When I review boardgames, it's generally to assist me in teaching and recommending games to others in the future. I like to have clear in my mind not just the "how" of a game's mechanics, but the "why" of what makes this a compelling (or not) experience to spend your time and/or money on. Writing about a game is one of the best ways I've found to ensure I understand it well enough to teach it to others - since I'm basically teaching the game in a setting where time is not a factor. And with the benefit of editing, and editing, and editing, until I'm reasonably happy with my explanation.
Before you can really review the sum of the experience though, you have to be able to assess its individual parts and what qualities they have. I'm going to present a few of the ways I look at games, often as a series of questions as to where a game falls on a spectrum between two opposing qualities. I'll stress that in most cases, this isn't a spectrum of "good" vs "bad". In some cases, the sweet spot for a game is almost always towards the center of a given division (eg trivial decisions vs arbitrary decisions), in others there isn't an objectively better point. A game with more or less complexity, or that is more or less adversarial may fit into what you want to play with a given group at a given time, or not. The point is more to try and work out some broad ways to classify games that are applicable between different games rather than just "this is how game X is played". This is the heart of making it easier to match games to players, make recommendations, and decide how to spent your finite dollars on new games. As you work out what it is about a given game that you or other players like, it is easier to find other games that do those things - or that do different things, if you're trying to diversify your experiences.
What I'm mostly talking about here is examining the things that contribute to the "feel" of the game and the experience it generates. Describing the actual execution of the mechanics, the win conditions, the rules and such covers how the game works. Supplemental to this, and what separates a critical assessment of a game from just recounting how to play it, is identifying the soft factors where human players collide with the game systems. Taking the subjective (how players feel about a game) and trying to frame it in more concrete terms that can be compared between different games. There's already generally accepted mechanical terminology for similar groups of games (eg worker placement games, deckbuilders) so that's less important to label.
On the subject of Fun
Often it's easy to get players to tell you what games they like, but trickier is nailing down why they like a given game. For someone who is not already really familiar with modern boardgames, ask this question and the answer will almost always begin with "It's fun" or "We had a really good time playing it". This is important information, but it falls in the necessary-but-not-sufficient category when trying to figure out anything that may or may not appeal to a given person or group.
The first problem with "It's fun" as the barometer of a game is that it's entirely subjective. Obviously what is fun to one person or group does not necessarily translate to others. Also key is that fun is not a consistent factor, even discussing the same person playing the same game. Across the replay life of a game, different opponents, or even just night to night, external factors can have a huge influence on fun one way or the other. The night you had a bunch of beers with good friends and had a blast playing Munchkin doesn't necessarily mean Munchkin is a great game, just that you had a fun time playing it - which is a good thing, but not hugely helpful in assessing the game itself. By the same token maybe you had a terrible day and totally weren't in the mood for the social backstabbing of a game of The Resistance and you had an awful time, but given a different set of factors the experience could have been completely different. Cards Against Humanity might have been a hit the first game or two but after all the cards have been seen multiple times maybe your enjoyment has dropped off a lot. What we want is a way to describe games that is relatively consistent, relatable to other games, and minimally subjective.
As this is often a contentious point, it pays to be diplomatic when offering criticism of a game's qualities. The objective should be aiming for the best future experiences for everyone through good choice of games - not criticism of an individual person or their tastes. The truth is, there are bad games. There are games that while not bad, are outclassed by other titles in most or all of what they try to do. However it's still quite possible to have a good time playing these games. Sometimes everyone just wants to play a round of Cards Against Humanity. It's good to be prepared to offer alternatives that people might enjoy more (and being able to accurately describe why other game X would appeal more helps a lot here!), it's not good to be the dick dumping on everyone else's good time. Often the best time to introduce new ideas is after such a game, eg "if you liked that, then why don't we try this next time". Most of this probably goes without saying, but the Bad Wrong Fun argument is the number one derail of any discussion (online at least) about boardgames so it's worth addressing upfront.
Axis and Adjectives - Game qualities that fall on a spectrum
Many of a game's attributes could be said to fall along a line between two opposing qualities. Having more of one tends to means less of the other. Again this isn't to say that one side of the equation is "better" than the other, just that games do different things and appeal to different people and situations. This isn't an exact science, different parts of games will feature different amounts of these elements. However if we take a broad look at the game as a whole, we can generally make an attempt at placing it somewhere on a line between A and B. It's not meant to represent a numerical score, or some tipping point where a game ceases to be one and becomes the other, it's a way of translating the nuts and bolts of mechanics to the all important "feel" of a game.
Trivial decisions vs Arbitrary decisions
This is by far the most important quality of a game, and it's the one where I'll break my "not necessarily good or bad" rule by saying that games that fall to either extreme of this axis are Bad Games. At it's core, the broadest way to describe any game is as a series of interesting decisions. Trivial decisions are those where the correct or objectively best course of action is immediately apparent. Arbitrary decisions are those where there are no meaningful criteria for making a given decision, so it is made either at random or based on external factors (Chris ate the last of the chips, that jerk, so I guess I'll attack him). Any game will have choices like this popping up from time to time, but what's important is whether over the course of the game this is the exception or the rule. Decisions that are routinely trivial or arbitrary are not interesting. Too many trivial decisions and the game may as well play itself. Too many arbitrary decisions and players are not sure what effect if any their choices are having on the outcome. Trivial decisions tend to appear in too-simple games (but not all simple games are trivial), and arbitrary decisions in games where the consequences of choices are largely un-computable - either due to extreme complexity or excessive randomness in the game state (looking at you, Fluxx). In both cases, the player has been robbed of agency. These are not good games. You can have fun playing bad games, but it doesn't stop them being bad games. All good games are shooting for the middle ground of this trait, decisions that are complex enough to make the player feel like they have options, and that the options they choose matter to the outcome of the game.
More or less Adversarial
This trait is a measure of whether the players primary opposition comes from the game itself, or from the other players. An entire genre of games - cooperatives - occupies one extreme of this axis. In cooperative games, the players are working together against the game, in a sort of collective puzzle-solving exercise. On the other extreme are games in which the game is largely a backdrop or a toolkit to pit the players against one another (Diplomacy or it's reskinned cousin, A Game of Thrones). Even outside of the cooperative genre, there are games that will have the players testing themselves against the game and concerning themselves with the other players very little, even if there is one winner or a just person who 'wins most' (eg Galaxy Trucker). Most games land somewhere between the two extremes, where the players are individually trying to to do their best against the challenges the game presents, and the other players represent an additional element to be worked into the decision space of a given turn. Agricola specifically and worker-placement games in general are good examples of the middle ground here. Each player is trying to make the best of the options the game is presenting them to solve their own puzzles, but the placement of other players potentially denying them their chosen actions complicates their own decisions, and presents an extra layer of possible motivation - do I take the best action for me, or is the relative gain greater choosing something else just to deny it to an opponent?
This trait is a measure of whether the players primary opposition comes from the game itself, or from the other players. An entire genre of games - cooperatives - occupies one extreme of this axis. In cooperative games, the players are working together against the game, in a sort of collective puzzle-solving exercise. On the other extreme are games in which the game is largely a backdrop or a toolkit to pit the players against one another (Diplomacy or it's reskinned cousin, A Game of Thrones). Even outside of the cooperative genre, there are games that will have the players testing themselves against the game and concerning themselves with the other players very little, even if there is one winner or a just person who 'wins most' (eg Galaxy Trucker). Most games land somewhere between the two extremes, where the players are individually trying to to do their best against the challenges the game presents, and the other players represent an additional element to be worked into the decision space of a given turn. Agricola specifically and worker-placement games in general are good examples of the middle ground here. Each player is trying to make the best of the options the game is presenting them to solve their own puzzles, but the placement of other players potentially denying them their chosen actions complicates their own decisions, and presents an extra layer of possible motivation - do I take the best action for me, or is the relative gain greater choosing something else just to deny it to an opponent?
Passive vs Interactive
This trait is a measure of how much the players interact with one another. It can often be related to the Adversarial axis, but it is distinct enough to consider separately. The passive extreme is the archetypical 'multiplayer solitaire' game (or indeed, actual solo games of which there are many!) in which everyone is playing their own game, but together - the base set of Dominion often attracts this label, as do many euro engine-builders. Passive games are competitive in the sense of each player trying to find the best one of a number of potential solutions to the puzzle the game presents. The interactive extreme is one where other players are the subject/target of any and all actions, for example The Resistance or Diplomacy. In this case, the game is about directly confronting or eliminating other players, the game provides ways to target and defeat opponents rather than defeating the game itself.
This trait is a measure of how much the players interact with one another. It can often be related to the Adversarial axis, but it is distinct enough to consider separately. The passive extreme is the archetypical 'multiplayer solitaire' game (or indeed, actual solo games of which there are many!) in which everyone is playing their own game, but together - the base set of Dominion often attracts this label, as do many euro engine-builders. Passive games are competitive in the sense of each player trying to find the best one of a number of potential solutions to the puzzle the game presents. The interactive extreme is one where other players are the subject/target of any and all actions, for example The Resistance or Diplomacy. In this case, the game is about directly confronting or eliminating other players, the game provides ways to target and defeat opponents rather than defeating the game itself.
Simplicity vs Complexity
Complexity or Weight is a measure of how many moving parts and systems players have to learn to deal with. More complex games will need more explanation and probably more games played before new players feel reasonably competent at the game. More components, systems, scoring mechanisms and player decisions add to complexity. More complexity can add more replayability, and more player satisfaction at being able to work out their own plans and strategies. It can also extend playtimes and increase the difficulty in teaching new players, or extend the divide between new and experienced players. Appropriate weight is probably the most important factor for choosing a game to fit a particular group or time. For example light games are good for introducing players new to boardgames, or as a warm up/wind down, and heavier games will often be a more suitable "main event" of a gaming night.
Complexity or Weight is a measure of how many moving parts and systems players have to learn to deal with. More complex games will need more explanation and probably more games played before new players feel reasonably competent at the game. More components, systems, scoring mechanisms and player decisions add to complexity. More complexity can add more replayability, and more player satisfaction at being able to work out their own plans and strategies. It can also extend playtimes and increase the difficulty in teaching new players, or extend the divide between new and experienced players. Appropriate weight is probably the most important factor for choosing a game to fit a particular group or time. For example light games are good for introducing players new to boardgames, or as a warm up/wind down, and heavier games will often be a more suitable "main event" of a gaming night.
Accessibility vs Depth
Heavily related to weight, but again a distinct category of it's own, this is a balance between how easy the game is to get into and how much it holds up to repeated play and variation in strategy. Light games tend towards accessible, complex games tend towards deep, but it isn't universal in either case. Accessible games are those that are easy to teach and get people playing, especially those who may not have much experience with modern board games. Deeper games require more of a time and energy investment on behalf of new players, but generally offer more in the long term. This axis is more of a general tendency than a truly opposed pair of traits, deep games can be made more accessible to varying degrees. For example Space Alert stands up to many many repeat plays, but reduces it's otherwise steep accessibility curve by having phased introductory scenarios where various game elements are introduced a few at a time. This carries its own drawbacks when all players are not at the same level of familiarity, as it will mean a more limited and potential less enjoyable experience for established players going back to basics.
Heavily related to weight, but again a distinct category of it's own, this is a balance between how easy the game is to get into and how much it holds up to repeated play and variation in strategy. Light games tend towards accessible, complex games tend towards deep, but it isn't universal in either case. Accessible games are those that are easy to teach and get people playing, especially those who may not have much experience with modern board games. Deeper games require more of a time and energy investment on behalf of new players, but generally offer more in the long term. This axis is more of a general tendency than a truly opposed pair of traits, deep games can be made more accessible to varying degrees. For example Space Alert stands up to many many repeat plays, but reduces it's otherwise steep accessibility curve by having phased introductory scenarios where various game elements are introduced a few at a time. This carries its own drawbacks when all players are not at the same level of familiarity, as it will mean a more limited and potential less enjoyable experience for established players going back to basics.
Low randomness vs High randomness
A degree of randomness in a game allows for different setups and outcomes so that the game isn't the same every time. Most games includes some degree of randomness, either during the setup phase or throughout the game, though there are exceptions. Traditional abstracts like chess are good examples of zero randomness games. Games with little to no randomness need other mechanics to keep the gameplay interesting through repeat plays. Games like chess do this through extremely large decision spaces, there are so many potential moves it's unlikely that games will play out identically (though technically, it is possible). Diplomacy uses hidden information and interplayer conflict, the human element providing its own randomness. Up to a certain point, more randomness allows more variety both in terms of gameplay and in end results. Randomness can bridge some of the gap between experienced players and newcomers, allowing the latter to win games in spite of a disparity in skill. It also allows players to make imperfect decisions based on evaluating probabilities, which can be an engaging thing all by itself. Taken to the extreme, too much randomness dilutes a game's strategy, as planning longterm becomes impossible when the future game state is wildly unpredictable. It's also worth noting that there are both good and bad implementations of randomness. Random elements like dice rolls and decks of cards that appear multiple times spaced out throughout the game tend to be better. It allows for random occurrences of beating the odds that can be really fun, but over time trends towards a reasonably calculable statistical distribution. Having large parts of the game turning on the outcome of few random variables that can't be influenced - like a winner coming down to a single unmodified dice roll - are bad and will leave both winners and losers feeling cheated by random chance.
A degree of randomness in a game allows for different setups and outcomes so that the game isn't the same every time. Most games includes some degree of randomness, either during the setup phase or throughout the game, though there are exceptions. Traditional abstracts like chess are good examples of zero randomness games. Games with little to no randomness need other mechanics to keep the gameplay interesting through repeat plays. Games like chess do this through extremely large decision spaces, there are so many potential moves it's unlikely that games will play out identically (though technically, it is possible). Diplomacy uses hidden information and interplayer conflict, the human element providing its own randomness. Up to a certain point, more randomness allows more variety both in terms of gameplay and in end results. Randomness can bridge some of the gap between experienced players and newcomers, allowing the latter to win games in spite of a disparity in skill. It also allows players to make imperfect decisions based on evaluating probabilities, which can be an engaging thing all by itself. Taken to the extreme, too much randomness dilutes a game's strategy, as planning longterm becomes impossible when the future game state is wildly unpredictable. It's also worth noting that there are both good and bad implementations of randomness. Random elements like dice rolls and decks of cards that appear multiple times spaced out throughout the game tend to be better. It allows for random occurrences of beating the odds that can be really fun, but over time trends towards a reasonably calculable statistical distribution. Having large parts of the game turning on the outcome of few random variables that can't be influenced - like a winner coming down to a single unmodified dice roll - are bad and will leave both winners and losers feeling cheated by random chance.
Other factors to consider
There are a few other points that I think about when looking at a game. These are less quantifiable and more likely to be influenced by personal opinions, but that's what being a reviewer is about in the end! You can usually tell if a reviewer's preferences align with your own in areas like this. If their style doesn't jive with yours, you can take these with a grain of salt or form your own conclusions.
Theme
In days gone past you would probably have found theme in the section above, on an axis opposed to mechanics. There is a long history of thematic american-style games heavy on flashy art, lots of components and randomness, and dryer mechanically interesting euro style games with low randomness and weak themes. Thankfully this Berlin wall of boardgaming has fallen in recent years, and there are many excellent games that marry solid mechanics to an engaging theme. Theme matters, and not having a coherent theme that is conveyed both by the physical presentation and the mechanics hurts a game. Not to say I don't like my share of great games with pasted-on themes, but it's a point to note as a negative rather than something to be ignored because 'euros are just like that'.
There are a few other points that I think about when looking at a game. These are less quantifiable and more likely to be influenced by personal opinions, but that's what being a reviewer is about in the end! You can usually tell if a reviewer's preferences align with your own in areas like this. If their style doesn't jive with yours, you can take these with a grain of salt or form your own conclusions.
Theme
In days gone past you would probably have found theme in the section above, on an axis opposed to mechanics. There is a long history of thematic american-style games heavy on flashy art, lots of components and randomness, and dryer mechanically interesting euro style games with low randomness and weak themes. Thankfully this Berlin wall of boardgaming has fallen in recent years, and there are many excellent games that marry solid mechanics to an engaging theme. Theme matters, and not having a coherent theme that is conveyed both by the physical presentation and the mechanics hurts a game. Not to say I don't like my share of great games with pasted-on themes, but it's a point to note as a negative rather than something to be ignored because 'euros are just like that'.
Physicality - Components, presentation and artwork
Closely related to theme, this is a general outline of the quality of the actual stuff that you get in the box. Boardgames are a physical medium, and they way they are presented is relevant to the the experience of playing with them. Nice components, good artwork, quality materials - all these things make holding and playing with this stuff that much more engaging. More engaging means a better time for you and your players. Everyone likes messing around with nice plastic ships or metal coin tokens, and looking at well drawn and printed art beats ugly scribbles. Bad physical presentation can really take you out of a game, just look at all the complaints about the artwork in Sentinels of the Multiverse. The visual and tactile is your very first impression of a game, and it pays to make a good first impression.
Closely related to theme, this is a general outline of the quality of the actual stuff that you get in the box. Boardgames are a physical medium, and they way they are presented is relevant to the the experience of playing with them. Nice components, good artwork, quality materials - all these things make holding and playing with this stuff that much more engaging. More engaging means a better time for you and your players. Everyone likes messing around with nice plastic ships or metal coin tokens, and looking at well drawn and printed art beats ugly scribbles. Bad physical presentation can really take you out of a game, just look at all the complaints about the artwork in Sentinels of the Multiverse. The visual and tactile is your very first impression of a game, and it pays to make a good first impression.
Scalability - Player count and game length
It's no great secret that player counts and game lengths printed on a game's box can be horrible, terrible lies. In many cases there are ideal (or dare I say, necessary) player counts within the alleged range of supported players. You can technically play 7 Wonders with two people, but it's hardly even the same game. Chaos in the Old World just doesn't work without exactly 4 players as the asymmetrical factions are all balanced against each other. Dominion with an expansion can seat 5 or 6 players, but the downtime involved makes this more a punishment than a fun multiplayer game. It's important to have realistic expectations of how many players can reasonably be supported, and how long it's going to take. If you want a 6 player game of Twilight Imperium, you better set aside a whole day. Or even a weekend. (Totally worth it)
It's no great secret that player counts and game lengths printed on a game's box can be horrible, terrible lies. In many cases there are ideal (or dare I say, necessary) player counts within the alleged range of supported players. You can technically play 7 Wonders with two people, but it's hardly even the same game. Chaos in the Old World just doesn't work without exactly 4 players as the asymmetrical factions are all balanced against each other. Dominion with an expansion can seat 5 or 6 players, but the downtime involved makes this more a punishment than a fun multiplayer game. It's important to have realistic expectations of how many players can reasonably be supported, and how long it's going to take. If you want a 6 player game of Twilight Imperium, you better set aside a whole day. Or even a weekend. (Totally worth it)
Tension and Atmosphere
Probably the most subjective of the bunch - here I'm looking at the kind of emotions the game evokes. Is it a relaxed beer and snacks type game where everyone can take it easy and have a laugh? Or is it a tense, brain burning test of will between two players locked silently across from each other over a gameboard? Are you going to be working with your fellow players in a shared challenge, or smiling to their face while knifing them in the back at a crucial moment? I like all these things in different situations, but in many cases playing a particular type of game when you're not in the right mindset is a recipe for disinterest at best or really unfun evening at worst.
So these are the major things I think about when I think about what I want to play, and what others would want to play. You will no doubt value these things to different degrees, and even have completely different criteria that you judge essential for games - all to the good! What matters is knowing the why, as well as the how - and hopefully this will assist you in breaking down big complicated experiences like boardgames into tasty, easily digestable chunks!
No comments:
Post a Comment