Sevens I Have Known: Reflecting on Mediocrity Hot

Pointless. Good call.

Even worse when the game is pointless+ugly+methodical

Steve"pointfull :D"Avery

I blame Wolfgang Kramer, personally.

Tikal was the game that really got the whole thing started. It is SUCH an easy model to use to design a game.

A: Give out action points.
B: Have a list of uses for the action points.
C: Include a list of ways to get VP's based on the actions.

When you consider that all of the worker placement games are effectively Action Points with the added feature of exclusivity, the history gets longer and longer.

It is fairly easy to make a balanced game using that framework. It is forgiving to the players, because they can always do something. And it is dull as dishwater. (See Age of Conan: it leans on this model a little too heavily, although there are some clever ideas in there.)

Avery, I remember you asking about Hunter: Deadly Prey a while back. I've only played once and I am nearly finished working on a proposal for White Wolf, so I'm not ready to do a review of H:DP. But I will say this, that first game seemed "pointless+ugly+methodical." There were a few interesting ideas, but the gameplay was kind of terrible. I will need to find different players if I want to try to get it on the table again, the ones who tried it last time won't play it again, ever.

Great article - Every Ystari game I have tried suffers from the bag of mechanisms problem. There has to be something that connects the mechanics in your game together in a logical way, other than using the same resource cubes or other similarly contrived stuff... Games like Power Grid do this well, as the theme of the game provides some meaning to the method by which the different mechanics interact with each other. In contrast, Sylla is a game with a unifying theme (battle between Roman dudes to control country) but has little logical connection between the mechanics which are thrown together and spit out VP.

Jesus, Juniper you should every article on this site. Ken, Matt, Barnes--you're all fired. I expect to see this sentiment expressed in three "gaming -- general" forum posts in the next day or so at BGG, and a Geeklist to follow (THUMBS!)

I was playing BOHNANZA at lunch the other day with co-workers--some are diehard frothing at the mouth Europhiles, and one is new to the boardgaming thing, though he has a rich history in video gaming. Anyway, at one point, he wonders aloud--"Why am I doing this? Why can't I plant beans together?" I was at a loss--there's no reason other than the rules. I told him we'll talk later--he's learning TITAN whether he likes it or not.

This element of "missing something" crystallizes my central complaint about these games. My worst offender thus far is IN THE YEAR OF THE DRAGON. There's no there there. It's an exercise with window dressing, and that somehow makes it worse, not better. That's why Knizia can get away with it--he really does rip out everything except the bare minimum he needs to sell the thing. MODERN ART could be AUKTION SPIEL and be as good--it is the purest "auction" game there is. It's actually -fun- too, because it's not all dressed up in horses or Mesopotamia or whatever. You sit down, here is your money, auction something. That should be lauded compared to "YOU ARE IN THE JUNGLES OF ANCIENT PERU, here is your money, auction something."

Playing ARKADIA for the first and only time drilled it home for me. What's this thing about?

I think Juniper's touching upon what Barnes referred to as conceptual theme. Can you readily identify what this game is asking you, the player to do? What's the hook? The answer to these questions should make it clear where the conflict is going to be.

I still think the thing that bothers me the most about Euros is that most of them seem to be games where once everything is going just swimmingly, the game ends. Caylus is one of the biggest offenders of that. It seems like you can never get to build any of the premium buildings because you're busy doing so many other things. By the time you're in a position where you can, the dumb ass baliff (or provost or whatever the fuck that white hockey puck is) has triggered the end of the game. Not to mention, the game doesn't seem to fit the theme.....Why should only person be able to chop wood?

Dude, ARKADIA was the very definition of "Euro Mediocre on a Stick." Played that and went, "What the hell WAS that?!"

I paid a dollar for it and still felt ripped off. I couldn't trade that thing fast enough.

Egads, this article really strikes at the heart of the matter...sometimes it's not just that a game lacks theme, it is a lack of focus and coherency. Even if that coherency is breaking down between mechanical action and executive theme, the result is almost always something along the lines of GOA or ARKADIA. (shudder)

The idea of applying a German sense of austerity to board game design yielded some terrific results fifteen years ago, and the results were the LOUIE LOUIES and WILD THINGS of gaming. But now that all of those brilliant riffs, so beautiful in their simplicity, have been discovered, Eurogames are firmly stuck in their own Prog-rock era. Time signatures change, there are noodly synthesizer solos that go on forever, but there is no aesthetic unity -- no sense of "aha! It had to be this way!"

This is a brilliant statement. A long time ago I compared SAN JUAN to a Sex Pistols song and PUERTO RICO to a Rush one. It's kind of the same idea here.

That is really something that Eurogames have moved away from- that really stripped-down feeling of watertight minimalism. _I like that_. I despise MODERN ART, but I can at least appreciate what it is as a pure auction game that doesn't do anything but that. Even RA and MEDICI, games I do like, have that really tight feeling that gives you the right balance of decision in structure in a relatively short (30-60 min.) playtime. Thanks to Wolfgang Kramer (chiefly), the modern Eurogame has become like those godawful Joe Satriani records that all noodling and riffing with a jumble sale of ideas and motifs. Oh, it impresses the guitar nerds/Eurogamers alright but what about folks who like simple melody, rhythm, and coherency? Fuck Steve Vai, Guy Mann-Dude and all this virtuoso guitar god shit- give me Johnny Ramone, Johnny Thunders, and James Williamson- something raw that moves me, not something that shows me how well studied or trained the creator is.

It's why kind of scrappy, raw games like WAR FOR EDADH, MAGICAL ATHELETE, and WORLD CUP GAME appeal to me more than some piece of shit Euro that only shows me that the designer has played the last couple of years worth of Essen releases.

Some more notes on minimalism- some people can do minimalism right. Others confuse minimalism with simplicity, and thus we get a slew of garbage like HEY WHERE'S MY FISH. And almost no Eurogames with that stripped down feeling like even BOHNANZA has.

But like Jeb says, stripping things down can result in a loss of context. But I can buy that you're just farming beans, no questions asked, in a game. A lot of folks can't, and I understand that.

This all sort of touches on Professor Branham's Patented In-Game Ego Check- can you look at the game and say "This is me, those are mine"? That means a lot, I think, even in the most stripped-down designs.

You could say the same thing about Rummy, or Pinochle. What's the point? It's not like we're not playing for money or anything. Aren't those games simply mechanics with no real rhyme or reason behind them as well?. Of course, I don't see us having that discussion any time soon.

Why not? The way I see it, it's because euros bother to have themes at all. If these games were simply devoid of any kind of descriptive nouns or thematic imagery, if they were never made to look like anything other than some mechanical excercise, would we even waste our time talking about them? If someone were to write an article for the front page about how much Sequence fucking blows, wouldn't you find it a bit odd?

I guess I just don't see why we continue to apply the same standards to euros that we do to AT games or wargames when there's just no point in comparing them to each other. It's a bit like comparing The Miracles' "Love Machine" to Yes' "Roundabout." They share the same chord progression, but they have so little else in common that an argument over which is the better song is simply ridiculous.

Which one is the good song?

I agree with mjl1783 -- euros don't even need a theme. The only reason it is there is to provide mneumonic devices to remember rules and perhaps a setting to boost sales. When they try to talk up their "theme" it seems pretentious, which speaks directly to what Barnes is saying. Why pretend like you have a theme when really you are just an auction game?

I also agree with the "hey, those dudes are me" -- it matters a lot. It provides a physical manifestation that acts as a conduit for our imagination that transports us to the game world. Add in Barnes' ideas on themes with some little dudes running around and you have a game that transports you to another world (I know, it sounds like a fucking Reading Rainbow segment), but this is the common thread that I think links our games. We talk about games where we imagine we are doing shit -- the theme has to facilitate the imagination so we can let our ego shine.

Re: mjl1783 and Space Ghost. I think what Juniper's talking about goes way deeper than things like pasted-on theme. A game like Rummy or any other completely abstract game could still very easily fall victim to the lack of unity or purpose that he's describing (Blokus, anyone?). Like Barnes said, this article really goes right at the heart of a lot of things people in this community have been kicking around of late regarding a move beyond the simplistic notions of theme, narrative, etc., that we seemed to be getting stuck in. The analogies to literature and music are spot on. Great job Juniper!

I feel as though we're really getting some traction here, what with this and Barnes' Executive/Conceptual Theme article. The Unified Theory of Ameritrash could be just around the corner!

Perhaps that is true -- but this is starting to get a little "high-minded". What's the point of any game? After that, determining whether that point is meaningful is so subjective that I don't know how we could come to an agreement without looking petty.

The point of most games is to win or have fun, correct? Ok...that doesn't mean much. So, we ask ourselves whether the mechansims themselves have a point. I think that this is very intricately linked to a theme if we go beyond anything but a minimalist game that is designed to highlight a single mechanism.

Once we begin to add complexity, we ask why is there complexity. If there is no theme to drive the complexity, then it is pointless unless we are just having a contest of wits.

Space Ghost, if I understand correctly, I think your "theme to drive the complexity" = Barnes' "conceptual theme" = Juniper's "unity/purpose." It's all the same sort of something that makes a game go and be enjoyable.

Spaceghost, I think these sort of discussions are important for those of us trying to getting a better grip on just why it is we find game "A" more enjoyable than game "B". If you already have a record of almost always buying games you end up enjoying, then it's probably not that useful. I've waded through so much crap that I need to be more strategic.

I like that you ask, "is the complexity worth it?" A lot of Eurogames work several systems of manipulation to generate sufficient challenge, mostly, I believe, because the reliance on indirect interaction/conflict requires it. In other words, "heavy mental load" equals "very strategic".

For those of us interested in some sort of simulation or head-to-head competition, this added work is not going to be worth it. For most of us, I think, added rules should either better facilitate a feeling of being there and/or offer additional opportunities to trash your opponents in a particularly clever or nasty way.

I'm not so sure about "them" trying to talk up their themes, but I don't really pay that much attention to euros. I'm looking at the back of my Bohnanza and Carcassonne boxes, though, and I don't see much there besides overviews of the rules. Bohnanza does claim that bean farming has never been so much fun, but that doesn't seem like a terribly outlandish statement to me.

Anyway, why does it matter if they're pretending to have a theme? It's not like they're fooling anyone. If you really believed Race for the Galaxy was going to "drip" with theme because some dude over at TOS told you it would, then you're just fucking dumb. On the other hand, if you're playing Container every week, it probably does seem really thematic.

This is true if you look at board games as a storytelling medium. Most people don't, man. If they did, there would be Harley Davidson and NFL-themed versions of Clue instead of Monopoly. Theme-heavy board games have always been a very niche part of the gaming hobby. They played second fiddle to wargames throughout the 70s, RPGs in the 80s, CCGs in the early 90s, and now euros are all the rage. It's just that, with those other styles, there was some overlap in the design paradigms. Euros are closer to those mass market Wal-Mart games, so the difference between the games is more apparent.

Eh, I can get down to either one. Then again, I've been known to go on drunken rants about how, when you really get down to it, Phil Collins' "Easy Lover" rocks more or less as hard as Testament's "Souls of Black," or how brilliant Flow Rida's "Right Round" is because that cascading synth line is totally analogous to a stripper sliding down a pole. So, yeah, you probably shouldn't listen to anything I say about music. Or anything else for that matter...

If, when playing a wargame, you aren't imagining controlling the battle and exploring what would happen if you choose different alternatives -- then what is the point? I would think that imagination is an integral part to wargames and RPGs, and to some extent CCGs.

I would argue that euros are the first time that games have been so themeless.

Well then, what's Rummy's purpose? Where's its coherency? What makes it more than just a bag of mechanics?

Again, this is only true if you consider board games a medium for storytelling. You're going to have a fairly difficult time making the case that they are, given that they've only been used that way for a very short time in human history.

I really hope this is what we're getting at, because most of the time, it seems like all we're taking away from these discussions is yet another way to articulate what sucks about Puerto Rico. I think it'd be more useful to get a better grip on what we do and don't like about "our" games, instead of picking apart a design paradigm which has nothing to do with what we look for in a game.

If I was a hardcore, no bullshit grognard, I might tell you that you shouldn't be able to choose different alternatives. That battle happened, and if you want to do something in a game that isn't historical, you should go play Risk.

At least Rummy doesn't try to hide that it is a one mechanic game behind some horsecrap theme fascade like most gawd awful Euros do.

I'd much rather play an abstract or card game with no theme pasted on because I can then enjoy it for what it is. If I read the back of a euro game box and don't check TOS or consult with fifty friends first, the game often hands me the impression that there really is some attempt at a unifying theme for the game. If I then buy it and start playing the damn thing, I find out that it was some American Idol first week wannabe playah.

Rummy, Spades, Hearts, Chess, Go, Gin, Poker, Craps, hell even any word game, at least they all deliver what you expect of them.

I don't see most Euros with mechanics checklists on the back so I can know that they are some wretched worker placement wompfest and nothing more. It would be nice if they could try a bit harder to realize some aspect of their marketed theme rather than be perennial pretenders.

I think this is a clearer definition of what I've been calling "immersion." I haven't been able to define it and this provides more than a bit of insight. Nice post, thanks for spending the time.

Some games just draw you into the action. It can be an intellectual endeavour, or it can be an emotional thing. Theme can be incredibly useful for that second option, and I think that's at the heart of wargaming's immersive qualities. Virtually all wargames have a very solid anchor in reality, and that injects gravity into the play -- it gives you a reason to want to do well. The rules may be a hassle, but you're in it because you want to see if you can do better than Patton did in the same situation. You're rewriting history, and that's bold.

Economic games have it as well. You're building your settlement or your kingdom, and you want to see how it's going to turn out. Winning the game is a goal, but you want to see your town grow into a city, and you don't want the game to end before you get a chance to do that.

Where I think a lot of euros hang themselves is by having a good theme, but not allowing that theme to play itself out. They have a part of play that seems in the way -- out of place or clunky. Or worse, they have some two-bit "trigger the end game" mechanism that cuts things short before it feels like you've gotten to the end of the story. That's thematic death for me, regardless of genre. You need to be able to emotionally prepare for the end. Ending the game when a red chit is pulled out of the bag is the emotional equivalent of sinking your settlements into the sea.

Theme is a wonderful thing when it's right. When it's wrong it's the kiss of death.

Sag.

Mr MOTO's got it for me--card games like RUMMY don't lack immersion because they don't have a theme--if anything, their pure expression of "game" makes them more immersive because you know you are trying to maximize your score in the context of the rules. Mixing a theme into a structure like this is misplaced and leads to a measure of (no shit!) cognitive dissonance. As a card manipulation scheme, BOHNANZA is pretty cool. As a bean-growing-thing, it's a fucking mess. No one should have to wonder about why they can't plant green and red beans in the same field. It doesn't add anything to the play of the game--it only distracts.

Even PUERTO RICO does this better--you can't sell your coffee because someone already sold some--the demand is gone. You can't ship your corn because that ship's captain is only taking sugar orders. You want to ship sugar? Build a Wharf. The theme bolted on to the game actually helps a little.

I'm with Jeb on this one. Modern Art is still one of my favorite Euros and favorite game that uses auctions because it's both simple and stripped down and it makes sense from a theme stand point. In real life art is sold at auctions and PR is very important. The fun of playing Modern Art is to shill and pump up your favorite artist so that you can get more money at auction and the art work your gallery owns of from that painter is worth more. Modern Art is Knizia at his best. The auctions make complete sense to me. In most Euros, auction, actions points and worker place make no sense at all.

FYI: I played Modern Art the new pure card game last weekend. The pure card game strips down the original Modern Art down even more. And it works pretty well as a 30 minute filler game. The game removes the auctions. Now players will just play paints out of there hand down on the table as soon as 6 painting are played by the same artist you count points for the top 3 artists. The game goes 3 rounds. On the positive side, in the new Modern Art card game, I was still able to Trash talk, shill my favorite artist and bluff which made game pretty fun. Also, I liked that fact the game was very quick and less mathy. The biggest negative was that I felt I could have played the game almost random and done ok. The game is also very shallow to the point of being meaningless. In my first game, I totally bullshitted the game and still came in 2nd losing by 1 point to a 4 experienced players.

It's interesting that the game will be released using the "Modern Art" artist (Karl Gitter, etc.) to the Euro crowd but a Target version will be released with famous artists like Van Gogh and Picasso.

Oh, for fuck's sake, it's a game about cartoon beans! Who gives a rat's ass why you can't plant two different kinds of bean together? Did the green bean in fucking overalls and cowboy boots on the cover somehow give you the impression that it was going to be an accurate depiction of bean farming? Anyway, why would you want to participate in an accurate depiction of bean farming in the first place?

I guess this is what I don't get; most of these euros' themes are either completely mundane like Goa or Agricola, or just silly, like Bohnanza and Hey That's My Fish!. So, why would you have have a hard time telling that you're not going to like them when you know you're the kind of person who looks for drama and narrative in their games?

This will be subjective; it will vary from critic to critic. That's OK though, since I'm basically arguing that board game criticism should be more like literary, music, film, or art criticism in that it should be about aesthetics instead of bullshit discussions of mechanics.

I think that Rummy is elemental. The basic "draw a card, discard a card" aspect of Rummy is its central idea, its soul, and its purpose, if you will. The various Mystery Rummy games are still Rummy, because they remain true to that idea. The fact that you can modify Rummy so radically and still recognize it as Rummy suggests to me that it's much more than just a bag of mechanics. It has unity.

That's not what I'm trying to say. Some abstract paintings are good and some aren't. Some have emotive power and some don't. Insisting that all games should have theme is like saying that no abstract painting can evoke any emotion, and that's just plain dumb. Instrumental music is abstract, too, but it moves us.

So what's the difference between a good abstract painting and a crap one? What's the difference between instrumental music that transports us emotionally, and elevator music, which exists to distract us from the fact that we're being transported physically? There's a whole field of philosophy devoted to questions like this, so I'm not presuming to offer any answer to these questions, apart from this: successful art needs a kind of wholeness. Even abstract painters have to be aware of the rules of composition.

Too many Eurogame designers seem to be putting mechanics together and saying "I dare you to tell me that this is not a game." It's like an abstract painting that has no composition. It's not the abstractedness that's the problem. It's the total lack of any artistry at all.

Yes, but how much of it is a true lack of artistry, and how much is simply your distaste for the form? For example: I like some classical music, but I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan. The stuff I do like tends to be Bach, or Paganini, composers whose music has influenced rock and heavy metal. I like some jazz too, but again, it tends to be artists who share some stylistic elements with artists in genres I naturally prefer. Now, if we were discussing some free jazz musician like James Blood Ulmer, I could tell you that I personally find his music unlistenable, but I don't think I could make a good case for why it's bad because I just don't understand the appeal of that particular form of jazz to begin with.

I notice us doing this sort of thing when we talk about "the good euros." The good euros always end up being the ones that share design elements with AT games. Carcassonne with the expansions is one of the good ones because it has a lot of "take that", Settlers of Catan is one of the good ones because it has lots of chance and interaction, Power Grid is one of the good ones because it has at least some logical connection to its theme.

I can take one look at that box shot of Goa and tell you that it's not something I have any desire whatsoever to play. I don't understand why anyone else would want to either, for that matter. Nevertheless, some people will find genuine excitement in those auctions, and be intrigued by the way the mechanics lock together. I don't see it, but given that it's so popular among people who are into that kind of thing, I can only assume it's a good game for its intended audience, which I can safely say is NOT me.

What's the purpose of any criticism, then? The statement that "this isn't for me, but I'm sure that there's someone, somewhere who will like it" is devoid of meaning.

I tried to articulate the reason that I consider GOA to be a mediocre game. You're saying, in effect, "maybe you've misidentified the source of your negative feelings about the game; maybe you just don't like the form." That may be true, but I consider myself mainly to be a eurogame player, so this article can at least be seen as an attempt to refine the distinction between "the good euros" and the rest.

Fair enough.

fuck that was a great article

Agreed. Glad you dug this one up from the graveyard.