What does this man have to do with DOOM? Hot

Just think of the great iPhone games we'd have today if he were alive. :)

It's true. It'd be the perfect format for his design style.

The Knizia iPhone games are mostly pretty great, and are probably the best stuff he's done in years. I'd love to see someone bring some Sackson classics to the format...ACQUIRE, CAN'T STOP...those would be perfect.

Wow. Nice work, maybe your best MB.

He's a genius. I heard about him in venerable GAMES magazine articles years and years ago. The editorial team there just loved him to bits. The size of the market ensures he'd never be a superstar like Miyamoto, but he did just fine doing what he loved. Another case in point: Will Shortz.

The more important question here though is what a mummified Sid Sackson is doing admist the depths of Dan Baden's Game Catacombs...

Steve"Inquiring mind"Avery

Can't Stop rocks. I'm The Boss is pretty fantastic.

But where is the Runewars review?

RUNEWARS review is coming within the next two weeks. I wanted to look at it a little more before I wrote it up. I've got everything I want to say about it lined up, just want to give it time to simmer.

I'M THE BOSS is a great one...every time I play it, I remember the first time I ever played games with my friend Mike Manchel. Mike Manchel is this gigantic, red-haired Jewish guy, a real character. Super nice guy. But he's extremely loud and competitive. So we played I'M THE BOSS, and every time he had one of the cards he'd stand up bellow "WHO'S THE BOSS! WHO'S THE BOSS!"

We really need more games like Sid Sackson's...even at their most abstract or simple, they're still interesting. I think, again, it's because he was actually creating this stuff and not just ripping off other designs. He didn't even really repeat himself too much like Knizia, Kramer, and all those folks do.

That does look like Dan Baden's place, doesn't it...

I think the only game of his I played was Acquire. What's I'm The Boss?

Timeliness man, timeliness.

@mikoyan: I'm The Boss is a business negotiation game. Players are dealt a hand of cards representing different board members (maybe they're family members, I can't remember) and business contracts are available that are worth cash. In order to complete the contract you need to play X number of cards. The players are free to wheel and deal with each other for who will play what cards and get what cut of the deal. There's also a special "I'm The Boss" card that any play can play at any time during the negotiations. This card throws out all the previous deals and that player takes charge of negotiations. It's a lot of fun.

Thank you very much for publishing an article about Sid Sackson. I'm the Boss and Acquire are such different games and speak to genius behind his game designs. The fact that "I'm the Boss" is out of print really stinks.

If Mr. Sackson were around, I am sure we would have had some highly interesting and unique games as an antidote to of the much of the sameness that I believe pervades the industry now (namely with Eurogames). Well done to just have the sense to recognize his importance and get people thinking about his impact, Mr. Barnes.

Interestingly, I made the comment before I read the article. Now that I have actually read it. Two words: Spot on.

I think we lose sight of the importance of Sid Sackson. When I read this thing over at Kotaku about the John Romero talk, I realized that I hadn't really thought much about Sid Sackson or his games in a while, outside from citing ACQUIRE as one of my all-time favorite games when mention is warranted. I don't know of anyone working in game design today that's actually _creating_ new ways to play games like he was. Even the best designers are better at arranging than creating, and as much as I like the big, complex designs I think there's a lot to be said for simple games like BAZAAR or EXECUTIVE DECISION that have just a couple of rudimentary mechanics but a lot of ways to play them. Eurogames have gotten so far away from those ideas that the Sackson influence is slight at best.

I also think it's very telling that one of his design principles was to create player interaction- not staring quietly at the board. I'M THE BOSS in particular is testament to this idiom.

I didn't realize I'M THE BOSS was out of print (again), that stinks. I guess that crappy edition of ACQUIRE and CAN'T STOP are really all that's in print now. Not sure about SLEUTH.

It's not just Eurogames that have the feeling of sameness these days. It seems like there are many games that are rehashes of old games out there. Which is one of the reasons why I like Battlestar Galatica. It feels fairly fresh. But then again, it seems like most media is stuck in a rut which is sad given that technology has caught up to many people's visions.

Hmmm. I seem to recall you once mercilessly ripped apart Yehuda Berlinger for suggesting that games could be treated, in a certain sense, as art objects and here you are doing exactly the same thing. Tut tut.

Other than that, nice article. I haven't actually played any Sackson games except Can't Stop which was fun, but no better or worse than lots of other push-your-luck games. Still you make an interesting point about this stuff not hitting the mainstream. From what I know about the games it's not great surprise that Acquire never made it - too heavy for most folks, however simple - but the others had the potential for cross over hits.

And the point you make about Euro designers forgetting the lessons Sackson - arguably the orignial Euro designer - taught is very telling.

Can't stop, won't stop, Rocafella records.

Matt- Yehuda's argument was totally off-base, as far as I'm concerned. His approach was that games aren't supposed to be fun, and that entertainment is not a requirement of their design. I don't agree with that, but I'm also of the opinion that art _is_ entertainment. There is obviously art (and craft) in game design, when you're doing it right. And they're also fun, if you're successful.

I'm definitely not for putting Sid Sackson games up on display in a gallery or anything like that...and there is a point at which game design comes closer to product design than what we'd call fine art, conceptual art, or whatever, but I'm also completely against the anti-art crowd who refuses to see that art and design is EVERYWHERE you look from a tube of toothpaste to the sneakers you're wearing to a Rauchenberg painting.

haven't actually played any Sackson games except Can't Stop which was fun, but no better or worse than lots of other push-your-luck games.

But lots of those other push-your-luck games are following on after CAN'T STOP. A lot of them exist because of CAN'T STOP.

It's not just Eurogames that have the feeling of sameness these days. It seems like there are many games that are rehashes of old games out there. Which is one of the reasons why I like Battlestar Galatica. It feels fairly fresh. But then again, it seems like most media is stuck in a rut which is sad given that technology has caught up to many people's visions.

I agree, Mik. I do think there's good work going on today, but it's all syncretic. Modern game design is more syncretic than inventive. Every now and then we get something like BSG that does something fresh and original, but most games are arrangements of previous mechanics and thematic ideas. Today's designers are better at copying than creating- which isn't to say that every game has to have something completely unique and new or that games that follow on from other designs are necessarily bad. But the idea of a designer like Sid Sackson coming along and literally changing the way we look at game rules and mechanical design is something pretty reomte these days.

I do think there's good work going on today, but it's all syncretic. Modern game design is more syncretic than inventive. Every now and then we get something like BSG that does something fresh and original, but most games are arrangements of previous mechanics and thematic ideas.

Well, that's because in order to get your GTA IIIs, you need to have a few Shemues first. You need those totally ambitious, daring, visionary designs which are both commercial and artistic failures.

Most other media are large enough industries that there are companies with the wherewithal to do this sort of thing, and even they don't do it very often. Besides, board gamers seem to have even less tolerance for the Androids, the Gunslingers, the Prince of Chaoses, and the other ugly ducklings than fans of other media.

That brings up an interesting point about ANDROID- it's one of the only games in recent years that I didn't like but I respected and valued its contribution to design. Usually, if a game sucks, it's gone. ANDROID has stuck around exactly because it was pushing for something more.

But it still had a "hodge podge" feeling, especially in tacked-on mechanics like the conspiracy thing. And a big difference between it and a Sackson design is that a lot of times, a Sackson game would have _one_ or maybe two mechanics that pretty much ran the whole show. ANDROID had about thirty, and it felt cluttered and cumbersome because of it. You don't reinvent ALL the wheels at once.

"I don't know of anyone working in game design today that's actually creating new ways to play games like Sid Sackson was. "

Well put. Victory Points are the prime example of this. Games open great storytelling avenues and theme immersion.... turning everything into abstract exercises where point values are rewarded for game actions illustrates the lack of creativity in boardgame design today that immerses you into an interactive back story. If you think about the sheer variety of ways that Mr. Sackson took to create his end game goals, it speaks to what Michael said... a creator of games rather than a rearranger of others mechanisms.

What a great article. Props for writings which maintain a consistent quality, are easily relatable and always tangible. A very enjoyable and relevant read.

For some reason in western society we come down very critically on people who change their stance on issues. It is something I actually respect because it shows a willingness to listen to others and to try to understand all sides of the argument. During the Brenda Braithwaite discussion I noticed Barnes had changed his view, but it is to what he states above, that games should be fun but are an art form. He has similarly changed his position on receiving free games for review after experiencing the other side of the equation there and realizing that there is no way one can review a lot of games without getting most for free.

For some reason in western society we come down very critically on people who change their stance on issues.

No, we come down hard on people who change their stance on issues, but still insists they were right when they were on the other side.

Interesting article, but it would have been nice if you'd elaborated a bit on what Sackson actually did instead of the usual euro-bashing. Don't get me wrong, I like a good bashing as much as the next guy, but I'd rather hear a bit more about what you mean by the following: "he was one of the first designers to really cross that line where simple game rules started turning into mechanics and the artistry of describing action through them became more apparent."

MattDP: Can't Stop is easily the king of push your luck games. One of the Atlanta locals has been writing an AI for it (Roll or Don't) for the game for a few years and iterations. It is very, very hard. The actual probabilities and value calculations involved are quite complex. Most push your luck games don't even come close to approaching Can't Stop's complexity.

Comparing it to Diamant is just criminal.

That said, Gamut of Games should be required reading. There are iconic game designs from Sid and other designers, and a survey of 70's era games and wargames that is completely addictive reading. That Sid didn't really distinguish between the two (and designed a pair of very interesting wargames himself) says a lot.

I'd rather hear a bit more about what you mean by the following: "he was one of the first designers to really cross that line where simple game rules started turning into mechanics and the artistry of describing action through them became more apparent."

Stay tuned Mads...when I was writing this article, that was an idea that started germinating. And it's something bigger than Sid Sackson, I think it's going to get a full analysis. There is definitely a lot to talk about what makes "rules" different from "mechanics" and how designers like Sackson made games something more than they were before by using mechanics as representational tools.

That Sid didn't really distinguish between the two (and designed a pair of very interesting wargames himself) says a lot.

It really does, it shows how "genrefication" is a later process in a medium's evolution. It also shows that there was a lot more homogenity in design at the time that may have actually been more beneficial than strict divisions of style. We've seen some of that recently with hybridization and idea-sharing between wargames, Euros, AT games, and even video games.

ROLL OR DON'T is a great way to play CAN'T STOP, BTW. I didn't realize that was an Atlanta person.

For some reason in western society we come down very critically on people who change their stance on issues. It is something I actually respect because it shows a willingness to listen to others and to try to understand all sides of the argument. During the Brenda Braithwaite discussion I noticed Barnes had changed his view, but it is to what he states above, that games should be fun but are an art form. He has similarly changed his position on receiving free games for review after experiencing the other side of the equation there and realizing that there is no way one can review a lot of games without getting most for free.

One of the curses of having very strong opinions about things is that people are a lot less tolerant when you adjust your position. It's ridiculous, because people expect you to never grow, learn, or listen. Yes, my position on the games art thing shifted- but it didn't change. Instead, I started looking at the issue from a different perspective and really applying what I've learned about other art forms and coming up with a new stance that's equal parts what I felt about it before and what I've learned or realized about it since. I don't regret it when I shift my opinion on something at all, but invariably the "but you said..." crowd shows up.

One of the first things I wrote for the F:AT blog was a complete 180 degree take on Knizia's LORD OF THE RINGS game. I ragged on it with the best of them about the friendship tokens and all of that, but approaching it a couple of years later and with a different set of expectations and values, I got a lot more out of it. It doesn't mean that I was wrong or dishonest before, it just means that I'm willing to give anything another chance and to not be so damn stubborn about things. Old, unchangeable opinions ultimately grow weak or obsolete over time.

One of the curses of having very strong opinions about things is that people are a lot less tolerant when you adjust your position.

When your idea of having a strong opinion is likening people to obtuse, irrational, Sarah Palin-worshipping homophobes for having an opinion you yourself once held, then yes, people are a bit less tolerant of that. And don't even give me the "Oh yes, that's what I literally meant" routine. You know damn well you the basic sentiment expressed in that paragraph was sincere.

Yes, my position on the games art thing shifted- but it didn't change. Instead, I started looking at the issue from a different perspective and really applying what I've learned about other art forms and coming up with a new stance that's equal parts what I felt about it before and what I've learned or realized about it since.

Bullshit. If you're going to defend, even laud, games like Train, or the massacre scene in MW2, neither one of which was designed to be fun by any conventional definition of the term, then your opinion that the medium does not specifically require fun is a complete reversal of the one you once held.

And again, nobody's coming down hard on you for changing positions, they're coming down hard on you for your insistence that you were right no matter what. Berlinger was right that games are a medium of expression, and aren't strictly limited to providing frivolous amusement; you were wrong when you called the notion preposterous. What you're basically saying in the above quote is that the notion of games as art was ridiculous and quixotic until you decided it wasn't.

I don't regret it when I shift my opinion on something at all...

If you believe that shift puts you on the right side of the issue, then you shouldn't.

...but invariably the "but you said..." crowd shows up.

Hey, you're the one claiming to be a credible arbiter of gaming aesthetics. If you consider your voice to be one of some authority, and you switch sides on an issue, you damn well should be expected to explain yourself.

One of the first things I wrote for the F:AT blog was a complete 180 degree take on Knizia's LORD OF THE RINGS game. I ragged on it with the best of them about the friendship tokens and all of that, but approaching it a couple of years later and with a different set of expectations and values, I got a lot more out of it. It doesn't mean that I was wrong or dishonest before...

In other words: I'm not wrong no matter what I say about it, because it's my honest opinion.

When your idea of having a strong opinion is likening people to obtuse, irrational, Sarah Palin-worshipping homophobes for having an opinion you yourself once held, then yes, people are a bit less tolerant of that. And don't even give me the "Oh yes, that's what I literally meant" routine. You know damn well you the basic sentiment expressed in that paragraph was sincere.

You're damn right I meant it. Because there are plenty of Sarah Palin-worshipping homophobest that decry art as useless, liberal, homosexual garbage. They're also the kind of people who think that environemtal issues don't matter because the Rapture is coming, that the music industry's chief CEO is the devil, and that presenting folklore like creationism to kids as truth isn't a form of child abuse. Opinions, every one. But not an objective truth in this whole paragraph.

And yeah, watching some of the reactions here and elsewhere to the "games as art" discussion has made me a little more radical about it, so fuckin' what? I was right (IN MY OPINION) when we talked about Yehuda's article, and I still believe that I was right because his argument was predicated on the idea that "fun" wasn't a part of games. If you'll recall, it wasn't too long after that article that I wrote a piece about how fun is really the ultimate goal of a game product. That doesn't foreclose on the possibility of the games medium on expressing artistic ideas or moving beyond just having fun. If a fun game like BIOSHOCK can have serious discussion about collectivism and Randian objectivism, why can't a board game? And if MODERN WARFARE 2 can engage the player in a very self-aware dialogue about what it means to really mow down a room full of people, could it not have more in common with art than the bloodthirsty rednecks who refuse to acknowledge art in any way care to recognize?

You know what? I would be entertained by playing TRAIN. Because I love art, I love taking art in and thinking about, and taking stock of how it makes me feel. I'd be entertained by how Braithwaite used game language to convey something really horrible. That starts to get into the subjective end of "fun"...enjoying a film, book, game, or whatever about something terrible doesn't mean you condone the subject matter or get some kind of sick thrill out of it. Some people can't recognize that. They're the people that thing all songs should be about love and every movie should celebrate the triumph of the human spirit.

What you're basically saying in the above quote is that the notion of games as art was ridiculous and quixotic until you decided it wasn't.

Wow. You really think that my head is that far up my ass?

Hey, you're the one claiming to be a credible arbiter of gaming aesthetics.
In other words: I'm not wrong no matter what I say about it, because it's my honest opinion.

I guess you do.

Look, I never want to be in a position where I'm somehow the arbiter of ideas. But I do like to put stuff out there and talk about with you and everybody else here. I like to hear what other ideas are and compare them to mine, and that's how I think we all arrive at new ways to think about games.

But in sum, why don't you tell me this MJ- are your opinions ever wrong? Do they ever change? If your answer is "yes" to either question, time for you to get off the soapbox.

Better yet, tell me how this has anything to do with Sid Sackson, whom I'd really like to be talking about right now after playing ROLL OR DON'T all day.

You're damn right I meant it. Because there are plenty of Sarah Palin-worshipping homophobest that decry art as useless, liberal, homosexual garbage.

No question, but don't expect people not to get a little pissed when you suggest that not considering games art as you would, say, a Duchamp painting or Stravinsky composition, is tantamount having that attitude. And that is exactly what you did, even if it was said mostly in jest.

You know what? I would be entertained by playing TRAIN. Because I love art, I love taking art in and thinking about, and taking stock of how it makes me feel. I'd be entertained by how Braithwaite used game language to convey something really horrible. That starts to get into the subjective end of "fun"...enjoying a film, book, game, or whatever about something terrible doesn't mean you condone the subject matter or get some kind of sick thrill out of it. Some people can't recognize that. They're the people that thing all songs should be about love and every movie should celebrate the triumph of the human spirit.

Well, I think you're using "fun" to mean something different here than you did when you were discussing Berlinger. Maybe I'm mistaken, but if I am, I think you misinterpreted his piece. It looks to me like you're both saying that fun doesn't not necessarily equal trivial amusement, and that there's the potential for games deliver something more than "fun" defined as cheering, laughing, and drinkin' beers.

Wow. You really think that my head is that far up my ass?

Nope, just slightly up your own ass.

Look, I never want to be in a position where I'm somehow the arbiter of ideas. But I do like to put stuff out there and talk about with you and everybody else here. I like to hear what other ideas are and compare them to mine, and that's how I think we all arrive at new ways to think about games.

Well too bad, dude, that's what you are. You're an editorialist who's employed by a games publication to write about games and ideas. If you're not an arbiter of these ideas, who is?

But in sum, why don't you tell me this MJ- are your opinions ever wrong? Do they ever change? If your answer is "yes" to either question, time for you to get off the soapbox.

The answer to both is "often." I'm wrong all the time, and should I be convinced that my position is wrong and needs to change, I'll say I was wrong. I'm also up front with the fact that I'm a pretty dumb guy when you get right down to it, so even when I'm right I shouldn't be listened to.

I'm not on any soapbox here. I'm having a discussion with you that, hopefully, gives you another perspective to look at this particular subject.

Better yet, tell me how this has anything to do with Sid Sackson, whom I'd really like to be talking about right now after playing ROLL OR DON'T all day.

You made a deliberately provocative comment when you posted the article, where the fuck did you think the conversation was going to go? Does this shit not happen every time you do that?

MJ said to Michael Barnes - You made a deliberately provocative comment when you posted the article, where the fuck did you think the conversation was going to go? Does this shit not happen every time you do that?

The piece needed to get off the ground and it was an easy way do that; you just bit, MJ, you ignorant flag-waving philistine :)

You're damn right I meant it. Because there are plenty of Sarah Palin-worshipping homophobest that decry art as useless, liberal, homosexual garbage

I actually find this statement a little interesting because I know some people like this....I have come to believe that it is because art is usually discussed in such a way to make people feel stupid about why they don't "get it" (I know that some of the discussion here can get to be pretty "high-minded"). As I brought up in the forums, i really don't know much about art and it doesn't really influence my preferences for games -- I mean, I know enough to say "Hey, that looks awesome" or "Buh...this is horrible" -- but I am not seeking games out for their artistic merits.

I think that there is a tendency for some to read more into things than I can understand -- for instance, I think that the MW2 "innocents scene" is about as contrived as it gets; mainly because the game lets you keep going even if you don't execute the civilians. The art statement would have been stronger if the game wouldn't let you continue unless you committed the act, making you truly complicit in an "virtually immoral" act in order to get the pleasure of the rest of the game. That would have been interesting.

Apologies for my "quotes" -- and I am starting to question my need to visit Georgia (I have to go for a conference in the summer in Athens; perhaps just a stealthy visit into the gaming nexus and then out again -- I want to see some tanktops, damnit); Michael knows a lot of messed up people from the conventions, to the environment hating religious fundamentalists (all the fundamentalists I know are pretty environment friendly because they consider themselves stewards of God's creation).

Keep it up, Scissors, I'll fuckin' fight you.

I actually find this statement a little interesting because I know some people like this....I have come to believe that it is because art is usually discussed in such a way to make people feel stupid about why they don't "get it" (I know that some of the discussion here can get to be pretty "high-minded").

That, and the fact that the art world has a long, documented history of embracing creeps, perverts, snobs, and basically dickheads of every stripe. These are the type of people who'll get their knickers in a twist when, say, the NFL reinstates a creep like Michael Vick, but say fuck all when a bunch of Hollywood's most acclaimed artists sign a petition demanding the release of a total fucking sleazeball like Roman Polanski.

As I brought up in the forums, i really don't know much about art and it doesn't really influence my preferences for games -- I mean, I know enough to say "Hey, that looks awesome" or "Buh...this is horrible" -- but I am not seeking games out for their artistic merits.

You should read Greg Costikyan's essay, "I Have No Words & I Must Design" (a play on a Harlan Ellison title, another brilliant, but self-righteous and egotistical prick the art world just adores). It's an article about the need for a critical vocabulary for games. Here's a quote:

See, if we're going to discuss what does, and doesn't, make a good game, we need to figure out what all the good ones have in common. That's fairly difficult to do when you're trying to figure out what's common about Cosmic Encounter, Magic Realm, and Settlers of Catan. There are basically zero simililarities between the two besides those more abstract, high-minded concepts.

Keep it up, fight, wha? you didn't get it MJ, nevermind.

Yes, I did. I was just kidding around. Y'know, because I'm an easily-baited, ignorant art-hater.

To drag this back on-topic, great article Barnes. I always like it when you write on games or designers that have had an enormous impact on the hobby. I recall one earlier on the Future Pastimes team, and that was also a great one. As with any young hobby, it's easy to lose site of our roots. It's only just started coming back around in the realm of video games, and I would submit that it's beginning to happen to board gaming as well. It's an encouraging trend too.

Shit, MJ - I shoulda seen that - I'm lost without emoticons!

BTW I enjoyed the article too as an appreciation piece, but it didn't need the antagonist intro IMO to springboard into the article - that came across as unneccesarily high-handed to those of us who are allergic ie. unenlightended about board games place as art.