Laissez-nous parlons... Franco-Trash

I find frenchy trash intriguing but have not actually played much of it. I am familiar with Fadutti and own Mascarade, but other than that I've played Cyclades which i wasn't that impressed with.

What are the top Frenchi Trash games?

Every Frenchyfrenchman has an American inside, waiting to burst out of their chest like in Aliens. Think about it...we win wars, we have a stable economy, and we haven't allowed Sharia law to supersede American law. We Americans are like a different species.

I would suggest that inside every Rollerblading, neon-spandex-wearing French mime is a gangster waiting to burst out:



So their games are innovative, but there is a brutal streak.

I half-heartedly tried to contact Boelinger when I was in Nice, but he doesn't check his geek mail that frequently.

Colorcrayons wrote: We need more creations like Giants being made, and less product like Mansions of Madness in existence.

Bullshit. Nothing is complete and utter horse shit like the crap is this quote.

This "game as art" and "strive for better" crap has been pushed and repushed over and over again - And it is bullshit. There is no need to try to elevate one game at the cost of bashing another. Pretentious tripe.

VonTush wrote:

Colorcrayons wrote: We need more creations like Giants being made, and less product like Mansions of Madness in existence.

Bullshit. Nothing is complete and utter horse shit like the crap is this quote.

This "game as art" and "strive for better" crap has been pushed and repushed over and over again - And it is bullshit. There is no need to try to elevate one game at the cost of bashing another. Pretentious tripe.

Well that's the flavor here, the stereotype of the pretentious french beatnik.



But there is a subtext which does ring true, of pushing the bounds of what boardgames are capable of within the constraints of its materials.

Android is another great example of this. Kevin Wilson has told me personally that it was his art game. You're not given many chances within the industry to do something like that and he said that was his one opportunity.

If the envelope was pushed more, instead of tired retreads of previous mechanics for the sake of money (which let's not mince words here, mansions of madness surely is this, just as surely as imperial assault is), then we as consumers get less burnt out and more eager to see what the creative minds of designers want to release.

Mansions of madness isn't being picked on at all. FFG have done a fine enough job making a mess of that themselves.

The french have illustrated with quantifiable results, that while their titles may not be the most financially successful, some are. They took the chance of not slapping the a pre existing game engine (like the doom/descent engine) on top of a theme with minor refinements and calling it a new game.

I'm sorry that you feel striving for better is foolish tripe. But that's one area I won't back down from. We need innovation. Anything else is formulaic stagnation.

I'm glad to see that I can play generic contrived fantasy descent, Lovecraftian descent (with some android mixed in) or star wars descent. But it could be handled better, by a publisher who self proclaims themselves a leader of the industry. It doesn't take a leader to make people walk in circles.

[Edit] @ Mr. White: the pics are mercilessly stolen from uncleeddiestheorycorner.blogspot.com [/edit]

Mansions has its problems. being lovecraft descent isn't one of them.

You miss my point. Saying "more of this, less of that" is crap - That is the bullshit I'm calling.

Mansions may be a mess, but it tried things in the adventure genre never seen before and hasn't seen sense. Retread it is not. Imperial Assault I'll give you though.

Innovation is going to happen no matter what. I'm not worried about any sort of stagnation.

VonTush wrote: Innovation is going to happen no matter what. I'm not worried about any sort of stagnation.

Boy I sure am.

Why though?
There's the mentality I feel where some feel like every new game has to have something ground breaking, something that shifts the paradigm. If something like that doesn't happen on a quarterly, monthly or weekly schedule Chicken Little's are all declaring we're in a state of retreads, reskins and repackaging of the same thing.

That's a notion I reject.

Sagrilarus wrote:

VonTush wrote: Innovation is going to happen no matter what. I'm not worried about any sort of stagnation.

Boy I sure am.

Are you worried about stagnation from designers or publishers? If you're worried about publishers not wanting to pickup innovative games, then why are you so anti-Kickstarter which is exact solution to that problem.

First of all, Kickstarter is just a de facto publisher. I don't express any particular dislike for it, just amusement at how it seems to magically suck money out of people's wallets from thousands of miles away. If you think venture capital based on an html screen with a couple of youtube videos embedded in it is helping innovation (or hurting it for that matter) I'd love to hear your arguments.

Secondly, I don't need every new game to be innovative. I don't buy every new game, and I certainly am not running around in a panic over it. I think it's unhealthy for the industry overall to be producing 1000 new titles a year when the majority of them are more or less the same thing as prior efforts. I'd like to see a few new titles that can't be described as derivatives of existing games. Indeed one of my favorite games now has six versions on the market, four released in the last 24 months.

I'm not going to buy a game unless it gets my attention, and that's going to happen when people publish and publicize something that's different. I'm picking up just one game for Christmas this year in spite of 1000 new titles and more than enough money to afford two or three. I'd sure like to see some new stuff.

I'll be honest -- this is as much a designer problem as a publisher problem. If you've got a new take on things you can find a publisher. There's hungry publishers out there dying for the new thing. I have the personal email addresses of three of them that would love to talk to you.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote: Secondly, I don't need every new game to be innovative. I don't buy every new game, and I certainly am not running around in a panic over it. I think it's unhealthy for the industry overall to be producing 1000 new titles a year when the majority of them are more or less the same thing as prior efforts. I'd like to see a few new titles that can't be described as derivatives of existing games. Indeed one of my favorite games now has six versions on the market, four released in the last 24 months.

But the thing is that the industry doesn't care what you think is healthy or unhealthy for it.
There'll be ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys, rises and falls. There will be derivative, copycat and "Me-Too!" designs. That aspect is what it is.

If there's 1,000 units of chaff and 1 unit of wheat OR 1 unit of chaff and 1 unit of wheat, there's still 1 unit of wheat...And if that's all you care about, then that's all you should care about.

Sagrilarus wrote: I'll be honest -- this is as much a designer problem as a publisher problem. If you've got a new take on things you can find a publisher. There's hungry publishers out there dying for the new thing. I have the personal email addresses of three of them that would love to talk to you.

S.

That's probably not too unfair, but I've seen/heard many stories of people with really clever and distinct designs that can't make it work with a publisher due to the cost/risk.

I've seen this twice with Dexterity games in the past year that were pretty awesome and crazy but the components are just too damn expensive.

Concerning Kickstarter, I think for sure it's helping innovation. Not on a per capita basis, but as a whole. Since the gatekeepers are the backers and as you suggest, projects are backed on only pieces of information (as opposed to playing a prototype like a publisher would), there's more inherent freedom. This is of course good and bad, but it allows for the possibility of innovation. You wouldn't see stuff like Cthulhu Wars with foot tall miniatures or Kingdom Death whose gameplay should be wholly unique in the tabletop realm. Look at World of Yo-Ho as well.

I'd agree that Mansions is a poor pick if for a product that doesn't need to exist. I don't really like Mansions but i felt it tried some interesting things and is fairly unique.

I would take a hammer to the current state of worker placement games which have now flogged the horse into the seven hells. In general i feel that the more hardcore end and various bits in the middle of eurodom have stagnated horribly.

I don't necessarily cry for innovation, but i am fed up of sitting down to play a friends new game and find it is an experience I have had so many times before i struggle to take any interest in it. There are a lot of games around that imo don't really need to exist, Mansions isn't one of them.

And yet, French designers and publishers seem to be coming to agreements that produce innovative, well-vetted games with unique looks and feels. So it can be done.

I appreciate that Kickstarter allows you to produce an abject financial failure, and that on occasion those have innovative features that may be picked up and refined later. I'll agree that's valuable. Given how small the gaming community is (and how easy it is to publish) I don't think Kickstarter is particularly necessary for that, but goodness knows it makes money flow out of the pockets of people that otherwise complain about Days of Wonder's production quality. Truly the land of loose money.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out a couple of years from now that Fantasy Flight or Days of Wonder or Stronghold weren't floating titles through Kickstarter via pseudonyms. I sure as hell would be.

S.