|
|
|
|
Larry Levy: 2007 Designer of the Year
One of the first articles I wrote for Boardgame News (way back in December of 2005) described an award of my own devising, the Designer of the Year. The idea is to honor the designer who had the best body of work for the previous calendar year (as opposed to the many other awards recognizing the single best game). I wrote a similar article last year for 2006 and, since the number of death threats has been surprisingly low, I decided to do it again for the 2007 game year. By coming full circle, I thought it might be a nice subject for my first article as an At-Large BGN columnist.
This year has been one of the toughest I’ve ever had to deal with. Not because there are too many designers with great resumes, which is the usual problem; no, the difficulty this year is finding anyone with a solid list of creations. From my perspective, 2007 has been a very good year for games—and yet there’s been very little clustering of great games among the designers. The ones who have released a lot of games haven’t had too much quality in their catalogs, and the ones responsible for the highlights of the year have had little to go along with them. It’s really the first year since the Settlers phenomenon hit that the candidates have been so weak, at least in my eyes. But I’ve still got to make the award (well, I don’t, of course, but I choose to), so my task is to find the best qualified of last year’s designers.
It doesn’t help that the games that got the big ratings last year, like 1960, Age of Empires, Agricola, and Brass come from designers who produced nothing else of note. This is particularly frustrating with someone like Martin Wallace (Brass), who usually manages to get several titles published a year. But the only other Wallace game that made the grade last year was the reprint of Mordred, which is almost the exact same game that was first released in 1999.
Another issue making life difficult for this reporter is the continuing trend of companies to focus very strongly on Essen. For a while, it seemed as if the gamer’s games were more likely to debut at Nuremberg than Essen, which tilted towards more family-style games. But starting a couple of years ago, even the heavier titles began to switch over. Consequently, the most interesting and highly rated games are coming out during the second half of the year. This is a problem because I like to consider how a designer’s games do in the annual awards when determining the quality of his work. But since the Essen games won’t be eligible for awards until six or more months from now, all I can do is estimate their performance, a practice fraught with uncertainty at best. This puts more of an emphasis on the current buzz and on ratings at sites like the Geek than I’d like, but that’s the way it goes.
So here are the designers with the best collections of published titles last year. As before, I’ve chosen to exclude hardcore wargames from consideration since I have so little knowledge about that aspect of gaming. But everything else—euros, Ameritrash, card games, dexterity games, the works—is fair game. I’ve listed the significant releases along with each designer and used the following shorthand to show the awards and nominations these games have received (at least, the few that were eligible for the awards made last year): S, D, and I shows an SdJ, DSP, and IGA winner, respectively; s, d, and I shows a nomination for each of these awards (in the case of the DSP, it shows a top ten finish); and g and G signify Golden Geek category winners and Game of the Year. Finally, games in italics are redesigns or expanded versions of titles that were released in earlier years.
Here are the nominees, in alphabetical order:
Stefan Feld – In the Year of the Dragon; Notre Dame(di)
Feld, whose first published game (the excellent Roma) appeared only two years ago, scores with a pair of very well received Alea designs. Notre Dame is one of the more honored games of the year (in addition to its IGA nomination, it finished second in the DSP and was also one of the SdJ recommended games) and is one of the top 50 ranked games on the Geek. Many hailed it as Alea’s return to the fold and it was clearly one of the top two or three games from the first half of last year. There hasn’t really been enough time for Dragon to make a major impact, but it’s highly rated and has already appeared on more than a few top ten lists; the appearance of the just released English language version should help it move up the charts. In a more typical year, this output would be worth noting and little more; in 2007, though, it puts Feld in major contention for the award.
Reiner Knizia – Beowulf: The Movie Boardgame; Bucket Brigade; Cheeky Monkey; Dragon Parade; Escalation!; Gravediggers; Handelsfürsten; Penguin
As usual, Knizia’s output is very large, but this year the quality is shockingly absent, particularly for his original designs. Beowulf’s ratings are good, but it’s based on 1994’s Auf Heller und Pfennig and it isn’t even clear if the Good Doctor was responsible for the updates. (It was co-designed with FFG’s Jeff Tidball). Bucket Brigade is pretty much a straight retheming of the beloved Honeybears and Gravediggers is a redesign of a less grisly title from the previous year, Banküberfall. Of the new games, Cheeky Monkey has done fine, but the rest have pretty much been slammed. The one exception is Handelsfürsten from Pegasus, but few people have even heard of this title, much less rated it. The sobering fact is that we have a calendar year without a single significant design from Knizia and several games which are among the worst rated titles of the year. For the first time in over a decade, Reiner Knizia is not one of the leading designers of the year. Cue Armageddon.
Wolfgang Kramer – Auf Achse; Colosseum; El Capitán; Europareise; The Market of Alturien; Origo; Trapper; De Vorsten van Florence
With each succeeding month of the previous year, we watched in some astonishment as more and more Kramer titles were announced. I think it was Eric Martin who first referred to 2007 as “the year of Kramer” and it certainly seemed like an accurate assessment. The eight titles listed above (together with Slide 5, yet another retheming of the venerable 6 Nimmt!) make it the biggest year for adult titles in Wolfgang’s almost 35 year career. Does that mean he will easily win his fourth Designer of the Year award?
Uh, maybe not. Kramer’s large output hasn’t received nearly the negative reception of that of his friendly rival, Knizia. But it also hasn’t been the unqualified success that might have been hoped for.
Let’s start with the original designs. The cream of the crop is undoubtedly Colosseum. This has been something of a polarizing title, more so than is usual for a Days of Wonder game, but it’s ratings are fine and it has to be considered one of the major releases of the year. The other new games didn’t fare as well, though. Neither Origo (a reworking of a very old Kramer game called Captain Future; Wildlife is a much more involved version of the same game) nor Trapper (the only collaboration with his longtime partner Michael Kiesling) got many ratings or particularly high ones. And Europareise (which seems to have drawn some of its inspiration from an old Ravensburger family game) has barely made an impression.
Of the redesigns, the ones that have gotten the best reception are the ones that were changed the least. These include De Vorsten van Florence (a new version of the classic Princes of Florence, which differs only in its provided variants) and El Capitán (a retheming of the excellent Tycoon; there are a few rule and scoring changes, but again, it’s quite similar to the original). I can’t tell what the ratings are for the new Auf Achse (a twenty-year-old design that gave Kramer his second SdJ award), since there isn’t a separate entry for it on the Geek, but I’ve heard absolutely no buzz about this title, so I doubt it would make a difference. Silence might have been preferable for The Market of Alturien (a redesign of 1989’s City), which has been spanked pretty thoroughly by the critics.
So it hasn’t proven to be the Year of Kramer after all. There’s enough here for him to be considered, but with the highlights being one original game and two remakes, there’s probably not enough for him to climb his way to the top, even in a weak year.
Tom Lehmann – Phoenicia; Race for the Galaxy
Lehmann is a veteran designer who’s been producing games for 15 years, but this is his first Designer of the Year mention. Similar to Feld, his output consists of two notable and highly rated games. Interestingly, both use earlier games as their inspiration (Outpost in the case of Phoenicia and San Juan for Race), but these are clearly very distinct and independent designs.
Phoenicia’s ratings are good, but not great. Given the buildup prior to its release, it can be considered a mild disappointment (with many of the complaints stemming from the rules and physical design). However, just like I cited the buzz surrounding a game when I awarded Knizia the DotY two years ago, Phoenicia gets a considerable boost from its fans, which include many notable game reviewers and bloggers. Its presence near the top of many of the annual top ten lists gives it more weight than its modest ratings would normally provide.
No such closer look is required for Race. Its ratings are extraordinarily high (over 8.0—it’s already cracked the top 25 on the Geek); its fans play it compulsively; and it’s that rarest of all creatures, a much-hyped game that actually lives up to the advance billing. While Phoenicia’s chances at award nominations are iffy at best, Race is a serious contender for both the DSP and IGA and has to be the early favorite for Best Card Game from the Golden Geeks. It is the clear star of all the games from the multiple title designers.
Lehmann is hurt a bit by having two other designs delayed from their 2007 release date to early 2008 (the 18xx game 1834 and RGG’s Saint Petersburg Expansion, co-designed with Karl-Heinz Schmiel). But, like Feld, his output is quite enough to give him serious consideration for the big award in a year like this one.
Jason Matthews/Christian Leonhard – 1960: The Making of the President
Matthews burst onto the gaming scene two years ago with the sensational and multiple award-winning Twilight Struggle. He and newcomer Leonhard released this much anticipated follow-up and it has not disappointed: great ratings and a certain visit to the Geek’s top 10. Single entry designers usually have no chance for the DotY, but in a weak year like this one, the pair would have to be considered a contender if 1960 could match its older brother’s performance in the awards. That seems unlikely, however. TS’ success came as a crossover game that straddled the worlds of wargaming and eurogaming. Despite being inspired by the mechanics of CDWs, 1960 is pretty much a straight euro, albeit one which appeals to many wargamers. As for the awards, it’s obviously too complex for the SdJ and its American-centric theme makes a DSP victory a long shot. It should be a strong contender for the two-player IGA award, but that probably won’t be enough. It’s still a tremendous achievement and with these two games, Matthews’ career has gotten off to the greatest start of any game designer in the modern era.
Christian Petersen/Corey Konieczka – Starcraft: The Board Game; Tide of Iron
Fantasy Flight Games has become big enough to support its own crew of in-house designers. To their credit, they have eschewed the lead of American publishers like Hasbro and Mattel and give full designer credit on all of their games. Thus, we have become familiar with such talents as Kevin Wilson, Eric Lang, and John Goodenough. The latest is Corey Konieczka, who got his feet wet developing the updated version of Derek Carver’s Warrior Knights in 2006. Still leading the pack is owner and founder Christian Petersen, best known for his three editions of Twilight Imperium and the excellent Game of Thrones boardgame.
Well, Petersen and Konieczka joined forces to produce two of last year’s most highly rated games—Starcraft: The Board Game and Tide of Iron (the last in conjunction with Goodenough). Both are in the Geek’s top 100 ranked games and have inspired more than their share of buzz. In a year such as this one, there’s no question that these two designers are in the running for DotY.
The big question with these games is how close they come to being affected by my restriction on wargames. Starcraft, based on the extremely popular PC game, seems to be on solid ground despite its martial theme. The game it most resembles is Game of Thrones, which is clearly a euro. I would put it in a similar category as Richard Borg’s Command & Colors games, which have always been embraced by the euro community. Tide of Iron, on the other hand, is uncomfortably close to the border. It’s a tactical level World War II game, with all of the trappings of a wargame. Based on several reviews which cite its accessibility, I’ve decided it shouldn’t be excluded from this competition, although it’s about as close to a wargame as I’d like to see included. But the fact that this is a game aimed at a narrower segment of the gaming population than many of the others listed here does carry a bit of a penalty.
By the way, Konieczka also worked with Tom Jolly on an update of his Cave Troll and authored an expansion to Petersen and Lang’s World of Warcraft. But I don’t see these as being enough to push him ahead of Petersen in the rankings. The two will compete as a joint entry.
Uwe Rosenberg – Agricola
In a year full of big games, the biggest may be this sleeper from tiny Lookout Games. Uwe Rosenberg returns to glory with this smash hit about farming in 17th century Germany. The game has led to massive preorders and a fanatical following (fans refer to themselves as either Agricolytes or Agricoholics, depending on their level of addiction). It’s also cracked the Geek’s top 10 in a remarkably short time and still boasts an average rating of over 8.5 (higher even than Puerto Rico). All this without an English language version! Whether it will maintain these dizzying heights is anybody’s guess, but at this date, it ranks as one of the big gaming stories of the year.
As I mentioned in the Matthews/Leonhard entry, riding a single design to DotY requires a fabulous performance during the awards season. But Agricola just might have the legs to do it. The SdJ is out of the question (although a recommendation is a strong possibility), but sweeping the DSP, IGA, and Golden Geek awards doesn’t require too big a stretch of the imagination. Of course, there’s no way that this kind of performance can be projected. So for now, we will keep Rosenberg on the sidelines, but will permit ourselves the luxury of rewriting history should the game win everything in sight next year.
Michael Schacht – Patrician; Zooloretto(Sdgg)
The only 2007 design to win one of the ’07 major awards is Schacht’s Zooloretto. It isn’t one of the more highly ranked SdJ winners on the Geek, and its fifth place finish in the DSP is unusually low for an SdJ winner, but it still must be considered one of the year’s major games. Patrician’s ratings are decent, even though its overall reception has been decidedly mixed. The SdJ alone puts Schacht into the mix, but it may be a bit of an uphill climb for him to repeat his 2003 DotY triumph.
Klaus Teuber – Anno 1701; Anno 1701 Card Game; Die Siedler von Catan: Das Würfelspiel; Settlers of Catan Junior; Entdecker: Im Reich der Jadegöttin; Tintenherz
Well, here’s a name we haven’t seen in quite a while! And small wonder—Teuber rarely publishes more than one or two games a year. In fact, like Kramer, this might be Klaus’ most productive year for adult titles. A most welcome sign!
So is there quality as well as quantity? Well, the real answer is, it appears to be too early to tell. Most of these games have only been rated by a handful of people on the Geek. Anno 1701’s ratings have been excellent; the only trouble is, fewer than 20 gamers have rated it. The 1701 card game, Settlers Junior, and the Entdecker spin-off all have decent ratings, but none have as many as 50 raters.
The only one of Teuber’s games to have a significant number of ratings is the Settlers Dice Game, which, sadly, has a pretty low rating. Here again, though, the buzz factor helps out a bit. There are lots of well known gamers who hate this game, but also quite a few who think it’s enjoyable. So in my eyes, at least, it’s a positive addition to his output for the year.
That leaves only Tintenherz, an unusual family-style word game based on a popular children’s book, and this one has low marks in both average rating and number of ratings. The only clear flop for Teuber this year.
So what’s the verdict? Check back with me in a few months. Still, it’s a nice output and it’s wonderful to see all three of the Special K’s churning out titles in the same year once again.
Those are the nominees. Before I get to the verdict, a brief and surprising note about how the mighty have fallen. If you go into the Geek and check on the lowest rated games of 2007 with at least 50 ratings, you get this list:
- Penguin (Knizia) – 4.24
- The Market of Alturien (Kramer) – 5.39
- Escalation! (Knizia) – 5.73
- Settlers Dice Game (Teuber) – 5.90
- Dragon Parade (Knizia) – 5.90
But, that notwithstanding, it’s still time to make a decision. I’m about to set a precedent, but extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary solutions. So I’m proud to announce that the Designers of the Year for 2007 are:
STEFAN FELD
TOM LEHMANN
CHRISTIAN PETERSEN & COREY KONIECZKA
In the final analysis, there was just too little to separate them. Not only did each designer have exactly two notable games last year, but each collection had their own individual weaknesses. With Feld, it’s the open question of how well the Rio Grande version of In the Year of the Dragon will be received and how it performs come awards time. In Lehmann’s case, it’s whether I’ve put too much emphasis on Phoenicia’s “buzz”. And with the FFG designers, there’s the genuine worry that Tide of Iron really is a blood and guts wargame—which isn’t a crime, but what about all the other great wargames released last year that I’m choosing to ignore? The strengths and weaknesses all kind of cancelled out, so we have three groups and four individuals who can, in the words of many a Rio Grande game, “rejoice in their shared victory”!
Behind these three, we have Kramer in his accustomed bridesmaid role, although this time there’s a wide gap between him and the winners. For the fifth spot, I suspect that will eventually be filled by the single game designer whose creation does best with the awards. In the meantime, I think Teuber’s collection has enough potential to fill in there, and if his games maintain their ratings as more people play them, he could easily remain in that slot.
So a most unusual calendar year for designers ends up by honoring two relative newbies and two veterans. Congratulations to all four men and to the publishers who were their principal patrons (respectively, Alea, Rio Grande, and Fantasy Flight). I’m already looking forward to doing it again for 2008!
© 2008 Larry Levy
Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 15, 2008 at 02:00 AM in Columnists, Larry Levy / 2006
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!|
Great article Larry. I was really worried that with your departure from regular columnist we will have missed “designer of the year” ... so was a nice surprise! If I have to make a “Italian designer of the year” it will be for sure Walter Obert: 3 games, in 3 different genres, all good:
- Chang Cheng (fTenkigames): a mid-light boardgame
I want also say, for completeness, that Knizia also published Spirtis (Raven), a really light card game.
good play
Posted by Andrea Liga Ligabue on Jan 15, 2008 at 05:49 AM | #
|
|
Larry, I don’t think it’s accurate to site San Juan as an inspiration for Race for the Galaxy; I’d site Puerto Rico (or Duel for the Stars) as an inspiration, instead… But a cop-out three-way tie? Larry, Larry, Larry… Joe Posted by Joe Huber on Jan 15, 2008 at 09:57 AM | #
|
|
Thanks, Liga, I told you guys I wouldn’t be a stranger. By the way, you’re not the first person to mention Obert’s output to me. I also checked with Olivier Reix, who has enjoyed playing along with this “award” in the past, and he also cited him. My only source for judging many of these games is the Geek and while Chang Cheng has done all right, the other two have just gotten so-so ratings (it may be a different story on the Italian gaming sites). I certainly considered adding him, but the available evidence wasn’t strong enough to do so. Maybe, as time goes on, we’ll see more support for all three games internationally and I can revise this decision. But regardless, it’s quite an achievement for Obert to get three of his games published in one year, and he deserves congratulations. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM | #
|
|
Joe, I’d say that San Juan WAS one of the starting points for Race for the Galaxy; I just neglected to mention that most of that inspiration comes from elements of the game that Tom himself worked on. That’s a pretty well known fact these days, but I probably still should have brought it up. It’s also true that some of the parts of Phoenicia that come from Outpost are from the expansion for the game that Lehmann worked on. And cop-outs R Us, baby! Speaking of cop-outs, are you going to come up with a DotY yourself? What about Rookie of the Year, something you’ve also done in the past? There’s a Geeklist that awards the latter to Christian Leonhard and it’s hard to see how anyone could argue with that. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 15, 2008 at 11:15 AM | #
|
|
Uwe Rosenberg has two Bohnanza-related BGG entries dated 2007, one an expansion and one that appears to be a standalone game. (Plus, didn’t the fan-art version of Bohnanza come out in 2007?) Not sure if those would affect your calculations at all, though. I think Tom Lehmann should get the edge because To Court the King was not released in the US until November 2006… Okay, maybe that’s a stretch. But in my mind he’s the clear winner for the year. Klaus Teuber’s games also seem to have quite a delay getting to the States-- I didn’t see Struggle for Rome until 2007; still no English version has been announced yet for Anno 1701 (and a rules translation didn’t even show up on BGG until late November); and I had no idea the new Entdecker series had even been kicked off yet (I thought it was going to start in 2008). Posted by Doug Orleans on Jan 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM | #
|
|
I don’t include expansions in my reckoning, Doug, for a variety of reasons. However, I didn’t realize that Ladybohn: Manche mögen’s heiss! was a standalone game. It’s still highly derivative, but should be listed. In addition, even though Bohnroschen is an expansion, it does change Bohnanza pretty significantly. So if Agricola does as well in the awards season as some are anticipating, I may have to revise my analysis. Thanks for the information (and for further complicating my life!). Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 15, 2008 at 12:24 PM | #
|
|
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE LARRY! :P So out of that list, who do you believe was the most innovative this year? Posted by Michael Chapel on Jan 15, 2008 at 02:19 PM | #
|
|
Thanks for the article. I can see it being a tough year for this category. Still, a 3-way tie out of 9 nominees? Take a chance! This isn’t a DMV driving exam! Go nuts! When was the last time the Oscars had a tie for Best Director? Tom Lehmann could get a special award for biggest comeback of 2007. He was off the radar for quite some time it seems, and he has had some successful titles as of late, even if Phoenicia didn’t live up to the hype. Posted by Ogdred Weary on Jan 15, 2008 at 02:58 PM | #
|
|
Total cop-out… Pick a winner!
Posted by Dale Yu on Jan 15, 2008 at 03:04 PM | #
|
|
For me Tom Lehmann is the clear winner, as Phoenicia is my favourit boardgame of 2007 and Race for the Galaxy is my favourite card game of 2007. But I can agree that Klaus Teuber had a great year. I played both Struggle for Rome and Anno 1701 during the year and they are both great games. Posted by Carl Samuelsson on Jan 15, 2008 at 03:17 PM | #
|
|
Most innovative, Mike? That’s a tough question. I don’t think there were many games last year that were particularly innovative; certainly, there was nothing that knocked my socks off like Through the Ages did the previous year. Of the games in this list, 1960 has some nice innovations, with the resting cubes and the debates, but most of the gameplay is solidly based on a CDW foundation. I haven’t had the chance to play Starcraft yet, but it also has some neat twists. I actually think the games that showed the most innovation aren’t in this list. Even though Brass has the framework of a standard economic game, it has some very nice innovations, including the industry “flipping” and the development mechanic. Airships is a new kind of dice game, as Seyfarth shows us how to have interesting decisions, despite limiting player turns to a single roll of the cubes. But probably my most innovative game of the year would be Galaxy Trucker, as it’s a completely unique design. So for the second year in a row, I’d go with Chvatil as most innovative designer. If you want to limit me to the games I’ve touched on in my article, I’d go with Wallace for Brass. But for the most part, 2007, though an excellent year for new games, was more about designers taking established mechanics and using them to come up with finely designed and balanced games (Agricola is the prime example of that, among many). Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 15, 2008 at 03:56 PM | #
|
|
Oh sure, it’s easy for all of you to bitch about me copping out with a three-way tie. But think of the designers themselves, desperately waiting at home by their phones, wondering if this is the year they’ll finally get the call that will establish them once and for all. Think of all those star-struck designer groupies, praying that their hero will take home the big prize--how do you think THEY would feel if it was snatched from them just because YOU want to see a single winner. These are flesh and blood people we’re talking about, not just numbers on a computer screen. So you still want one winner? FINE! I will take a page from Monty Python and award the Designer of the Year to the girl with the biggest...uh, what’s that Eric? Oh, I can’t, huh. Sorry guys, three-way tie it is. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 15, 2008 at 04:04 PM | #
|
|
And the winner is.... everybody! And Larry promises to outdo himself next year by having more winners than nominees… Cheers. ; ) Ryan B. Posted by Ryan Bretsch on Jan 15, 2008 at 07:37 PM | #
|
|
Due to the printing problems, To Court the King really did not appear in the US until early 2007 (I know this because we were not able to play it at a gaming event in mid-January last year). Perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to score it based on the US release, though. If I were to rank them, I would give it to Tom Lehman. Even without To Court the King, he had an outstanding year. Phoenicia and Race for the Galaxy are both excellent. Stefan Feld would be a close runner up, with Notre Dame and In the Year of the Dragon being very good (I need a couple of more plays of the latter before I pronounce it as excellent - I suspect that it will be there, though). I’ll have to take your word on Christian Petersen/Corey Konieczka, as I have given up on buying the Fantasy Flight big box games. Based on past experience, I can’t justify the high expense for games that just don’t fit my tastes. I know that there are folks who love them, though, so I guess that they should be recognized for that. Thanks for writing the article, Larry - I have enjoyed this series for a couple of years and it has (in the past) shed light on some titles that I might have missed. Perhaps so, even for this year, but I may have to let others in my area buy them - I already bought so many titles this last year that I may still trying to get them to the table this summer! Posted by David Reed on Jan 15, 2008 at 08:11 PM | #
|
|
I’ve been impressed and gratified by the support for Tom Lehmann as Designer of the Year. He would have been my personal choice, based on my great love of Phoenicia. But it’s hard to ignore it’s merely decent rating on the Geek (just above 7) or the many people who feel there’s a runaway leader problem (I don’t think that’s accurate, but that isn’t the point). In fact, Tom was the last name I added to my by now notorious three-way tie, as I convinced myself that the buzz for Phoenicia was enough of a factor to elevate it above its ratings. The response here indicates this was a sound decision, but I’m not sure it’s universal enough to give him the title by himself. From my point of view, though, he definitely released two great games in 2007. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM | #
|
|
Larry you yet increased my interest in Phoenicia. Too bad I missed it in Essen. Posted by Filip Murmak on Jan 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM | #
|
|
>Speaking of cop-outs, are you going to come up >with a DotY yourself? What about Rookie of the >Year, something you’ve also done in the past? I fear I ran out of time for both. I’d agree that the rookie selection of Leonhard is entirely reasonable. As for DotY - I always used a slightly different timeline than you (basically mid-2006 through the end of 2007 for DotY 2007, so that games awarded in 2007 are eligible), but off the top of my head my nominees would be:
Chvatil
...and I’d go with Feld as the winner. Posted by Joe Huber on Jan 17, 2008 at 04:28 PM | #
|
|
> Larry Levy wrote:
Yes, a great year for me, difficult to make the same another time… Three very different games, for different kind of players. The lasts two are too light for hardcore gamers. But I will try again!
Posted by Walter Obert on Jan 22, 2008 at 07:26 AM | #
|
|
"Matthews’ career has gotten off to the greatest start of any game designer in the modern era.” But this achievement doesn’t get him in the top three? For shame! Pick three by all means, by make it the right three. Starcraft!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by Mike Siggins on Jan 25, 2008 at 02:11 AM | #
|
|
So, Mike, would you say 1960 by itself is a greater body of work than Race for the Galaxy and Phoenicia combined? Or for both Notre Dame and Year of the Dragon? I just didn’t think that was the case, so Jason and Christian didn’t grab the top spots. I’m also not quite sure what your expletive at the end meant. Are you expressing surprise and dismay that Starcraft was a prime factor in Petersen and Konieczka’s co-selection? Or are you pledging undying love for this title? If it’s the former, the game is very highly rated on the Geek and the rules look quite interesting (I haven’t played it yet, but I hope to soon). Given how late most of the games came out, things like Geek ratings had a major effect on my decision. If it’s the latter, well...okay, I guess I don’t think it’s the latter! Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM | #
|
|
I would say 1960, on its own, is a greater body of work than the other four combined. That’s purely subjective, and it is your column, so we don’t need to worry about that. I think you need to play Starcraft, if you can. I think it is probably a mistake to choose DOTY on the basis of BGG ratings because we kind of know about those… You could have looked up my rating while you were over there! That leaves Tide of Iron vs 1960, and frankly, no contest. Posted by Mike Siggins on Jan 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM | #
|
|
I actually try to ignore my personal opinions of the games as much as possible. Instead, I try to use the major gaming awards, ratings, and the overall view of the community as guidelines. You can never take yourself completely out of the picture, but my intent is not to make this MY best designer of the year but THE best designer of the year. Kinda touchy-feely, I know, but that’s how I’ve set it up. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM | #
|
|
Well, okay, but I think that is a tough call. Trying to grasp the view of the gaming community is a difficult one. I tried it once, wouldn’t recommend it! Ratings are notoriously unreliable. Starcraft, if I may grasp the view of the community, is loved by people who love massive, effectively unplayable games with lots of bits. I don’t need to say the A*****trash word, because this isn’t even that good. But I bet there are some tens over there, and (going out on a limb here) Best. Game. EVAR!s. I know what you are trying to do, but I would rather have your views which are never less than interesting. They are also more reliable, you can back them up without waffling and guessing, and I bet you would come to a better conclusion. Go on, I dare you. Forget the view of the gaming populace, forget the ratings, forget the bozos on the awards committees. Who is your favourite designer? Clue: JM. Posted by Mike Siggins on Jan 25, 2008 at 01:04 PM | #
|
|
Well given that Jason (and Christian) are close friends, who I game with several times a month, I guess I’ll have to take them out of the equation. And I’ve yet to play Year of the Dragon, the FFG games, most of the Knizia, Kramer, and Teuber stuff. So I’m not sure how much of an authority I am. But since you ask, I’d say my favorite designer from 2007 was Tom Lehmann (who I also consider a friend, although I only see him once a year). Phoenicia is brilliant and while I haven’t had the chance to really grok Race for the Galaxy (and possibly I never will), it’s clearly an excellent design. So, Mike, by any chance have YOU given any thought to your favorite designer of last year? :-) (P.S. Jason says “thanks”!) Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 25, 2008 at 02:00 PM | #
|
|
Larry, I have though hard and long on this subject, and I think if I had to pick one designer that has gone beyond the pale for originality in 2007, I would have to give it to, Phil Eklund for Origins: How we became Human. The game itself is so divergent from anything I’ve ever played, that I couldn’t define it’s appeal. Yet the game intrigues me to no end, and it’s play is so “different”. If I spread it out to 2006-2007, Vlaada (Vladimír) Chvátil would come in a close first or second, but not for Galaxy Trucker alone in 2007. Posted by Michael Chapel on Jan 25, 2008 at 03:34 PM | #
|
|
For originality, Phil Eklund. For sheer design skill, Jason & Christian. Posted by Mike Siggins on Jan 25, 2008 at 03:58 PM | #
|
|
Mike C., that’s very interesting, particularly given how closely our tastes in gaming are. I know Siggins is a huge Eklund fan, but he also loves experience games and I tend to stay far away from them. Everything I’ve ever heard about Phil’s games has terrified me, but testomonials from you two and others about Origins means I might want to try it out sometime. God knows when that could be, but I’d at least be open to the suggestion. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 25, 2008 at 04:46 PM | #
|
Next entry: Game Review: E.T.I.: Estimated Time to Invasion
Previous entry: Gone Cardboard News: Antler Island - Available from Mayfair
