Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35174 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
2291 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 the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

Great discussion on negative reviews and impartiality.

More
09 Apr 2014 13:50 #175491 by SuperflyPete
www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1149799/are...-critical-or-am-i-hy

One of the better, less heated and more reasonable BGG threads. Worth reading.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Shellhead

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

More
09 Apr 2014 21:29 #175525 by Sevej
I really like showing the negatives of the game I like. But I still give them perfect scores (BattleLore & Okko) ;) I guess it's something about fun that's hard to quantify.

I have this bad habit of babbling on bad things about things I really enjoy... DXHR, Gothic 2, XCOM, Kingdom Builder, Descent... If I enjoy it, I've ripped it. But they're still perfect for me!

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

More
09 Apr 2014 22:15 - 10 Apr 2014 13:07 #175533 by Attrition
Reading this made me appreciate the quality reviewers we have on F:AT all the more. "Our" reviewers are familiar characters whose biases, interests, and personality come through in their writing which provides a consistent metric against which I can gauge whether or not I'll like the game.

Whether a review is negative or not, there are a few things I look for:

1) Put biases/tastes right up front. Otherwise the review would be worthless. Does the writer just love roll and move? Do does she/he look down upon anything that isn't as epic/ponderous as Case Blue? It might be helpful for the reader to know these things.

2) No rules summary/tutorial allowed. Of course it's important to delve into certain details about how the game works in order to explain whether it works well, but it's a means to an end. Regurgitating and paraphrasing what the rulebook says is not analytical unless you use that information to actually review the game.

3) Include comparisons to other games and reasons people might not like the game. These are helpful points of reference.
Last edit: 10 Apr 2014 13:07 by Attrition.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels

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

More
10 Apr 2014 09:55 #175545 by Legomancer
As I said in a drive-by comment in that thread, you're not going to find a tasty beer by asking an alcoholic, and that's my view of most people there. I can't trust a game review from someone who thinks that filling up a shelf with games is a worthy goal, nor from someone who thinks there's a real need to have "a medium-weight auction game that seats three and plays in 37 minutes and is colorblind-friendly"...just in case that situation comes up. If you think it's worth it to drop $40 on yet another worker-placement game because in THIS one there's a neat turn order mechanism then GTFO. Too many people there are addicts, terrified of doing anything that might jeopardize their next fix.

I realize that I am in a privileged situation. I have two game groups in which new games are constantly coming in from all sides. I get to play a lot of stuff without having to buy it and justify my purchases. I've already played 31 new to me games this year and only four of them were ones I bought before I played them. That's a pretty sweet position to be in, and I know that many gamers don't have that luxury. When you're footing the bill for nearly everything that gets on the table, you're going to either research it hard and only get things that have a really good chance of satisfying, thus skewing your own metrics, or you're going to decide you love all of those purchases, warts and all. I have no problem with the former people and no time for the latter, but also not much of a way to distinguish between them.

Related, out of those 31 new-to-me games, only a handful are worth owning. Maybe half aren't bad plays, but I can't see any need to really get. Maybe I'm just too jaded and fun-murdering, but my first question after finishing a new game is, "Does this game need to exist?" (In as much as any of them do.) I find the answer to that question is usually, "no". I know it's someone's pride and joy, and every game is someone's favorite*, but that doesn't change the fact that tweaking a theme or slightly modifying an auction isn't enough to support an entire game for me. Different strokes, I know, but the point I'm getting at is, this is an angle that BGG (and, honestly, a lot of nerd culture) isn't interested in pursuing. The goal seems to be screaming that something is epic awesome because there's a single cool moment or reference to something or whatever instead of asking if the rest of it is enough to support that single cool moment or idea.

Even I, who have been really trying to control myself and be a smart buyer, bought into the Cult of the New and some Kickstarter dumbness recently, buying shit I normally would have known better than to buy, just because it was there in front of me at the moment. (I'm also fortunate and privileged in that if I drop $40 on a boardgame that turns out to be a dud, it's no big financial deal.) It happens. But to me, that's a trap to avoid, not a goal to be praised (the whole, "Cult of the New" nonsense). And what I've taken away from that is to double down and be more wary, but also to make sure the games I own are getting played. I have space for thousands of games if I want, but I don't see any purpose in boxes of cardboard and plastic that do nothing except take up shelf space.

tl;dr - I don't want to read reviews of room decorations.

* -- before the Internet, it was easy to forget that somewhere out there was the world's biggest Matchbox 20 fan. Now you have a chance of having to interact with him.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mr. White, Attrition, Bull Nakano

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

More
10 Apr 2014 10:14 #175547 by Gary Sax

Legomancer wrote: I realize that I am in a privileged situation. I have two game groups in which new games are constantly coming in from all sides. I get to play a lot of stuff without having to buy it and justify my purchases. I've already played 31 new to me games this year and only four of them were ones I bought before I played them. That's a pretty sweet position to be in, and I know that many gamers don't have that luxury. When you're footing the bill for nearly everything that gets on the table, you're going to either research it hard and only get things that have a really good chance of satisfying, thus skewing your own metrics, or you're going to decide you love all of those purchases, warts and all. I have no problem with the former people and no time for the latter, but also not much of a way to distinguish between them.


That's a nice articulation of the problem with trusting someone like me WRT reviewing games.

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

More
10 Apr 2014 10:19 #175549 by SuperflyPete

Legomancer wrote: As I said in a drive-by comment in that thread, you're not going to find a tasty beer by asking an alcoholic, and that's my view of most people there. I can't trust a game review from someone who thinks that filling up a shelf with games is a worthy goal, ...


fortressat.com/forum/28-trade-forums/175...-myself-an-ultimatum

Don't you....write......................................re......views?

LMAO :)

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

More
10 Apr 2014 10:57 #175553 by Legomancer

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Legomancer wrote: As I said in a drive-by comment in that thread, you're not going to find a tasty beer by asking an alcoholic, and that's my view of most people there. I can't trust a game review from someone who thinks that filling up a shelf with games is a worthy goal, ...


fortressat.com/forum/28-trade-forums/175...-myself-an-ultimatum

Don't you....write......................................re......views?

LMAO :)


Huh?

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

More
10 Apr 2014 11:18 - 10 Apr 2014 11:19 #175554 by SuperflyPete
It was a joke, Dave.

I can't trust a game review from someone who thinks that filling up a shelf with games is a worthy goal"

was what you said....but then in the other thread...

Some of the ones that got added to the pile were ones that I just had to finally admit weren’t going to get played. But most were recent purchases. Things that I knew at the time were probably bad bets. One is a game that I bought, had doubts about, and then bought an expansion for, still having those same doubts. The running theme was, “Why did I buy this?” and the answer was, “I wanted to buy something.”


I WANTED TO BUY SOMETHING.
Last edit: 10 Apr 2014 11:19 by SuperflyPete.

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

More
10 Apr 2014 11:33 #175555 by Legomancer
My post continues.

Even I, who have been really trying to control myself and be a smart buyer, bought into the Cult of the New and some Kickstarter dumbness recently, buying shit I normally would have known better than to buy, just because it was there in front of me at the moment. (I'm also fortunate and privileged in that if I drop $40 on a boardgame that turns out to be a dud, it's no big financial deal.) It happens. But to me, that's a trap to avoid, not a goal to be praised (the whole, "Cult of the New" nonsense). And what I've taken away from that is to double down and be more wary, but also to make sure the games I own are getting played. I have space for thousands of games if I want, but I don't see any purpose in boxes of cardboard and plastic that do nothing except take up shelf space.

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

More
10 Apr 2014 11:40 - 10 Apr 2014 12:49 #175556 by OldHippy
In my opinion negative reviews quite often get the best responses on BGG, so I don't know what the OP is complaining about. Thumbs are not the measure for me, replies and page count baby. That's when you know things are getting interesting, or at least funny.

But I can't read that thing, it's like a Tolstoy novel or something but without any of the... uh... you know, good writing (like I'm any better).

But I have been checking out the board game snobbery thread and it's given me a few giggles.

www.boardgamegeek.com/article/15455783#15455783

Then someone linked this article about nerd snobbery in general, it was ok too, but suffered from some shitty writing.

www.cracked.com/blog/3-fan-communities-t...e-their-own-members/

Either way I think negative reviews are far more interesting, sought after, and followed both on BGG and here. I say this even though I know that the replies may be more negative as people defend their game and what not but that doesn't mean shit... more people are reading it and interacting with it. That's a net positive in my mind.
Last edit: 10 Apr 2014 12:49 by OldHippy.

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

More
10 Apr 2014 14:00 #175566 by SuperflyPete
The following user(s) said Thank You: OldHippy

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

More
10 Apr 2014 14:02 #175568 by OldHippy

SuperflyTNT wrote: I love derailing.


I tried to leave a small comment on negative reviews too... but yeah, I'm guilty. Throw the book at me.

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

More
11 Apr 2014 09:34 #175614 by Count Orlok
An interesting read. I have noticed that over the years, I've pretty much stopped reading reviews on bgg, simply because they seem to largely be pretty dull. Although I think it's important to remember, as I often need to remind myself, that bgg is primarily board game collector's database and not a game player's website. The commenter culture there largely reflect this, with most discussions returning to the question of whether a game is worth buying or backing. Since I don't really buy games that much anymore, this isn't nearly as interesting as whether a game is worth playing. A strong reviews conveys a sense of how the game plays, beyond the rules or component break downs. As a reader, I want to know what it's like to play the game, and could care less about how thick the reference sheets are, unless it's an impediment to game play.

What I would like to see is more emphasis put on the experience of individual players in each game, and the potentially changing opinion over time. Obviously this is logistically extremely difficult. The best case scenario would like something like this:

- A profile of each player, explaining what they like in games, what are their favorites, what this dislike in others, and what games they just can't bring themselves to play. This can really be helpful, since obviously everyone games for different reasons.
- The group meets regularly to play review games, with each player responsible for submitting some content for a review.
- Players trade off responsibility for the actual reviewer, who records not only their own experiences, but the others in the group.
- If possible, the group plays a few times, preferably over the course of several weeks.
- The designated reviewer tries to faithfully represent the group reaction and reactions of individual players.
- The review would not be scored by the reviewer, but would present an aggregate of player's reactions over the course of the games. Something like the "thumbs-up" system from Ebert, but from the entire group. The only score would be something along the lines of "strongly recommend", "mixed", or "not recommended".
- Final thoughts would ask players whether they would play the game again.

Obviously, this would be difficult, but I think would give you the best reviews. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that post-game conversation you have with your group, where some players bitch, some gush, and others are simply indifferent. To get around the nonsense with review copies of games, sell them off to pay for site maintenance.

Another question I have, is how best should the reviewer separate individual sessions with overall impressions of the game? I've played a hell of a lot of Vampire: The Eternal Struggle, and while probably my favorite game, I definitely have sessions where I loathe it. Admittedly, it has worn on my overall outlook on the game, albeit after a few hundred games.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rliyen, Gary Sax

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

More
11 Apr 2014 10:45 #175621 by RobertB
Legomancer wrote:

As I said in a drive-by comment in that thread, you're not going to find a tasty beer by asking an alcoholic, and that's my view of most people there.


I'm going to steal that. But bear in mind that you're not going to find a tasty beer by asking a teetotaler, either.

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

More
11 Apr 2014 11:32 #175626 by Gary Sax
The "how to play" videos that have decent production have completely replaced BGG reviews. That's all the vast majority of BGG reviews do, and who can blame them since you know they'll take endless shit from people if they do anything but rules summary or praise.

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

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.186 seconds