5 ms·

I think the proof is in the pudding. I've played hundreds of hours of chess in my life, and I set chess aside as a special case, but as for the rest of the tra

I think the proof is in the pudding. I've played hundreds of hours of chess in my life, and I set chess aside as a special case, but as for the rest of the traditional board games, they become boring once you've played highly rated games on boardgamegeek.com. Monopoly is a good example. It feels crushingly dull and random (yes, even with wheeling and dealing) to the point that I would call it an anti-game - it actually removes fun instead of creates it. A better title would be "Death March." I've spent that last thirty years playing and watching board games enter what seems to be their golden age, and have introduced scores of people to the games I love, and have had friends do so in kind. Almost universally people say something along the lines of, "Wow, that was fun. It's nothing like the games we played as a kid." Often followed up with "Where do we buy this?" They don't play the games from their childhood anymore because they're boring and they didn't know there were alternatives. Now they'll play board games as adults and enjoy themselves. Beats the Hell out of TV.

agentultra 11y ago
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. And the rating system on that site is in question of late due to a presently controversial number 1 game: Pandemic: Legacy. The rating system is highly subjective and many suspect is prone to "flavor of the week," ratings by people who don't take time to read the scale and objectively rate the games they play. Monopoly could be rated so lowly because it is a popular opinion on the site that it's not a good game. That being said I don't think the classics are disappearing or that they're bad games. A game like Mancala is seeing a resurgence as a mechanic in many popular games today. I think we can learn something from what made these games endure for so long and are starting to incorporate them into new games. Don't let the rating system on boardgamegeek dictate what we think is a really good game until the objectivity problem gets sorted out. update: An example of a thread that comes up every now and again: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1512907/new-rating-system-needed-bgg https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1512907/new-rating-system-n...
- cognivore 11y ago
  "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting" is certainly a statement I would agree with. Controversy around the rating system on boardgamegeek.com doesn't really invalidate that games that rank higher tend to be better. The same could be said of rottentomatoes.com, metacritic.com, and just about anything that rates anything. Use a large enough set of data and even subjective evaluations are useful. But I certainly wouldn't let a rating system dictate what I think is a good game.
  - agentultra 11y ago
    The rating system is under fire because it encourages fashion over merit. It's scale is based on what I want to play and think is good right now [0]. I mentioned Pandemic: Legacy because technically you cannot play it a second time (and personally I don't think I'll want to). It's a good game but I'm going to rate it highly today and probably lower once I finish it. It seems to me that the rating system on BGG is skewed towards what the community thinks is presently a good game. I think Monopoly would rate much higher if we were rating based on merit instead of opinion. I think most game enthusiasts and critics can see the importance and position Monopoly has had in gaming history. But in terms of what we like right now I don't find it very surprising that Monopoly or Checkers rank low in BGG's system. It's a system that favors novelty (over a longer term than "The Hotness" but still... flash in the pan games like P:L have been rising high, quickly, and with greater frequency) [0] https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ratings# https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ratings#

agentultra 11y ago

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. And the rating system on that site is in question of late due to a presently controversial number 1 game: Pandemic: Legacy. The rating system is highly subjective and many suspect is prone to "flavor of the week," ratings by people who don't take time to read the scale and objectively rate the games they play. Monopoly could be rated so lowly because it is a popular opinion on the site that it's not a good game. That being said I don't think the classics are disappearing or that they're bad games. A game like Mancala is seeing a resurgence as a mechanic in many popular games today. I think we can learn something from what made these games endure for so long and are starting to incorporate them into new games. Don't let the rating system on boardgamegeek dictate what we think is a really good game until the objectivity problem gets sorted out. update: An example of a thread that comes up every now and again: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1512907/new-rating-system-needed-bgg https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1512907/new-rating-system-n...

cognivore 11y ago
"The proof of the pudding is in the tasting" is certainly a statement I would agree with. Controversy around the rating system on boardgamegeek.com doesn't really invalidate that games that rank higher tend to be better. The same could be said of rottentomatoes.com, metacritic.com, and just about anything that rates anything. Use a large enough set of data and even subjective evaluations are useful. But I certainly wouldn't let a rating system dictate what I think is a good game.
- agentultra 11y ago
  The rating system is under fire because it encourages fashion over merit. It's scale is based on what I want to play and think is good right now [0]. I mentioned Pandemic: Legacy because technically you cannot play it a second time (and personally I don't think I'll want to). It's a good game but I'm going to rate it highly today and probably lower once I finish it. It seems to me that the rating system on BGG is skewed towards what the community thinks is presently a good game. I think Monopoly would rate much higher if we were rating based on merit instead of opinion. I think most game enthusiasts and critics can see the importance and position Monopoly has had in gaming history. But in terms of what we like right now I don't find it very surprising that Monopoly or Checkers rank low in BGG's system. It's a system that favors novelty (over a longer term than "The Hotness" but still... flash in the pan games like P:L have been rising high, quickly, and with greater frequency) [0] https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ratings# https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ratings#