This Game Is Not Yet Rated - Imperial Hot

So, where are we on that rating for Imperial?

It's an evolving process for me. I rate the games based on gut instinct and later on if another games turns out to be doing the same thing better or worse I'll move the ratings for past ones up or down based on that. It's only by comparing them to one another that I can get anywhere. The actual number I give it is somewhat arbitrary.

Imperial 2030 I gave a 9 to. Not sure what I'd give the original. Without the swiss bank mechanic I'd move it down at least one point and I don't remember if the swiss bank is in the original or not.

I think I've landed on about a 9 for Imperial, but that could go either way.

Also, this wasn't really supposed to be an article about Imperial, more just about rating games and why and how we do it.

I rate mine with decimal points -- and eventually I will give each game a unique ratings. That is just because I see my ratings as a list of preferences. Given the opportunity to play both games (right number of players, right mood, etc.), which one would I pick.

Other than that, I try to place each games general rating in one of the bands that you mention -- with pretty much the same description.

Finally, I think that the entire rating system is missing a huge opportunity for modeling preferences and generating recommendations. As instantiated by BGG, I think that it is horribly underpowered for what it could be doing.

I don't actually rate games. For one thing, I have trouble just arbitrarily assigning an objective number to something as subjective as a board game. For another thing, I like to go all off-the-rails and be a maverick. I don't rate games because everyone else does! Take that, System!

Mine is:

10: I love it.
8: I really like it.
6: I like it.
4: It's okay.
2: I don't like it.

I use the ratings as a way of managing my collection. I try to keep a relatively lean collection of only about 20-30 games, because if I have more than that my favourites don't get played enough, or I don't feel I am exploring the games I own in enough detail (or they are exploding from the games cupboard again). I update them every now and then to adjust how my feelings to games have changed over time.

My collection is now at the stage where if I rate it less than 8, it better have a damn good reason for being there (normally wife or daughter loves it) or it will be traded.

You scare me :)

Imperial is the best Euro ever designed. I'll be surprised if that paradigm ever throws up something better.

I'm with you on the 5-1 thing. In reality it's probably a 7-2 thing in my book. But although I do rate games it's pretty much a pointless exercise: the margins between 7 and 2 are so thin as to be meaningless, and even the other ratings are not that helpful unless the games in question are repeatedly played and revised.

Even then there's too much disagreement about what they actually represent - I've played Twilight Struggle 70-odd times and although I still enjoy the game, it's probably no longer top of my pile. But it's still a 10 and still my favourite game ever just because it lasted me 70 fucking plays before it started to wear thin! And yet some people would claim I should downgrade it to 8 or 9 just because I don't love it as much as I once did.

That's always a problem with numerical grades, since they're rarely used in a truly linear way. At some point, you're flat out in the realm of 'sucks', and who really cares by how much? That kid who got a 40 did a lot better than the kid who got a 20, but you don't want either one reading your MRI.

Letter grades make much more sense in this kind of context, but almost no one will use them.

I don't want to threadjack, but I do want to point out that Nate and I have had an interesting back and forth about this subject on his BGG blog reprint, and I'll reprint what we talked about since I found it to be interesting.

---
PETE: Interesting thoughts, Nate. I appreciate ratings because it gives a subjective yet quantitative measure of what games are widely regarded as great products so that I have an idea of what games, in my own little realm of what I consider fun, I should consider to purchase.

As you know, I do my thing and the way I "rate" them on my BGG blog and BGG profile reflects less what I personally think about them as much as what my group rates them at. I allow myself +1/-1 on ratings since I do all the work in the writing of reviews, but the score that The Superfly Circus gives is an average of all the scores granted by the individuals in the group.

One game that I took a -1 on (-2 for the purposes of BGG's 1-10 rating, since TSC uses 1-5 ratings) was Tikal. I despised the game initially, but after 20 plays (my friend's wife makes us play this A LOT) I wish I hadn't deducted my -1 because I think it's more fun than I initially thought. Still not a huge fan, but it deserved better, maybe.
---
NATE: Pete, you raise an interesting point. Ratings on the Geek are a lot more malleable. You can change them when your opinions shift. I don't think I'd ever re-write a review from positive to negative or vice versa, it's just too much work. I also think that every reviewer reserves the right to change their opinion later on. As Emerson said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
----
PETE: I recently saw a review where someone re-reviewed a game and said he was wrong the first time. I think this can be valuable to the writer in the sense that they can "feel" more intellectually honest, but if you're going to take the review gig seriously, you can't afford to be wrong. Going back on a bad review isn't as bad because the only people hurt were the designers, the publisher, and potentially, the reviewer who will never get free shit from them again, if that's a major goal of the reviwer. Sure, it feels good to admit failure, but when a hundred people spent 50 bones on a game you said was good, then it turned out to be shit, well, you cost the community five thousand bucks.

People form opinions and spend money based upon your reviews, and so there's a little more impetus to do your due dilligence when writing them. Call it fear or laziness, but the major reason my reviews are a concensus score is because I realize that while I am flawed, when I temper my own inadequacies with concensus it insulates both myself from making a mistake that costs people money as well as reduces my odds of making a mistake.

The whole reason I started doing this writing thing was because I was sick of poorly written, boring, and virtually useless reviews that told me little about WHY the reviewer liked or disliked a game. I also did it because I was sick of spending money on shitty games.

So, being the analytical and detail-oriented type, I decided that if I was going to do it, I would do it right. I would have metrics and use strict guidelines to make sure that each game was treated fairly. I also wanted to limit my exposure to the invariably persistent spectre of shilling by having the project be wholly philanthropic. The Circus gives all (well, to be fair ALMOST ALL) review copies away, and I do not advertise on my site, unless I do it for free.

My rules:
3 games must be played.
At least 4 individuals besides myself have to have played it at least twice each.
Scores are tallied, 1-5, and I have the sole choice to bump it up or down 1 point as I see fit, but I must have a compelling reason to do so.

Simple, huh?

So far, I stand behind all of my reviews aside from one: Tikal, which would've scored higher had I played it 10 more times. But, I base my scores on 3 plays, not 13, so it is as fair a judgement as any other.

Hah -- the only reason it is decimal points is because I use BGG to collect my rankings. It would just be a 1 to whatever ranking (from best to worst); however, they force me to stop at 1 and 10.

There is so much wrong with what they are doing in averaging those ratings to get rankings that it makes my eyes bleed....

Swiss bank isn't in the original, but it takes no effort at all to include it as a variant if you prefer to play that way. The only difference worth mentioning between 2030 and the original is really the map, and preference between the two seems to vary between groups (or not matter at all).

Imperial is one of my favorite euro games, and one I rank a 9 - 10. I think what I enjoy is the interaction in the game, and the unique evilness that this game can bring out. I clearly remember one game where I was in control of England, and my friend was in control of Germany. We had both nervously built up large opposing fleets which were staring at each other, just to make sure we kept our territories. At one point, we looked at each other and said, "Want to reduce our tax burden? Let go at it until we knock down these fleets to a smaller size, I'll keep these areas, and you keep those. What do you say?" He shrugs, says, "Sure", and then we sent many brave men to death. Now that's both evil and unique.

My only complaint about this game has been the end game where people really just want to cycle between taxation and investment, and other spaces on the rondel seem to become irrelevant. Other than that small quibble, it's one of my all time favorites.

As far as rankings go, my thoughts are similar to yours. I have too many "good" games that just never get played. It took me a while, but I finally started letting some of them go and I have to say, it's felt pretty good. There are more I could give up, but baby steps, baby steps. I think what is making it hard for me to let some go is that I'm fairly certain many of the games I have will be enjoyed by my kids, so I'm reluctant to let some of them go. Even so, I think everyone needs to understand that ratings are, in the end, very subjective. I may think Glory to Rome is a classic, deserving of a 9 or 10, but no matter what I say, there will be those who think it sucks. As a great writer once said, "And so it goes."

Spinning between investment and taxes is only usually viable with the bunny countries that build up a good factory base and some good defensible areas. About 2 countries usually do this per game. That makes all of the other countries potential upsets, and controlling them or can be critical.

A few countries cycling between production and maneuvering can swing things one way or the other, or stall both and up the value of a third country. The key is to notice a rotation or two ahead what countries can position themselves to jump. That gives a few investment opportunities to get your trigger ready, get that country out of sych on the rondel with your target, and build up some alliances. The end game is great.