several variables into one number. Accessibility/ease of learning, strategic/tactical depth, complexity of non-core rules (like abilities on cards), effort required to be "competitive", etc. A two-part complexity and depth system (ease of learning vs. ease of playing well) would likely be more accurate, but potentially less intuitive.
Low complexity, low depth: Bingo, War, etc. (few rules, no decisions)
Low complexity, high depth: Go, Chess, GIPF games, etc. (few rules, lots of decisions)
High complexity, low depth: Arkham Horror, Munchkin, Killer Bunnies, etc. (lots of rules, relatively few strategic decisions)
High complexity, high depth: Magic the Gathering, Runewars, wargames, etc. (lots of rules, lots of decisions)

While people may more-or-less agree on more extreme cases, any scale is going to be subjective. (You rate Fortress America and LotR Risk as much more complex than the BGG population, and Othello and Twixt a bit less, for example.) BGG has already collected hundreds of votes on this, so its average will better reflect the gaming population than the maybe half dozen or so that would rate something here, so I question its value here unless it's for a specific purpose like suitability for children.

[YourMathTeacher]

BGG has already collected hundreds of votes on this, so its average will better reflect the gaming population than the maybe half dozen or so that would rate something here, so I question its value here unless it's for a specific purpose like suitability for children.

That is the basis of my intent. I don't want to recreate was is already on other sites. I want to post options for people that are very selective (like me!    ), based on input from people that I find "like-minded." The games that the majority of people on these boards like have been very good choices for me so far.

[Prof Underwood]

Your system has Checkers at a Moderate difficulty.

My system has Checkers at a 3, which would be "easy" on your scale.

It sounds like you want your hand in this, so just do it your way, and I'll stand clear.

OK, so let me get this straight.  I suggest that you take the lead on this, which shows that I'd rather NOT be in charge of this, and trust you to lead it.  Then I suggest adding a rating system to show how difficult a game is.  My initial proposal is met with criticism of where specific games fall, and so I move where the games are.  That shows that I don't want to just to be what I think, but what everyone thinks.  It also shows that I'm open to criticism and willing to make changes accordingly.

Then you propose an alternate system, which is met with criticism of how useful it can be with so few categories.  So you decide to take your ball and go home.  Why not just accept the criticism and work with it maturely?

For comparison, BoardGameGeek uses a "weight" rating, 1 to 5, from very light to very heavy.

I hadn't noticed that before, but that looks like it is a great alternative to either my or YMT's system.  Each game could just have the BGG "weight" listed as it's link to the game.  Something like this:

Name of Game:  Fortress America
# of Players:  2-4
Time Duration for typical game:  4-6 hours
Recommended Ages:  10-up
Expansions:  none
Price Point:  $50(used) - $75 (new)
Possible Objectionable Material:  War game
Board Members who own/play it:  Prof Underwood
Online Version?:  none
Difficulty (1-5 scale):  2.6 at Board Game Geek
Video Review:  Dice Tower
General Description:  The United States (1 player) is being invaded by the rest of the world (represented by 3 players).  The game starts with the US and all 3 invaders being basically equal in units, but the US owning all the land on the board.  The invaders gain strength very quickly for several turns (until they run out) and quickly conquer large amounts of the USA's land.  The USA gains strength slowly, but indefinitely.  If the invaders are able to conquer enough cities, then they win the game, but if not then the USA player wins.

The game has elements of chance (due to dice), but it feels much less determined by this than other games (ie. RISK).  The game is heavy on tactics due to having 5 different types of units, and a fairly complicated movement and combat system.  But after playing through a couple turns, it becomes pretty natural.  The game is EXTREMELY well balanced such that each turn seems to feel more critical than the last for both sides.  And the end of the game often comes down to such a small margin that both players will be on the edge of their seats.  The game takes a really long time and should probably be played with serious gamers only.  The 3 invading players must work together closely to ensure victory, so that side of the war is really like a co-op game.

[Warrior_Monk]

Why not just accept the criticism and work with it maturely?

Might want to ask yourself the question before you ask others. There was no criticism of YMT's method, but you seemingly overtook the project and everybody started focusing on the tier list. YMT is totally justified in being upset, and his original post was great until we got derailed on your ranking of things.

[Prof Underwood]

There was no criticism of YMT's method, but you seemingly overtook the project...

I was criticizing YMT's method of classifying game difficulty as being too broad (only 3 categories) to be useful.  That's not taking over the project, that's just giving criticism.  I don't see that any different from when people told me that I had games in the wrong spots.  I was willing to move games, why wasn't YMT willing to add categories.  I do NOT want to run this project, but I am trying to contribute to the ideas here the same as everyone else.

I like Tim M's ideas actually of either using BGG's "weight" to show difficulty, or to use his suggested 2 variable system of having a rating for complexity (amount of rules to learn) and depth (difficulty to master).  My impression is that we're all working together to make this project as useful as possible to people, and that YMT is kinda the leader who will make the final call on stuff.  So I don't get it why either of you think I want to take over the project, when I repeatedly am saying that I don't.  Can't I throw out ideas and criticisms in a thread without being in charge?

[Warrior_Monk]

Your critique was helpful. Age recommendations and difficulty should be added. YMT agreed. What he didn't agree with was your method of how that should be done. And you insisted on your system (while other people commented disagreements), and the two of you bantered back and forth to the point of you calling him immature. Sorry to recap the thread, but that's what happened (and TBH, these posts should be removed from this thread).

Tim's idea was great and was done in a respectful way.

[YourMathTeacher]

YMT is totally justified in being upset, and his original post was great until we got derailed on your ranking of things.

Although I appreciate the support, I want to clarify that I am not upset. I apologize if I came across that way. I still have my blunt New England mentality, so I don't always sugarcoat my wording.

Why not just accept the criticism and work with it maturely?

Since you are just a whippersnapper, I will share my experience that sometimes the most mature thing to do is walk away. 

Your post about Fortress America would seem to indicate that you have taken time, and put a lot of thought into this. I, on the other hand, still haven't eaten lunch yet, so that's the only thing I can think about. I was just throwing out an idea, and I really don't have a lot of time to put into it right now. That was the other reason I was willing to step aside. Not everything is about you. 

[Prof Underwood]

And you insisted on your system...to the point of you calling him immature

This is simply not true.  I didn't insist on my system.  I pointed out why I thought that my system was superior to the one that he presented, but there were no demands made.  That is NOT insisting, it's simply contributing to a discussion.  And further in the thread I even supported doing Tim's system instead of mine.  That is NOT insisting on my system.  I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

And I didn't call him immature either.  I said that his statement of "It sounds like you want your hand in this, so just do it your way, and I'll stand clear." wasn't a mature way to handle criticism.  That doesn't mean that YMT is an immature person just because he made one immature statement.  Again, you are coming to conclusions that just don't make sense and then attacking my character with them.

I was just throwing out an idea, and I really don't have a lot of time to put into it right now. That was the other reason I was willing to step aside. Not everything is about you. 

If you're too busy to head this up, that's completely understandable, and I agree that not everything is about me.  I was just trying to clear up my intentions in this thread to simply be a contributor.  It seemed from your previous statement that somehow I wasn't communicating that effectively.  And due to Westy's criticisms, it appears that you weren't the only person that I inadvertently confused.

[STAMP]

Fascinating.  Especially considering my recent ventures on the boards.

Not that I'm expecting any type of response...after all, I asked a simple question earlier in this thread with no response.  I've gotten used to it.  It's why I talk to myself.  Hopefully it doesn't escalate to quoting myself.

As for how to rate games, doesn't matter to me.  Everyone is different.  I don't play most of the games that have been mentioned, and the ones I do, I play for different reasons than what were given.  I think that is inherent in our individuality.  Objective category ratings (e.g. average length of game) will meet less resistance than subjective ones (e.g. difficulty level).

[YourMathTeacher]

Not that I'm expecting any type of response...after all, I asked a simple question earlier in this thread with no response.

You asked if anyone knew the difference between two games, but I have never heard of either. Any other people like me would likewise have not responded. We're not ignoring you.... whoever you are.... 

I agree with Westy that this thread needs to be cleaned up, if a Moderator has time. Maybe we can separate the Ticket to Ride posts, and start a new thread with "YMT-I have a dream!" or perhaps just "Board Game Reviews."  The meaningless banter (a.k.a. my posts)can be flushed. 

[AJ]

Not that I'm expecting any type of response...after all, I asked a simple question earlier in this thread with no response.

You asked if anyone knew the difference between two games, but I have never heard of either. Any other people like me would likewise have not responded. We're not ignoring you.... whoever you are.... 

I agree with Westy that this thread needs to be cleaned up, if a Moderator has time. Maybe we can separate the Ticket to Ride posts, and start a new thread with "YMT-I have a dream!" or perhaps just "Board Game Reviews."  The meaningless banter (a.k.a. my posts)can be flushed. 

I agree

[Prof Underwood]

Anyone play Christian Fluxx yet?  Is it much different than regular Fluxx?

I've played Fluxx, but never played Christian Fluxx, so I really can't make any comparisons.

[STAMP]

Not that I'm expecting any type of response...after all, I asked a simple question earlier in this thread with no response.

You asked if anyone knew the difference between two games, but I have never heard of either. Any other people like me would likewise have not responded. We're not ignoring you.... whoever you are.... 

I agree with Westy that this thread needs to be cleaned up, if a Moderator has time. Maybe we can separate the Ticket to Ride posts, and start a new thread with "YMT-I have a dream!" or perhaps just "Board Game Reviews."  The meaningless banter (a.k.a. my posts)can be flushed. 

No problem...I expected that there would be some that had never heard of the game.  But I've been surprised that no one has responded considering all the big-time gamers in this thread AND the fact that they have a Christian version.  Guess I'll contact Bany and get one and try it myself. 

[AJ]

I like YMT difficulty scale but i think we could add a little more to it how bout very easy,easy,normal,hard,very hard.That's how video games do it just a thought.

[TimMierz]

On Christian Fluxx: the very first Google result is to BoardGameGeek's page for it, which has pictures of all 7 of the new cards. It's a mini expansion to regular Fluxx with 3 goals, 2 keepers, one rule, and one action. It looks extremely inessential, a shoddily done cash grab for a briefly entertaining game.

[soul seeker]

My thoughts (from most relevant posts going backwards):
1. Sounds like we're coming to a consensus on ratings and now we just need to decide which/what games to rate.
2. I like AJ's 5 point rating (deeper than YMT's and not as involved as ProfU's)
3. Stamp: I value you as person and read your posts, but I have not played Fluxx or its Christian counterpart to comment on it.
4. Both YMT & Prof U are good people, I'm sure there was some mix up in communication because of typed responses.
5. In regard to time of putting rankings together, I suggest starting simple and then expanding slowly. (I would be willing to do it this way during one of these upcoming evenings if YMT is busy but that would be YMT's call...it's what I did with SOT...everyone was busy so I put together something simple that grew)
6. Because you asked Mark (& this of course is just my opinion because I rank by ease of learning the game by non-gamers), I would have... moved up the scale: Yahtzee (by 1--rank 2), Monopoly (by 1--rank 3), Clue, the new one (by 1--rank 4), Othello (by 1--rank 4), and Diplomacy (by 2 or 3---rank 8 or 9)
moved down the scale: Blokus (by 1--rank 3), Ticket to Ride (by 1 or 2--rank 3 or 4), RoboRally (by 1--rank 5)
*I didn't slide the 2 that I mentioned, chess and checkers.
For the record, the moves (other than Diplomacy, but I recognize that I may be biased against that game) weren't that grandiose which is why I only mentioned chess and checkers.

I think that is everything that I wanted to address since this topic morphed overnight.

[STAMP]

Christian versions are almost always worse IMO.

Others have said this, too.  I'm curious what you think is the root problem, and not just dealing with games.

On Christian Fluxx: the very first Google result is to BoardGameGeek's page for it, which has pictures of all 7 of the new cards. It's a mini expansion to regular Fluxx with 3 goals, 2 keepers, one rule, and one action. It looks extremely inessential, a shoddily done cash grab for a briefly entertaining game.

That would have been my guess.  No matter.  I'll still pick one up from Bany.  Our gaming group plays and loves Fluxx.  We have made our own "expansion" cards, because house rules are always more fun.  I'm even adapting Fluxx-ness to other games.

3. Stamp: I value you as person and read your posts, but I have not played Fluxx or its Christian counterpart to comment on it.

I also value you as a person, as I do with everyone on the boards.  Forgive me for the ambiguous meaning in my post.  At times, I find it humorous to try out dry, straight-face humor in written media.  I'm not good at it, but I try to emulate some of my favorite authors.  What I find so humorous about that type of humor is that it rarely (and theoretically shouldn't) translate well to the written medium.  But then I find humor in most things that others do not.  Again, sorry, I'll use more emoticons, and quell my desire to elicit a laugh...even it's only from myself. 

[soul seeker]

At times, I find it humorous to try out dry, straight-face humor in written media.  I'm not good at it, but I try to emulate some of my favorite authors.  What I find so humorous about that type of humor is that it rarely (and theoretically shouldn't) translate well to the written medium.  But then I find humor in most things that others do not.  Again, sorry, I'll use more emoticons, and quell my desire to elicit a laugh...even it's only from myself. 

Soooo what you do on these boards is what I often do (or ponder doing) on Facebook.  Well, at least, some of the time it leaks through..other times I delete it because people get huffy real quick on Facebook.  I guess it comes down to how daring I'm feeling on a given day. Dry humor is difficult in a typed atmosphere.

[Prof Underwood]

2. I like AJ's 5 point rating (deeper than YMT's and not as involved as ProfU's)

Do you think that we should rate them ourselves on the 5 point scale, or just use BoardGameGeek's rating?

6. Because you asked Mark (& this of course is just my opinion because I rank by ease of learning the game by non-gamers), I would have... moved up the scale: Yahtzee (by 1--rank 2), Monopoly (by 1--rank 3), Clue, the new one (by 1--rank 4), Othello (by 1--rank 4), and Diplomacy (by 2 or 3---rank 8 or 9)
moved down the scale: Blokus (by 1--rank 3), Ticket to Ride (by 1 or 2--rank 3 or 4), RoboRally (by 1--rank 5)
*I didn't slide the 2 that I mentioned, chess and checkers.
For the record, the moves (other than Diplomacy, but I recognize that I may be biased against that game) weren't that grandiose which is why I only mentioned chess and checkers.

I know we won't be using my scale, but I think that I actually agree with almost all those moves.  I do think that Clue and Othello are extremely easy to teach so 4 seems a bit high, and I'm surprised you find Diplomacy so hard for people to learn.  But the rest are probably good moves.  Thanks.

[YourMathTeacher]

Seriously, can a Mod please separate the whole "theology of gaming" into another thread?  A couple of us have already requested it.

[soul seeker]

I've split the topics...so pick the thread you want to comment in: game reviews here....the merits of Christian games legitimacy elsewhere.

[YourMathTeacher]

I've split the topics...so pick the thread you want to comment in: game reviews here....the merits of Christian games legitimacy elsewhere.

Thanks! 

----------------

I just picked up Dominion (base game) on eBay for $27. Should I play the online game to practice a bit, or just wait and try it in person when it arrives? I'm also open to suggestions for future expansion preferences.