Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35175 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
3984 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
2627 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2463 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2294 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2511 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 Eurogames here.

People first games! (across euro, AT divide)

More
01 Jun 2014 07:48 #179484 by Sevej
I kind of get what he's trying to do, escaping from the Euro & AT branding and go with something else that fits his definition regardless of Euro/AT.

Why another rebranding if you want to escape from branding? Because it's easier to discuss & attract people with the same interest if you have an identity.

And I also agree that games of these types are often looked down. Around here, the local board game community, you'll have a hard time convincing people to play lighter games because they are felt to be inferior. "Not enough game in them".
The following user(s) said Thank You: sgosaric

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

More
01 Jun 2014 09:01 #179487 by sgosaric

VonTush wrote: I like the style game you're talking about...And a lot of what I've bought recently and have been playing recently would fit into that genre/style/classification you're describing.
/.../
If you're curious though, the type of game that I gather you're describing, the term I've used is Pull-And-Play games...Meaning you can pull it off the shelf and get everyone up an running quickly even after years of absence from the table. Not that it means much to anyone outside of my head.

Yes, that's very much it. My head would say plug-and-play as I'm not that original, yours make more sense given the cardboard content.

VonTush wrote: If the discussion branches into games that fit your definition and desires, then I'll throw in my two cents. As I do like the style of game you're talking about, it's the game that I'm interested in. Does that style of game need a name? Fuck if I care.

Well I'm much more into discussions and that's probably the whole angle - we play these easy to get into games all the time, yet it seems to me people in general (generalisation, okay) are mostly talking about heavier games with clear terminology, I'd like something easily recognisable for these "pull-and-play games" that I can throw in discussions.

There is "filler", which sometimes feels derogatory. As in "not the whole meaty meal".

VonTush wrote: That said, I'm past the point of being interested in deep discussions about game analysis, theory...fluff pieces to make this hobby seem more important than it is. That used to, but is no longer part of my hobby. Meaning I didn't read Barnes' Fun First piece. Nor will I get caught up, more than I have at least, in this attempt to redefine "Theme" from its current usage. Nor will I read your piece any deeper than what I've skimmed.

Sure. Thanks for chiming in.

So what'd be your top games in this...People First genre?

Opposite to what I just wrote above, it's actually more about people than games. If it's "people first" - let people pick their games.

Even with your pull-and-play it depends on the company you have. If I would pick some games from AT school, I'd say King of Tokyo and Survive! all the way (I played both on gaming workshops with kids and teenagers), I'd also say Cosmic Encounter and Wiz War, but these depend on the group (for some these are simple fun games, for some they are too complicated).

Oh and Smallworld, but that's not really AT? Maybe hybrid?

VonTush wrote: The formation of the site is because of the arguable persecution of games like Thunder Road, Broadsides and Boarding Parties, Escape from Colditz to name a few which I feel would fit into your People First definition.

So I'd argue that this conversation has been had and predates your post by three or four years. Meaning the games have, are and will always be around.

Of course. These games have always been around. These games built German game industry. These games are in the hobby's foundation.

As I said I posted it here, for the whole "Splendor is freshly simple" discussion as it embraces old euro and german games. And my thread was a lot about distinction between old german games and new euro puzzles, which in turn referenced Barnes' article "The game that ruined eurogames". So yes, it's full circle. And on the other hand there's some differences between discussions here and on TOS, so ... I'm curious what I'll find here.

scissors wrote: What is it that you exactly you are doing?

Putting people first?

Having a funny discussion?

looking for support from like-minded people who agree that some games are better than others?

Mostly:
B) Having a funny discussion.
I always love to have discussions. They get me out of my confort zone towards things I don't expect. And if it's funny, that's the definite bonus.

Somewhat:
A) Putting people first.
I like to be able to *use* games. I pick them, we get right into it, the game gives us tools and we can start using them against each other. The love for certain arcane approaches for the sake of them being arcane puzzles me - people who love to read manuals for weeks to understand them, games where you puzzle through designers intentions before you can actually enjoy it. I see great designer skill in straightforward games (King of Tokyo is for me a game designers' tour de force). And in the euroland there also a lot talk about games first - this new game, on the table, oh how shiny, have you seen the gears on this one (next week there'll be another very similar yet different game). And that why I wanted to vocalise the other direction - talking of people who game and some angles through which we approach games in practice.

My guess is that here at F:AT it's much more about groups of friends and people who know each other. That's why I didn't really came here with this discussion before - but this "oh german games are refreshing" piqued my interest.

Not at all:
C) looking for support from like-minded people who agree that some games are better than others?
I fly solo. I like to spread wings of thought and fly the currents. Which is why most of my threads (not articles) begin with provocation and some cheesiness. They throw stuff in the air and then we can all fly around and see what flies and what falls into chasms.

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

More
01 Jun 2014 09:24 - 01 Jun 2014 09:26 #179489 by sgosaric

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Ameritrash of old was complicated, obscure and pretty much bad all over, but it came back, it learned from euros and some of the lessons were good, some weren't. Euro simplification won't help if you're still doing games with kitchen sink approach - so there's euro mechanics in your pile of trash


I am kind of puzzled what games you're talking about here. "Ameritrash of old" was Monopoly, Heroquest, Talisman, broadsides and Boarding Parties, Risk,...

None of these are obscure, and while I get that it's opinion, bad all over doesn't describe many of these games very well. ehat games were you thinking about?

This was from memory of what I read about the ancient times mainly from writers on F:AT. I hope I am talking about 1980s and pre MtG 1990s as I was told a lot of games in that era were bad (arcane, too long, overcomplicated). I'm sure some were good. (I do play Survive!, Wiz War and TotAN. I hope I can ever get a hold on AH's Nexus Ops).

FFG games I reckon are already influenced by euro design approaches.

VonTush wrote: What I do find interesting is what the term AmeriTrash means to different people. I know I have my definition, and others have their definition. One of the main factors I think that goes into a person's definition of the term is when they got into the hobby. My theory is that the more recent that a person is in the hobby the more they tie it to the FFG style of design. The longer they've been in the hobby the more they tie it to the mass market style games from a few decades back.

Well FFG is such a big publisher that a lot of people equate ameritrash to FFG style of design. Also, I'm from continental europe, iron curtain, there isn't any knowledge of ameritrash gaming prior to Magic the Gathering. So: FFG and WotC. And probably GW (Warhammer is popular all over).

A lot of times I'm not so fond of euro mechanics in ameritrash games as they make overhead bigger (MEQ was too much for me in this regard for instance, also BSG, but I like Android, I just feel I need 2 brains - one for narrative and immersion, one (robotic?) for rules and strategy). I do feel elevated and welcomed by smaller publishers coming fore - Plaid Hat Games in particular (only played Summoner Wars and Mice and Mystics), but I do appreciate their easy to get into approach. Also french designers have their moments of making a game accessible and conflict oriented (Cylades, Claustrophobia, also KoT has a french publisher. And Rampage - what genre is this even in? ).

SuperflyTNT wrote:

scissors wrote: I need to sign onto to some silly movement to play games now? great.


I just kindnof get a little turned off by categorization. Most of the problms in the world stem from this fucked up categorization/caste system,

Really? Do tell. Economy crashed because of categorization? This is a very intriguing hypothesis. ;)

SuperflyTNT wrote: [ so when I see people categorizing other people I immediately assume it's meant to revile others in some way.

I understand that this attitude is shared here a lot. Maybe because of AT/Euro clashes?

I come in peace. I mean no harm. Mostly. I may harm some ideas.

I use concepts to throw some ideas in the air and see if any of them survives. Mostly I talk mano-a-mano. It you it's me, it's some wordy stuff we can mess with. I use "concepts" as tools for communication, not demarcation of humankind.

SuperflyTNT wrote: I think when you categzorize games, or movies, or anything, its helpful to allow them to become a corss-section that's easily searchable and indexable, but when you apply it to people, it becomes inherently twisted and serves only as a stump from which to malign others in an attempt to appear superior; the irony is that it almost universally ends up alienating the person on the stump, casting them as the villain.

Yes, vocalising ideas makes them easier to convey and to spread. There's an art to framing new concepts, which just means "different insights" (it's not as fancy as many believe). I sense something in my surroundings, something bothers me in my sessions or with the people I interact, so I write something. Just something. Usually it shapes to its final form during a discussion as I initially just follow some inner need and intuition.

As for the second part - people. I see how this attitude is shared here. Yet I'm not sure if I'm more guilty of being perceived that way or have actually done something of this type of crime myself. I am speaking about a certain need or desire regarding gaming - it's certainly personal, yet it can be a point of empathy ("oh yes, sometimes I also like this, sometimes not"). A social glue, a centrepiece you put on coffee table and some chat emerges.
Last edit: 01 Jun 2014 09:26 by sgosaric.

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

More
01 Jun 2014 09:37 #179490 by sgosaric

Sevej wrote: I kind of get what he's trying to do, escaping from the Euro & AT branding and go with something else that fits his definition regardless of Euro/AT.

Why another rebranding if you want to escape from branding? Because it's easier to discuss & attract people with the same interest if you have an identity.

And I also agree that games of these types are often looked down. Around here, the local board game community, you'll have a hard time convincing people to play lighter games because they are felt to be inferior. "Not enough game in them".

Yes. Exactly.

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

More
01 Jun 2014 09:53 #179492 by SuperflyPete
@Sgosaric: RE: Categorization and World Problems.

People being forced to wear little yellow stars before being poison gassed, African-/Latina-/Cracka-/Asian- American instead of just American, Democrat v. Republican, Tutsi/Hutu....all essentially "I'm different and you're inferior" problems.

But, this forum has a strict no-politics unspoken rule. Not the thread anyhow.

For the purposes of this conversation, if I broke out a game to an "in-crowd gamer" that person will immediately judge it based on if it's Ameritrash or Eurocrap. Just simply knowing those words biases you. But when I break out that same game with the Circus Freaks, who do not even know BGG exists, all of the sudden the walls come down. They will play anything, as long as it doesn't suck. The simple act of calling a group of games something for the sake of categorization imparts a bias.

The fact is that these are all just games. The line is blurring now anyhow, with so many "hybrids", so how about just categorizing them based on the mechanics - worker placement, adventure roll-and-move, etc. That seems like it would be more effective in portraying the game anyhow.

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

More
01 Jun 2014 10:55 - 01 Jun 2014 10:59 #179497 by Sevej
But Pete, those Euro and AT definitions are useful. At least I found so for myself. Sure, my family doesn't need to know it.

But there are traits tied to these genre. When I ask someone in a community about and game, an answer of Euro/AT/Wargame/Hybrid conveys a lot. When a player in family respond to a certain game, I can quickly asses whether he/she is more suited to Euro/AT. Sure each genre blankets multitude of different stuff, but they are still something. It's useful before the industry still works that way.

Categorizing based on mechanics is not as useful for me, since it doesn't explain how the game works as a whole: the dynamics. While Euro/AT categorization *can* be related to certain dynamics.

"Eclipse feels like Euro..." There is a lot to be had there. A lot of things may not match, but there it is.

That Euro/AT categorization causes bias is only if you belong to one of those camp. For omnivores like most of us here, those are simple words that can convey a lot.

I actually have a friend that's into the genre OP is saying. He's a real gamer (loves to tweak stats, played D&D), but what he really likes are games with good rules:depth/fun ratio. He immediately liked Carcassonne back then for example. Even I've been very conscious about this recently.
Last edit: 01 Jun 2014 10:59 by Sevej.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 02:37 - 02 Jun 2014 02:45 #179529 by sgosaric

SuperflyTNT wrote: For the purposes of this conversation, if I broke out a game to an "in-crowd gamer" that person will immediately judge it based on if it's Ameritrash or Eurocrap. Just simply knowing those words biases you. But when I break out that same game with the Circus Freaks, who do not even know BGG exists, all of the sudden the walls come down. They will play anything, as long as it doesn't suck. The simple act of calling a group of games something for the sake of categorization imparts a bias.

The fact is that these are all just games. The line is blurring now anyhow, with so many "hybrids", so how about just categorizing them based on the mechanics - worker placement, adventure roll-and-move, etc. That seems like it would be more effective in portraying the game anyhow.


On one hand I would agree with you. In a certain way some of the games I'm talking about are flying under the radar of clasification ("mere fillers") and I've had great success playing these games regardless of gamers' otherwise preferences. It's easier to get a sworn ATer or Feldian play these than the "opposite camp".

I was just thinking today how "groundbreaking" in a way player elimination fillers are. Coup, King of Tokyo, Get bit!. They bring in the tension, the adrenaline and are over before anybody could get upset about it. And I have all sorts of people willing to play these. And as a result gamers around me can take more confrontation in the longer games as well. If they want to.

What Sevej is talking about is the other angle. We, the gamers "in the know" are already dealing with categories. When we talk about games we will use terminolgy as it's the quickest way to explain things. I certainly wouldn't define my gaming tastes solely by that article in the OP - on that thread I was called out for rating highly games which are obviously not "low overhead" (RFTG, Arkham Horror) and I refused to be categorised even by what I wrote. If we are already talking categories between ourselves than adding new angles broadens the discussion. Of course. It's also about another thing Sevej is saying - "oh I know a gamer about these preferences as well". Things that were hidden between the compass can be articulated and hopefully people who share the attitude can talk about certain similarities between themselves.

So yeah, I would say it's in the art of communication. If people are tied to their genres, just drop in the games, "oh it's something different, but fun", if the game isn't there and we're talking on forums, then hey, I've got a topic for conversation.

As a lot of short games fall here - this is easy, they can be throw in the session qucikly and simply. As for heavier games of this type, it's usually good to know the preferences of potential players (not sure where the line is - a game can have relatively simple framework and enable a lot of creativity - like for me Imperial, or Tigris and Euphrates, but still be counterintuitive (can't think of an AT game that would have these traits)).

[For the record I game with a lot of nongamers and casual gamers. Yet I have discussions with more seasoned gamers. And it's good if we can exchange our experiences of "what works" in certain circumstances.]

EDIT: I remembered I've seen a gamer being harrased and ridiculed at BGG for liking "only" "family level" euros. Oh, you're not a proper gamer then, you're more family gamer. And they didn't say it in a positive way. Now there's a thread he could link and it would have some "street cred" or at least I like to believe so. And looking down on "social gamers" and the list goes on. In this way I believed it's better to have a positive shout about a certain type and need than being constantly below radar. It's still not a clear concept or terminology, but it helps, I hope, for some orientation for some of those not fitting into existing boxes and categories. Oh, and then there are "meaty games". I currently speak of "fillers" as gaming deserts - no meat, just sugar (maybe caffeine as well) as I like my games loud and intensive.
Last edit: 02 Jun 2014 02:45 by sgosaric.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 10:05 #179543 by SuperflyPete
Like I said, even with the more maligned and disrespected groups, there's still a pecking order. Oh, you're not a proper gamer then, you're more family gamer.

Do you really want to be the guy who started, Oh, you're not a People First gamer. Obviously ~you~ don't understand why ~we~ play these kinds of games.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 10:31 #179548 by sgosaric
After the last post (went to sleep) my mind kept thinking about it.

And what it came to mind my in the (in)famous "Guns don't kill people, people do." (and then came Eddie Izzard and said "but the gun helps") And so I would paraphrase it "words don't divide people, people divide people". Or a bit tougher sell, but I'll roll with it: "Categories don't divide people, people divide people".

So yes, categories, names. What are they good for? What aren't they good for?

For sure, if I play with people in person I don't need to categorize the game, I can just pull it out and let it talk to itself (hopefully its visuals are to people's liking).

But when in boardgaming community (ahem), especially online, I can only talk. And there I am already surrounded by categories - lines dividing, territories marked. Yeah, it's cool to say it doesn't really matter and we play everything, and aren't all the games becoming similar and so on (they aren't btw). But that's ignoring the good part of discrimination (yes, it has a good part) - separating one thing from the other thing. And why this is good: to articulate oneself and make ourselves more conscious in the process. Which hopefully leads to playing games more suited to one's tastes.

The tricky part is: am I making a category for something and against something? And this is kinda tough to figure out as in the cognition process we deal by opposites - I don't know what is good, till I know what is bad (for me). The more games I play the more I know why I really like the ones I like, and not the ones I don't. The most terrible games I've played nonetheless made me realise not only what I don't like, but what I do like. So with each naming both is true I'd say - you're for something and against something.

But,ain't it better if the name is coined by people who like this particular grouping? In the case of ameritrash, if I'm correctly informed, it was about an older derogatory for mass market games term being appropriated by the movement and turn into a cry of defiance, a positive banner. I respect this and use this term (and not the politically correct and bland "thematic games" which tells me nothing). But there are terms coined by opponents: MPS (multiplayer solitaire), VPS (victory point salad). Here it's tricky - I've seen some rare cases where people would describe themselves as liking MPS games (really rare, but happened), mostly this is used by opponents. VPS is purely used by opponents (as the proponents simply say: I love Feld). And of course "fillers" which can be used as a positive thing, or just a matter of fact thing, but also derogatory. So, yes it's definitely better if the term gets coined by people who like whatever it is they're trying to describe.
And to add: mainstream rarely tries to articulate stuff as they're happy, there's a lot of them, herding gets you far and things are peachy - it's the underdogs who strive to articulate themselves. Ameritrash was born this way, and I'm mostly vocalising from similar minority position.

And things constantly change, sometimes time must pass for some things to come to full fruition. To me it was kinda one of these momenents - I play a lot of games that are "euros", but avoid most of the "euros". So euro label doesn't help me, therefore I began to differentiate between German games of old (and recent, they're still making same family type fare they always have) and Euros of new. What is "an euro" changed a lot in recent years, become the games have changed, yet terminology stayed the same - euro was used to describe Knizia's games, trading games like Bohnanaza and these modern clockwork euros, while it was clear that people who play the latter mostly don't like the former two categories. Hence my feeling, a division is in order. Actually I think it's easier to hold one's ground against the mainstream if you can articulate your position, otherwise the self-evident "truths" of the mainstream will wipe the floor with you.

Here just a brief philosophical interlude. As I said - sometimes it takes opposition for some ideas and relationship to form and articulate themselves. It's in noticing something is not like the other. (It can be that things then move to be similar to one another, but it's easier to observe this once you already have a frame through which one can observe this). The way I understand terms and concepts is through Deleuze who stated that the job of philosophers (moi) is to create terms, which are efficiently action that change the curve of the plane of ideas. Ideas and names exist in relations to one another - a new concept not only creates a new position, also the positions of existing ideas change in relation to it. Hence - naming stuff can increase consciousness and with more consciousness I hope comes more awareness and less sweeping people around.

But what I heard here is: isn't me naming stuff excluding people?

Yes, ideas can create this emotional state of having a group and belonging to this group. It's also what advertisement tries to do - get you to a state of belonging to something or someone. I can at least state this is not my intent as I suck in this emotional level of communication. Were I to frame things correctly I'd also have a sexy name for this "movement" (people first? uhm, I like it, but that's pretty much all it conveys, somebody suggested "lo-fi game"s and that was also interesting, yet it didn't catch on). As I see it a group makes identify from the name they appropriate. But I don't have a group. I don't even want one - it all came from the need to articulate myself and hopefully open some doors to other people so we can talk about similar needs and wants and observation. If I would to frame my position too narrowly, I'd have no-one to talk to but myself, so I kept it open. Different readers interpreted it differently and named different games and this is what I like: that this vocalisation of mine can be useful. And useful for different people.

Saying this - what if people feel excluded?
Please don't be.
I imagine if one has a background where categories were used for exclusion one is suspicious, or if one's from the cultural background where such tactics are common, that one is suspicious, or if one is just used to being suspicions to new people dropping in or just suspicious in general.
I can say; I mean no harm. (Mostly). And that's it.
If this is about the 5 year old struggle between AT and euros I would warmly suggest to get over it. Don't feel hurt, be proud, show battle scars (and then complain it's not like the good old days were eurogamers were still proper eurogamers). I come from a country of many political parties, new ones being born like crazy, and maybe this also gives some logic behind my reasoning: I think the more categories, the lesser the power of any single one. If we have just 2 or 3 camps, the lines between them are stronger, than if we can vocalise 10 shades of blue and 20 shades of gray and 10 shades of magenta (ahem).

So this: I hope to create discussions and concepts which can be used, and not being identified with.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 10:36 #179550 by SuperflyPete
If you want to "be part of something greater than yourself", join a MC club, church group, rugby team, whatever. In my obervation, your 'gaming buddies' (note: buddies who you ONLY game with, and you met outside of your own circle of friends) would throw you in front of a moving bus if they thought you might drop that GenCon exclusive miniature on your way out.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 11:03 #179555 by sgosaric

SuperflyTNT wrote: Like I said, even with the more maligned and disrespected groups, there's still a pecking order. Oh, you're not a proper gamer then, you're more family gamer.

Do you really want to be the guy who started, Oh, you're not a People First gamer. Obviously ~you~ don't understand why ~we~ play these kinds of games.


But then the habit and idea of the pecking order is to blame, not whatever the cause it's used as an excuse. Exclusion, manipulation, these are all habits and ideas that came from somewhere, from some background and situations (probably upbringing? social environment?) - these are then the culprits.

So it's not me starting anything - actually in the above case my ideas would be abused and I would be the one who's wronged.

Don't blame me for stupidity of others.

But how responsible I am? Well - if you see someone saying stupid things in my name, call me, I'll put them straight.

The whole thing you're describing does bother me and I try to do something about it.
1) On people who use pecking order my impulse is to turn the tables. Maybe evening the field would be better (and will keep this in mind as well).
2) For the people who feel upset whenever new idea or notion comes and feel threatened by it: come on! Have some spine. Hold your ground and accept others hold theirs.

The latter is actually why I write, why I discuss things, as I think more awareness, more unique voices, more ability of every single person to think for themselves as themselves is our best bet for a world of people who are equal, yet different and can live with each other. Don't look for guidance, guide yourself. I take an individual position and expect people take theirs. From our different positions we can talk, words and terms are gateways for that. Don't fear the worst, embrace the best. Fly!

The non existing movement with all its silliness and tongue in cheek is exactly that - a non-obligatory meeting point. A launching pad where we threw some ideas in the air to see if they fly. And as I said, I came across many interesting people there.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 11:10 - 02 Jun 2014 11:10 #179556 by sgosaric

SuperflyTNT wrote: If you want to "be part of something greater than yourself", join a MC club, church group, rugby team, whatever. In my obervation, your 'gaming buddies' (note: buddies who you ONLY game with, and you met outside of your own circle of friends) would throw you in front of a moving bus if they thought you might drop that GenCon exclusive miniature on your way out.

Nah, the whole idea of being part of something greater than myself is so fist half of 20th century. And that didn't end well. I'm not sure what I wrote or said that gave you that impression.

Why I think it's good to have people around oneself:
1) they push one(me) over one's (my) boundaries into something new
2) one (I) need(s) some people who you agree with them (me) on some points, so one (I) doesn't go insane
Assuming of course all these people are individuals.

Now I'm really curious about this fear of mass movements that's projected onto me. What happened here in the past? BGG-AT split? Is it something that happened in the States? Is it just the general "get off my lawn"?
Last edit: 02 Jun 2014 11:10 by sgosaric.

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

More
02 Jun 2014 12:05 #179558 by SuperflyPete
I think you misunderstand...it's not about you at all. It's about people's need to feel as though they're part of the greater body, and how we've managed to become entranced with the idea that your value increases when you are part of something like that.

It's great to have people around...collaboration is great, camaraderie is great, friendship is great. But the question is this: why do we need to label ourselves...does it make it better? What purpose does it serve except to categorize and enhance this idea of self-importance through association?

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

More
02 Jun 2014 21:02 - 02 Jun 2014 21:04 #179605 by Sevej
More than anything I think F:AT community has coerced itself into these... "People First" games and feel no need to actually form a movement... since we're already there. Of course there are some dissidents and once in a while "Long Games Rock" and "Heavy Games Rule" posts come up.

I mean... SuperflyTNT is Stone fucking Age Champion and Barnes is buried in pile of X-Wing ships... 18XX and Magic Realm are no longer reigning here...

The smaller community of F:AT enables it to be much more progressive than BGG. Things are changing quickly here. We have some very brilliant members of community who can look at the "big picture", recognize patterns and formulate abstract ideas well.

For example, theme here (for some people) is no longer pirates, dinosaurs & space monkeys, but more to the dynamics generated by the game.

In addition, we still keep our own identities. Such as Pete with miniatures, some other guys with wargames, german-styled games, etc etc. I'm a big Kingdom Builder fan and I think FFG is the best publisher in the world.
Last edit: 02 Jun 2014 21:04 by Sevej.

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

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.471 seconds