The phrase for maintaining calm that I learned on a general debate forum: “I like string.”

Not as tasty as Greg’s comment, but you can entertain your cat with it…

When you doublecheck your spelling, please note that my name is spelled “Anye” not “Ayne” :p

Thanks :)

These pretzels are making me thirsty!

Oh-my-gosh!  I am SOOOOOO sorry Anye!  Looks like I may actually need my own committee after all!  :{
But I am really very embarrassed about that Anye.  VERY sorry.

“These pretzels are making me thirsty!” LOVE it. (LOL) And Seinfeld is one of my favorites.  : )

Did anyone see the new Days of Wonder website?  I was SO blown away.  They had such a superior site before...and if you go to BGG, you will pretty much get all of the feedback about it: 

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/110754

But I will give them some BIG credit here.  Much like Nintendo, even when successful, Days of Wonder is still willing to take risks.  They don’t stand pat and they are innovators.  And that is a very good thing.

So I have to applaud them for trying to be different and trying to be visionary.  It is that kind of effort, that kind of drive that stakes them out to be one of the best boardgame companies in the business.  2006 is definitely not shaping up to be their best year creatively so far and maybe the criticism grows. 

But it is right about at this point that I just think all this will make Days of Wonder an even more innovative and more dangerous company… with all the more of an edge to have a HUGE, blowout critically successful second half of 2006…

Right straight into 2007. 

Just watch.

Ryan B.

Well then, let me make one of those anti-Ice Cream comments that I’m so famous for.

To my tastes, this has been Days of Wonder’s best year for products.  Marklin is truly the gamer’s version of Ticket to Ride.  I acknowledge the genius of the original design and agree it’s probably the greatest gateway game ever created.  But there’s no question in my mind which Ticket game I’m going to want to play from now on (unless, of course, Alan and DoW come out with an even better version in the future).  And a lot of other gamers that I’ve communicated with seem to feel the same way.

In addition, I really enjoyed Cleopatra the couple of times I played it at the Gathering.  You’re much more into the atmosphere and the look of a game than I am, Ryan.  But try to put those concerns aside (as I’m sure you will) and play the game at least twice (it’s got a learning curve of a game or so).  I think you’ll find some cool things in the design.  I still consider it a middleweight game (certainly no more complex than Shadows).  I think it can be enjoyed by advanced family gamers or by the dedicated eurogamer you cite.  So far, the reviews have been luke warm, so I’ll have to see if I have much success in introducing it to my group.  But for me, that’s two very good games, both pitched at the right level of complexity and involvement for me.  I’m quite happy with the direction DoW is heading toward--it remains to be seen if other gamers and the market agree.

Just remember, ice cream is nice, but so is chili--as long as it isn’t too spicy!

I haven’t played Cleopatra enough to form an opinion yet, but I’m surprised by the so-so reviews. As Larry says, the first game is spent learning which cards you need for which items, how much corruption is too much, which cards should be stacked with which, and so forth, so don’t judge the game on a single play.

Ryan, I’m also a big Marklin fan, so I’d disagree with your statement that 2006 is a ho-hum year for Days of Wonder.

If Days of Wonder is purposefully pushing more into the gamer’s segment… then maybe it is a good year for them.  And if not?

Please note: Everything I have heard about TTR Marklin DOES seem to say it is the best playing Ticket to Ride yet from a gamer’s perspective.  Alan R. Moon will never take you backwards in game design.

So my comments are really directed toward the grand DOW “mission statement”.  If Days of Wonder is now moving for the gamer market, then yes, it could be a good year for them.  But if it is primarily focused on trying to win over the person who has never played games, then really the only people who can say what type of a year they are having… is Days of Wonder. 

Because they will have the sales figures.  : )

Critical success is one thing....sales success quite another.  Representing the casual game playing segment, I am comfortable with my personal critical assessment. 

But I am just one person and I still need to play the Cleopatra.  Initial impressions and game play impressions may vary.  That’s why I AM optimistic.

Ok, So I am off to go stand in a line for some of Larry’s chili.  Ice cream in hand.  : )

Ryan, I have no idea what you’re trying to say in the paragraphs above—that Days of Wonder has changed its focus? That it hasn’t? That Marklin fits (or doesn’t fit) this new focus? You mention that you’re comfortable with your “personal critical assessment,” but I’m baffled as to what that assessment might be.

The only mission statement I see on the DoW website is this: “Our Mission is simple: To make games as popular as the movies! We want to help avid game hobbyists and casual game players rediscover the sense of wonder and excitement they had as children when opening a new game.”

Marklin and Cleopatra fit squarely in the category of games that can appeal to the general market and more dedicated gamers. Yes, Marklin is more complex that TtR, but the rules are simple and easy to learn; if Marklin were the sole game in the TtR system, it would still be a model for rules clarity. Cleopatra also has straightforward rules, yet the game can be played in a friendly manner or more cutthroat.

These games epitomize the crossover appeal that DoW wants to achieve, but reaching that mainstream audience—and getting them to shell out $50 for a boardgame—is a separate issue.

On a side note, the new design for the Days of Wonder website is terrible from a usability standpoint:

* The site has tons of graphics which makes for slow downloading (even on my broadband hookup).

* Basic information about a game (age range, number of players, time to play, price) doesn’t appear on any of the pages that describe the game! Instead most of this info is shoved onto the page titled “A Guide to Our Games,” which can be accessed only from the intro page in the “Our Games” section—and the price appears only if you go to the store.

* Menus for each game (Overview, Inside the Box, etc.) appear only in the main page of each game, forcing you to click back and forth to see everything.

* Each game page has a money bag icon with no mention of what this icon is. Do I get a reward if I click on it? A discount on the game? Does the website have secret pages? No, clicking on the money bag only takes to the store—and not necessarily to the same game that you were just looking at.

(For basics on web usability, I recommend Jakob Nielsen’s Designing Web Usability and his website http://www.useit.com)

Ideally potential game buyers will encounter Days of Wonder games through the games themselves and not the website because the lavish design and superb toy-factor of the games is wholly missing from the website.

Interesting that DoW has the mission statement “To make games as popular as the movies!”

They should set their aim higher and try to make games as popular as games! Or some such silly thing. (As games in the computer/video game industry are regularly out-grossing movies...)

Briefly,

To W. Eric:  What am I trying to say?  Well, I guess I’ll have to leave you guessing on that one because I am on my way to South Beach Miami for a long weekend!  : )

BTW, I thought you were very clear in your comments.... and they were EXCELLENT comments.

Matt,

Interesting point.  I always like it when you find your way to the comments section.  : )

Great discussion, as usual.  Ok gang, I have to run to make it down there before dark.  You all have a great weekend!

Peace.

Ryan B.