Do you guys believe in gateway games?

More or less, yeah. It seems to be a common hope (at least on TOS) of what "the perfect gateway game" might inspire.

Nobody in this thread has. I can't speak for all of BGG, but I'm pretty sure most people are aware that, even if Granny enjoys playing a game of Carcassonne, she's not likely to run out and buy some big collection of board games.

Right, "gateway" is really bad term.

No, it isn't. It's not terribly useful one, but it is a legitimate one that can easily be applied to quite a few games.

We should really be calling them "casual" much like casual video games that are all the rage on the Wii and DS.

No, we shouldn't. "Casual" does not mean the same thing as "gateway" at all.

Axis & Allies takes 6 hours to play, requires attentive players to move along smoothly, and is more complex than most Euros. It's not a "casual" game in any sense of the word. Nobody in their right mind would call Magic: The Gathering a casual game. Both of these are gateway games.

The term "gateway" doesn't not necessarily mean "simple," or "non-gamer friendly." D&D is a gateway game. D&D is not simple, and it's not non-gamer friendly. Gateway has everything to do with wider availability and recognition. That's the_whole_reason they're so many people's first "hobby" games.

mjl1783 wrote:

Right, "gateway" is really bad term.

No, it isn't. It's not terribly useful one, but it is a legitimate one that can easily be applied to quite a few games.

Then you're making up your own definition. When people ask about gateway games--and BGG is exactly where you see this term over and over--they're asking about what games you can play with someone for the express purpose of bringing them into the hobby. And I'm pretty sure the OP was about the question of whether certain games are good to direct people into the hardcore hobby.

I believe there is a (figurative) gamer gene. The fact that certain games are hobbyists' first games means little except that, as you pointed out earlier, you're much more likely to be exposed to the hobby through a small handful of relatively popular hobby games.

'Casual' may not be a good term. 'Crossover' may be better. But a 'gateway' has no real value except to bring someone inside.

The fact that certain games are hobbyists' first games means little except that, as you pointed out earlier, you're much more likely to be exposed to the hobby through a small handful of relatively popular hobby games.

EXACTLY! That's all it means, and that's all it ever should have meant. That's the only correct use of the original analogy.

I'm not making up my own definition, everyone else is using the wrong one.

mjl1783 wrote:

More or less, yeah. It seems to be a common hope (at least on TOS) of what "the perfect gateway game" might inspire.

Nobody in this thread has.

I don't care. I didn't read much of the rest of the thread when I posted (nor should I feel compelled to read every post in order to contribute something to a thread). I was responding to the original question, and also somewhat to the article by Sag referenced in the second post. Good enough for ya? :oP

The analogy is completely apropos, and I'll tell you why.

Addicts think "gateway drug" is an absurd concept made up by people that haven't walked in their shoes. None of them use the term except as an on-the-inside punchline, and it's a surefire sign to them that the guy using it has no clue. From that perspective I think it's a dead-ringer for "gateway game." Ask a recovering addict what his first gateway drug was and he's more likely to say oxygen than marijuana. He'll look closely to see your physical response to his reply.

Uba tossed out the oxygen response earlier and waited to see who'd go after it. Didn't get a whole lot of takers here, and for good reason.

Sag.

????

mjl1783 wrote:

????

THAT is the expression that addicts look for.

Next topic.

Sag.

THAT is the expression that addicts look for.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it!

Whatever. Ask an addict what his first "drug" that he wouldn't do in front of a cop was. Y'know, like, a legitimate question.

Axis & Allies takes 6 hours to play, requires attentive players to move along smoothly, and is more complex than most Euros. It's not a "casual" game in any sense of the word. Nobody in their right mind would call Magic: The Gathering a casual game. Both of these are gateway games.

The term "gateway" doesn't not necessarily mean "simple," or "non-gamer friendly." D&D is a gateway game. D&D is not simple, and it's not non-gamer friendly. Gateway has everything to do with wider availability and recognition. That's the_whole_reason they're so many people's first "hobby" games.

I wasn't calling Axis & Allies, Magic, D&D, etc casuals. You're right, they are totally far from casual. You're using "gateway" in the correct sense, games that introduce people who already have an inclination or interest in gaming to the hobby. They are gateway because they are mainstream and widely available. Walk into Target and you'll see Magic and Axis & Allies. Peruse the SciFi/Fantasy section at Barnes and Noble or Borders and you'll run into the RPG section which is loaded with D&D.

But is my 68-year-old dad or 23-year-old sister-in-law going to pick any of those games up? Highly unlikely. What most of the folks at BGG are talking about when they talk about "gateway" games are games like Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, Carcassone, Citadels, etc. I say these are casuals. They are simple enough, and – depending on your tastes – fun enough to enjoy playing with family members you see once or twice a year, or with your non-gamer inclined friends.

I think "gateway" should only be used for the games that specifically got you into the hobby. For me it was Axis and Allies, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic and Warhammer 40k. Then about 5 years ago it was Carcassone that brought me back.

I think "gateway" should only be used for the games that specifically got you into the hobby. For me it was Axis and Allies, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic and Warhammer 40k. Then about 5 years ago it was Carcassone that brought me back.

That's the way I think it should be used, but I'm don't have much of a problem with people using it interchangeably with "casual." It's not a serious enough thing to care about, and you can usually tell from the context what people mean. Anyway, as Euros get more popular, more and more casual titles are going to be people's gateway games.

The real misconception has nothing to do with the terms, it's the idea that you can take someone who's not the kind of person that will spend an inordinate amount of time playing games, and make them into one. I can only assume that's what Sag was getting at with the oxygen-is-a-drug hogwash

mjl1783 wrote:

The real misconception has nothing to do with the terms, it's the idea that you can take someone who's not the kind of person that will spend an inordinate amount of time playing games, and make them into one.

What you've described above is pretty much the concept of "gateway" in its common usage in English. In fact it's an exceptionally good metaphor of its usage in the narcotics debate, and precisely how it is used in the boardgaming industry. That is, your statements to date have been directly contradictory to your use of the term. You're arguing both sides of the point simultaneously and appear to be unaware of it. That's a pretty neat trick.

You can believe "gateway" means something different if you like; that's your business. Using "burrito" to describe what you mean instead might be more appropriate, since "burrito" has the charm of not being the exact antonym of what you're describing.

Sag.

I see what Ryan B sees in you Sag. /swoon

I happen to be in Boston, MA on my friends computer and just had to come and check things out. As the "mass market" proponent of the group, I will say that "Gateway Games" certainly exist... but simply as a title of a separate category of games.

They are not uniformly "gateway" in the sense of using them as a tool to get someone to play something else.

"Gateway Games" to me (because most "gamers" have a slightly different interpretation of this term) means a game that the masses have a willingness to play... without the expectation that they will want to have a deeper game experience the next time.

Criteria for my definition:

1. Easy to grasp the concept of the game. Not overly complex.
2. A wide variety of women would be willing to play it.
3. Easily understood rules.
4. A light-hearted game "theme" all types of people could relate to.
5. Fun, engaging artwork which contributes to the game experience.
6. Creates some level of social conversation! (not necessarily high game interaction, however...although that is a HUGE plus.)

Examples of Gateway Games using this Criteria:

1. Ticket to Ride.
2. A Dog's Life
3. I'm the Boss
4. Mystery of the Abbey
5. Snow Tails
6. Scotland Yard

So yes, I believe in Gateway Games... but only in the respect that it is defined above. I don't believe these games, however, will necessarily have your average PE coach Joe, or fashionista Jane jumping up and down for a game of Descent or Puerto Rico, however.

BTW, I realize how much Settlers has sold... but I consider it to be a great introductory Euro game....NOT a a great "Gateway Game" by the criteria I have defined.

Ryan B.
"A fun game starts with fun people" ... and that's the bottom line.

ubarose wrote:

The real phenomena would be that hobby gamers choose certain games in statistically significant numbers to introduce potential gamers to games, thus creating the sequencing and the association phenomena. There is no causation between someone playing Ticket to Ride and then their playing Descent, or Caylus or any other game. If a person is going to like Caylus or Descent, they could just as easily have been introduced to that game prior to being introduced to Ticket to Ride. It is the arrogance of gamers that dictates introducing the "easy" game first.

Agreed. And I would further the remark by stating that the games so chosen should stand on their own merits.