Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35175 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20840 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7430 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3981 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3509 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2080 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2587 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2258 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2501 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3022 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3698 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2626 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2463 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2292 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2510 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.

3,000 New Games Per Year

More
01 May 2018 09:31 #272357 by Shellhead
Replied by Shellhead on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year
Maybe KickSucker supporters will eventually become more discerning consumers, after much trial and error. With better ability to identify worthy KickSuckers, they can help designers figure out what gamers want... aside from totally sweet miniatures.

Speaking of KickSucker, is there any point to reviewing KickSucker games here? In theory, a game is a game, and any game is potentially worth a review. But if a game is distributed only once and to a very limited group of supporters, is there any value to telling anybody else if the game is good or not? I realize that some KickSuckers are successful enough that there is a subsequent production run for more normal retail distribution, and at that point it seems like a review could be useful.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 09:52 #272360 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

Shellhead wrote: Maybe KickSucker supporters will eventually become more discerning consumers, after much trial and error. With better ability to identify worthy KickSuckers, they can help designers figure out what gamers want... aside from totally sweet miniatures.

Speaking of KickSucker, is there any point to reviewing KickSucker games here? In theory, a game is a game, and any game is potentially worth a review. But if a game is distributed only once and to a very limited group of supporters, is there any value to telling anybody else if the game is good or not? I realize that some KickSuckers are successful enough that there is a subsequent production run for more normal retail distribution, and at that point it seems like a review could be useful.


I don't think ignoring (or postponing a review a year or more) some of the best and most popular games from the past few years is in any way a good idea.

Saying we don't want reviews of Blood Rage, Rising Sun, Cthulhu Wars, Lords of Hellas, 7th Continent, Gloomhaven, Dungeon Degenerates, Scythe, Kingdom Death: Monster, and Santorini would be a great way to shoot for irrelevance.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, bfkiller, ChristopherMD

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 09:57 - 01 May 2018 10:14 #272361 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

lj1983 wrote: as for 3k games, as others have stated, good games will eventually rise up. I'm thankful for places like the Fort to bring up games that other like-minded people have enjoyed.


That only carries you so far when two or three people in your group are showing up with a new game every week, one that they bought sight-unseen before anything but PR material was available for it. The result is that you know you're sitting down to a likely-low-return game before the cover comes off, but there's not much you can do about it. It's a social hobby -- you have to work within your group so someone else's poor decision is laid at your feet.

I can choose to pass up any book that doesn't catch my attention. I can drop any book I want, halfway through if I feel like it. No one cares. That's not an option open to me for any competitive board game. I show up with tried and true games in my bag, and as I walk in the door there's a game already laid out on the table that I have no interest in. "C'mon in John, we're playing some game called Dwarves." Summoner Wars gets set aside again (haven't played since 2015, in my bag every week.)

This isn't just a Kickstarter thing. The months after GenCon are the real ugly period in my group. They'll buy 15 games between them that just don't have any spark. "Kickstarter" has become a shorthand term for "half-baked first-timer design that didn't have professional editing". It's not a kickstarter thing, it's an amateur design thing.

Frankly, I'd like to have everyone in my group take a year off from buying any game. We have 600 titles between us, can't help but imagine we should circle back to a few of them.

S.
Last edit: 01 May 2018 10:14 by Sagrilarus.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Shellhead, Msample, Frohike, stoic

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 09:58 #272362 by Legomancer
Replied by Legomancer on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year
Bring this up elsewhere and you'll get a standard response: Sturgeon's Law.

Sturgeon's Law is: "90% of everything is crap". Me, I think Sturgeon was an optimist with that.

His point, I'd like to think, was that there is a lot of junk out there. You're going to have to work to find the good stuff. However, as the nerd world got more powerful and marketable and as nerds grew up and increased their purchasing power, the amount of stuff being shoved a them increased, and their mantra, when confronted about it was, "yeah, okay, this movie/TV show/game/book is crap but 90% of everything is crap". Sturgeon's Law became a defense of feasting on garbage.

I used to work in a department that sent out mass emails, and if we sent out 1000 emails and 30 people replied, that was considered a 3% response rate. Technically, it is. But the assumption was then that if we send out 2000 emails, 60 people will reply. That's absurd. There may only be 30 people in the audience and you hit them all the first time. Sending more emails may get more responses, but it doesn't magically create new audience members.

It's that way with Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything may be crap, but that doesn't mean that if we squat out 200 games we'll get 20 gems.

As has been stated, right now this hobby is in a mode designed specifically for people who have two main desires: 1) play a lot of different games, 2) buy a lot of different games. This is valued in the hobby right now. This is why "reviews" are, for the most part, simply assurances that you should play and/or own this new thing, as well as why video reviewers always have a giant shelf of games behind them. Ownership = authority.

I'd love to listen to board game podcasts, but I can't find anything that talks about playing games, and thoughts about playing games. It's all reviewing games (always positively) and game design, because the only thing better than buying games is making more games.

This site is not really in sync with my tastes, as you all know. I don't go for any of this plastic stuff you all like, I think Cosmic Encounter is junk, hate negotiation, and am not interested in combat and war most of the time. But it's a place where the audience is thoughtful and not just looking to grab the next experience and then move on.

The 3000 new games a year exist to feed the churn. Someone mentioned Terraforming Mars as one of the few games that people actually have stayed interested in for more than a month. I remember the days when Caylus, Agricola, and others appeared and people were really interested in finding out: is this something to add to the "canon"? Is this up there with T&E, Catan, Carc, Ra, etc? Time has marched on, sure, but there is no sense of that in the hobby anymore, just "omg a new game! must play them all!"

I don't blame KS or publishers. I blame a public which, as a subset of the current lazy-assed, uncritical, open-mouthed, turn-you-brain-off nerd community will throw money at anything placed in front of them and then call themselves a "collector" to justify it. This is the same crowd who decided that stating they are a connoisseur of bad movies was easier than, say, getting some fucking taste.

Sorry, this was unfocused. TL;DR: nerds ruin everything
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose, Matt Thrower, RobertB, Sagrilarus, Not Sure, mezike, Frohike, stoic

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 10:10 #272365 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

charlest wrote: I don't think ignoring (or postponing a review a year or more) some of the best and most popular games from the past few years is in any way a good idea.


I agree. But -- I think reviewing a game that is older, that is still available, that rocks but is not widely discovered is an ultra-high-quality service that There Will Be Games could really bring to the community, and it would differentiate us from every other site.

Reviewing a game that isn't available has a bit of an elitist bent to it, especially when they're new. It's inconsiderate when the game is old too, but at least there's a used market where readers can try to find it. Were I in a position to write that review (and I might be because I'd love to tell a story about playing Sucking Vacuum) I'd have a disclaimer up front.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, charlest

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 10:21 - 01 May 2018 10:22 #272366 by Michael Barnes
The policy is going to be that only Kickstarters that are in retail or are currently available for purchase will be reviewed with exceptions only for particularly notable or significant games. We will not run advance reviews of KS games or games that are “between” Kickstarter reprint campaigns. Further, no stretch goals or additions will be covered- base game only. We will not review exclusive or limited content that is not available for the general public. Critical analysis of something that nobody can check out for themselves is pointless, and we are not a marketing department.
Last edit: 01 May 2018 10:22 by Michael Barnes.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Shellhead, southernman, Gary Sax, ChristopherMD, Sagrilarus, lj1983, Frohike, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 10:36 - 01 May 2018 10:38 #272368 by Space Ghost
What about games that are sold out or otherwise hard to obtain? Perhaps they have an impending 2nd print, but they are self-published? Something like Cave Evil or the recent review by Matt of Mushroom Eaters (or your original review, when there were very few copies able to be obtained to begin with).

Policy is policy, so I don't really mind. But, I think reviews of older hard to obtain grail games would be cool (I mentioned this in a PM to you, Michael) -- didn't know if that would run afoul of the "must be available for purchase" standard.
Last edit: 01 May 2018 10:38 by Space Ghost.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Frohike, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 11:16 - 01 May 2018 11:49 #272369 by Space Ghost

Shellhead wrote:

Erik Twice wrote: Look, I'll be honest, I think the argument that there are "too many games" is nonsense. I have yet to see any of the supposed drawbacks and it's "this generation doesn't respect its elders" in nerd form. Seriously, this argument has been around for decades.


Aren't you the guy who has become a big fan of both Dune and Cosmic Encounter in relatively recent times? And aren't you the same guy who was complaining about the lame modern games that your friends keep wanting to play? I apologize if I am confusing you with another poster here. But if that is you, than yes you have seen the specific harm of too many games. That harm would be great games getting overlooked and underplayed because of the current obsession with playing new games that are essentially lazy re-themes of other games of relatively recent vintage. I keep hosting my own small gaming events despite a gradual decline in attendance, because I know if I go to the better-known local gaming venues and events, I will be pressured to learn the rules to a whole bunch of boring euro-clones that were churned out via KickSucker. I would rather play less often but with people who actually comprehend that some games are significantly better than others.


I think a lot of this is similar to confirmation bias and looking at the past with Rose-colored glasses and just ignoring available data. In 1977, the year that Cosmic Encounter was released, there were 538 games released. Only a handful of them looks like something worth playing: Cosmic Encounter, Ogre, Squad Leader, Rail Baron -- literally, I would guess somewhere between 1% to 2% would be worth sitting down to today (the original War of the Ring is fairly terrible, for instance).

Similarly, 1979, the year that Dune was released had 540 games total -- and once again, only a handful of them are worth playing: Dune, Magic Realm, The Awful Green Things from Outerspace, Wizard's Quest, Legend of Robin Hood. Again, about 1% to 2%.

Same for 1996, except now there were about 923 games total. Once again, about 4 or 5 worth playing: Hannibal, Netrunner, City of Chaos, Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix, Space Hulk 2nd Edition.

For 2017, there were about 5998 games total. Once again, there are a handful of games I'm interested in playing: Gloomhaven, 7th Continent, TI IV, Spirit Island, This War of Mine, Legacy of Dragonholt, Quest for El Dorado, Sword & Sorcery, Downforce, Time of Crisis. Hell, the percentage might be lower. But the big difference is there is an enormous amount of information available about those games that is easily accessible. In the early 80s, it was literally looking in the back of some magazine and crossing your fingers and hoping that you got a good game when it showed up a month later. You might have picked Magic Realm or you might have picked Battle: The Game of Generals.

EDIT: I picked both. The Game of Generals is terrible
Last edit: 01 May 2018 11:49 by Space Ghost.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 11:53 - 01 May 2018 11:56 #272378 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

Legomancer wrote: I'd love to listen to board game podcasts, but I can't find anything that talks about playing games, and thoughts about playing games. It's all reviewing games (always positively) and game design, because the only thing better than buying games is making more games.


This paragraph really resonated with me. Like, I drive almost 20 hours a week 7 months a year and listen to podcasts and audiobooks the whole time. But the only board game podcast I listen to is ding and dent, but even that is more review-ey than I'd ideally like. I think what we need is the equivalent of a games club podcast for videogames (something like Watch Out for Fireballs if you've ever heard that), I would listen to that every week or however often it came out.
Last edit: 01 May 2018 11:56 by Gary Sax.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 13:55 #272401 by Frohike
Replied by Frohike on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year
Mark Bigney (of All The Games You Like Are Bad notoriety) now publishes a weekly podcast titled So Very Wrong About Games which goes a little beyond reviews. While they do provide impressions of games & general session reports, they tend to return to games repeatedly and provide updates on how their opinion has shifted with more plays, etc. It's the only cast I listen to besides Ding & Dent.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, trif

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 14:25 - 01 May 2018 14:25 #272406 by cdennett
Replied by cdennett on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

Frohike wrote: Mark Bigney (of All The Games You Like Are Bad notoriety) now publishes a weekly podcast titled So Very Wrong About Games which goes a little beyond reviews. While they do provide impressions of games & general session reports, they tend to return to games repeatedly and provide updates on how their opinion has shifted with more plays, etc. It's the only cast I listen to besides Ding & Dent.

QFT. Those two podcasts (and Englestein's Gametek) are pretty much the only ones I get excited about listening to.
Last edit: 01 May 2018 14:25 by cdennett.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 14:28 - 01 May 2018 14:29 #272408 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year
Not intending to derail, but If anyone has any specific suggestions for Ding & Dent, please let me know. We'd shift our direction on a dime if it made people happy.

We definitely appreciate your ears and time.
Last edit: 01 May 2018 14:29 by charlest.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Frohike

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 14:31 #272409 by bfkiller
Replied by bfkiller on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

Gary Sax wrote:

Legomancer wrote: I'd love to listen to board game podcasts, but I can't find anything that talks about playing games, and thoughts about playing games. It's all reviewing games (always positively) and game design, because the only thing better than buying games is making more games.


This paragraph really resonated with me. Like, I drive almost 20 hours a week 7 months a year and listen to podcasts and audiobooks the whole time. But the only board game podcast I listen to is ding and dent, but even that is more review-ey than I'd ideally like. I think what we need is the equivalent of a games club podcast for videogames (something like Watch Out for Fireballs if you've ever heard that), I would listen to that every week or however often it came out.


*shameless plug for Of Dice & Men*
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Frohike, charlest

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 15:19 #272419 by lj1983
Replied by lj1983 on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

Sagrilarus wrote:

lj1983 wrote: as for 3k games, as others have stated, good games will eventually rise up. I'm thankful for places like the Fort to bring up games that other like-minded people have enjoyed.


That only carries you so far when two or three people in your group are showing up with a new game every week, one that they bought sight-unseen before anything but PR material was available for it. The result is that you know you're sitting down to a likely-low-return game before the cover comes off, but there's not much you can do about it. It's a social hobby -- you have to work within your group so someone else's poor decision is laid at your feet.


Sure. and I've run in to it. I used to go weekly to a game group at the library. for the last year, my work schedule has allowed me to go (previously I worked swing shifts, so it was 1-2 times a month, and I made half of those) and I started regularly, and when this shit started....I stopped going. The group organizers asked why I stopped showing up, and I told them. Now we spread the love alittle more. I also have a monthly game-day at my house, and we almost never play brand new stuff there (Scythe for the first time this last month, and Terraforming mars at the beginning of the year). But I'm starting to adapt Clearclaw's mantra of .....If I don't want to play it, then I won't. and I've walked out of gamenights without playing a thing. I live 5 minutes away, so if I traveled that wouldn't work.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2018 16:20 #272428 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic 3,000 New Games Per Year

Frohike wrote: Mark Bigney (of All The Games You Like Are Bad notoriety) now publishes a weekly podcast titled So Very Wrong About Games which goes a little beyond reviews. While they do provide impressions of games & general session reports, they tend to return to games repeatedly and provide updates on how their opinion has shifted with more plays, etc. It's the only cast I listen to besides Ding & Dent.


I'm listening to these guys bitch about "component quality" for the second game in five minutes, episode 2. "It's such a bizarre and strange development". "can only take away from the visual effect of the game." "Strange, jarring, and discordant".

No one talks about gaming anymore.

Rant over. Carry on.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.442 seconds