If we look at ‘Gateway’ games as a function, that is, as a game that spring boards people deeper into the boardgames/tabletop games segment, then yeah, there are different games to attract different people.

Some can be wooed with Ticket to Ride. Some need Twilight Imperium 3 to draw them in. Some on the other hand need Apples to Apples.

So what I can take away from this discussion is that ‘gateway’ games can include so much more from the ‘usual’ presumption of Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, etc.

On the other hand, I can never see Caylus being a spring board for people to go deeper into the boardgaming hobby. In all cases, it only succeeds in turning away people.

In summary, yeah, based on the success rate of drawing people into boardgaming, many more games than previously thought can be classified under ‘gateway’ games. But, these games have a higher chance for success than others: i.e. TTR vs. Caylus, for a variety of reasons. Even Betrayal at the house on the hill can be a better ‘gateway’ game than Arkham Horror, based solely upon the success rate of drawing people into boardgaming (personal experience).

I would say that there is still a definite category of games called ‘gateway’ games.

AH man!!! When I saw the title I thought you were bringing back the old “The Board Room” videos. Those were great for their time. I watched those reviews back in the day and bought many a game because of them. What ever happened to Bob? From what I understand he even inspired the name for the game “Where’s Bob’s Hat”. Now that would be a story---What ever happened to Bob. If someone could put those videos on the net somewhere that would be awesome.

Sorry about the bait and switch, Terry! Ryan proposed this title along with another one that we felt was not right for this segment, so The Board Room won out.

Eric

What confuses me is that people use the term Gateway games to describe things like Ticket to Ride, Settlers, Carcassonne.

Barnes is correct in that those are not simple games. I fully agree.

But if *I* have to teach games to people who really don’t play games, it’ll be a simple abstract like Blokus, Geschenkt, Gemblo, Ta Yu...Those games have two or three rules tops. Even my grandfather who has only played Rook and Checkers in his life can pick up the rules.

Barnes comment about new people in the hobby only wanting conflict and action is also wrong. That is entirely true for post videogame boom younger people. They are used to those themes, and already used to fairly complex rule sets.

Drift to an older audience, and that no longer holds true.

As a young person who teaches games to a great many young people (most of whom are passionate console gamers), I don’t think the ‘games need to be conflict orientated’ concept is correct either, people like to have fun, they enjoy not only the fun and amusement that a game session can provide, but also particularly the social interaction aspect.  In my experience young people have enjoyed games like Carcassonne and Ticket to ride as much as Nexus Ops and Crimson Skies (or whatever).

I also find that quieter and less domineering/independant kids enjoy indirect conflict games, especially to begin with, because they don’t have to be a target, and don’t have to target others.

Of course, in reality I have seen people get just as wild over someone messing up a city or blocking off a route in Carcassonne or Ticket to Ride as I have in any other more ‘conflict orientated’ game.  The idea that the only games where you attack other players are games with guns/swords/explosions or monsters misses the point in my view.

Games are games, whatever their style different people will enjoy different types, just as not everyone will be perfectly satisfied by the lollies/candy I have in the bowls at my game nights, not every gamer will be satisfied by X game or Y game.  Pegging yourself or others into a hole and claiming ‘that’s me, or that’s them’ is a little counter productive in my view, and could itself be regarded as elitist.

I listened to an interview on the pulp gamer network recently from the GAMA trade show where the guy being interviewed (sorry I can’t recall his name) said “The rising tide floats all boats”

Encouraging people to game, regardless of petty terms and labels, regardless of elitist attitudes which claim one side or niche is right and the other is wrong, is good for gaming as a whole.  I play all sorts of games because I am a normal person (well, maybe not - as I am here posting this ;) ), but seriously, most people will like all sorts of games, so called euro-games, or so called ameri-games, labels aside.

The whole argument is really like trying to convince people that Crime, or Fantasy, or Science Fiction is the best sort of fiction genre, and that people who like the other genres have some form of elitist mentality or ego problem, the truth is that most rounded individuals like a *good book*, whether it be crime, science fiction or fantasy, the genre is immaterial, the quality of the experience is what is so important and enjoyable.

Anyways - enough waffle from me - that’s my 2cent anyway.  I found the article interesting to read and well put together - thanks very much!

Cheers,

Giles.

That’s a good point Heng- that it may take a different game than what is usually called a “Gateway Game” to get someone in the hobby, but I still don’t think people need to be “wooed” into it...if they have to be “wooed”, then chances are they don’t have that Gamer Gene after all.

Frank- a couple of points:

1) Prior to the Eurogame invasion, almost all hobby games were about action and conflict.  So I don’t think the appeal is (or at least was) a function of a post-video game mindset.

2) You’re not wrong about older audiences being potentially adverse to action and conflict, but as I’ve argued in the past, I think it’s much more significant and important to get younger people involved in the hobby.  I’m not very worried about getting yet another 45 year old man into the hobby.  There’s plenty enough to fill the AGE OF STEAM tables as it is.

3) Action and conflict are the most immediate and accessible functions of board gaming.  Those are two things that _everyone_ understands.  Even the games that you bring to events to attract passersby that wind up getting played around the clock (Bolo Golf et. al.) are about direct competition and (physical) action because those things appeal to people who might be willing to sit through a three minute rules explanation.

But for people who _don’t_ play games and will likely never be all that interested in the hobby then yeah, BLOKUS, GEMBLO, etc. are great.  They’re like the BEJEWELED of gaming, and for some reason there’s like some kind of innate appeal that matching colored gems in homo sapiens that transcends the bounds of what we call hobby gaming.  But I still wouldn’t say that introducing people to those games is somehow providing a “Gateway”, you’re providing a novelty experience.

Argh, no edit function...that should read “might _not_ be willing to sit through a three minute rules explanation”.

This article is a bunch of crap, but on the plus side, it’s the first interesting column I’ve ever read on this site.  Bravo.

but seriously, most people will like all sorts of games, so called euro-games, or so called ameri-games, labels aside.

Giles, it’s AMERITRASH not “ameri-games”.

You’re absolutely right.  And I challenge you to find one Ameritrash gamer or one Eurotrash gamer that doesn’t enjoy both types of games.  It’s more of an approach to gaming than a genre preference.  I thought we sorted that out almost 2 years ago…

The whole argument is really like trying to convince people that Crime, or Fantasy, or Science Fiction is the best sort of fiction genre

Well, this exact kind of sentiment is why I and many others had such a problem with the tone of the hobby discussion before Ameritrash happened.  It used to be that Eurogames or “these games of ours” had an assumed superiority.  Now, not so much.

Damn it Martin, your site and its lack of editing...I can’t believe I slipped up and typed “Eurotrash”...Eurogames are much too clever, elegant, and sophisticated to be “trash”, aren’t they?

Sorry Michael, I use Ameri-games, I like a lot of them so they aren’t trash to me, and we don’t tend to use the term ‘trash’ in Australia in any case.

I followed the “Ameri-Trash” issue as it rose and fell and rose again, I just didn’t feel like I would have anything constructive to add by waging into it, most of time it seemed to be people rubbing each other up the wrong way and misconstruing what had been said already, plus the occassional spurt of abuse by X gamer or Y gamer.  Sometimes it was amusing, other times diheartening.  But in the long term I don’t know if has really helped anything, this is a small hobby, it’s a shame to split up into factions.  As you rightly say - you would be hard pressed to find a gamer who doesn’t like both types of game.

I think the ‘these games of ours’ mentality comes from a group of people highly involved in small niche hobby, I think it exists as much today on Boardgamegeek and Fortress Ameritrash both, and that it is a by-product of human nature.  Sometimes people want discussion with others who know as much or who like similar things, this can often disclude other people.  When it is done intentionally because of an assumed superiority is elitism, and the world is as rife with it now as it ever was.

Given the relative size of the hobby though it is a shame that these issues exist.  Still, the development of factions and so forth may also be an indication of the growth of the hobby, the growing pains, as it were, of the hobby as a whole, and at some times, of the community of various sites around the net.

Ultimately, does the labelling and debate help the situation?  Who knows, but I generally prefer to stay out of it because the argument often devolves and doesn’t seem to be that profitable.

The article was an interesting read altogether.

Thanks for taking the time all (Eric, Michael, & Ryan)

Cheers,

Giles.

*disheartening

Sorry Michael, I use Ameri-games, I like a lot of them so they aren’t trash to me, and we don’t tend to use the term ‘trash’ in Australia in any case.

But you guys do have irony, irreverence, and self-deprecation down there don’t you?

Ultimately, does the labelling and debate help the situation?  Who knows, but I generally prefer to stay out of it because the argument often devolves and doesn’t seem to be that profitable.

Agreed.  It’s interesting because when this discussion takes place outside of the more popular internet boardgaming forums, it doesn’t tend to break down.

“Labelling” is very important in any medium.  It signifies sets of genre expectations and parameters.  It isn’t a limiting or “pigeonholing” thing at all.  You don’t walk into a bookstore and see all the books in one section, do you?  That’d be pretty damn irritating.

Mike:
Hobby games haven’t always been about conflict. The RPG/Wargame/GAMA slice of the market is definitely geared that way.

Before Eurogames, there were all of those business, racing, and odd games. Most of those started form small cottage companies, and gradually that type of game broke into the mainstream--only to be obliterated by Trivial Pursuit and the party game hordes.

The Meetup group at the Loop is an interesting tell for how the whole gateway thing goes. The group is older, and “gateway” games are played.
It is more of a Gemblo->Carcassonne->Ticket to Ride...stop

Not so many people seem to be converting to the heavier Euros. They are staying firmly in that lighter Euro kind of thing.

For all that, Arkham Horror, Tales of the Arabian Nights, and Prophecy make just as good of a gateway games for people that aren’t turned off by the themes. But notice--no direct conflict in those....

But you guys do have irony, irreverence, and self-deprecation down there don’t you?

*we do, sometimes fortunately, other times not so fortunately - as you would understand if you watched some of our comedy sketch shows.

I agree with the labelling thing, I guess I was using the wrong term, or intending it to represent the negative aspects of the process like, as you say, pigeonholing.

It can be a good thing, when used objectively as you suggest (to order a bookstore), but when people start factioning themselves and identifying with a label there can be issues, and it is that “I am a euro gamer/I am an Ameri gamer, my side is the underdog/your side is elitist, my side is happy-go-lucky/your side is looking for a fight are the sort of mentalities that I am talking about as being unhelpful.

And I don’t think it is indicative of one site and not others, although I do think that there are groups on one site that will immediately ‘jump into the fray all guns blazing’ on any discussion that centers around these divides.  That is not an issue with the site itself, but rather indicative of what some of the users will be looking to get involved with, and how, on that site if the opportunity arises.

There have been vehement debates on Fortress Ameritrash, some quite abusive, and elsewhere.  The problem isn’t the issue at hand, but rather the mentalities and the way in which people try and ‘win’ their argument, the internet forum provides words for us to read, no hint of body language or expression, and as such it is often easy to misunderstand or leap to a conclusion, it is also easy to be abusive because the person you criticise can’t thump you for it.

Personally I think it takes more courage and shows more character when people apologise for being wrong and don’t resort to eye-for-an-eye name calling.  Discussion is good and well, and often interesting and informing, agenda driven discussion, baiting, trolling or trying to get negative attention is not.  This is not saying these behaviours are the provence of one faction over another, both parties have played aggressor and victim at various times.  I just don’t think it helps either, nor do I think it is only to be found in one location.

Cheers,

Giles.

Most of this discussion about the term “Gateway Games” focuses on attracting non-gamers into the hobby.  However, I have often used the term to refer to games that work very well to attract gamers of a different flavor to board games.  For example, miniature gamers.  Someone plays Flames of War, introduce them to Memoir ‘44.  DBA players, show them C&C:Ancients.  Warhammer Fantasy, Battlelore.  Heroclix, Marvel Heroes.  Another example would be role players.  Teach them to play Descent, Arkham Horror, etc. 

Some of these may not be seen as typical gateway games, but they work because of the similarity to what the gamer normally plays.  They already have the mindset to understand complex rules, so playing most of these should be a breeze.  If they play and enjoy it, all of a sudden they are open to the idea of playing other board games (which is a whole hell of a lot easier than painting mini’s!). 

We even had an entire game track dedicated to this concept last year at Charcon.  We called it the Crossover Game track, as we were trying to get existing gamers to crossover and play board games.  Crossover...Gateway, same idea. 

Anyway, I think that proper use of the term “Gateway Game” depends a lot on who your target audience is.

TR

Terry,

Bob’s old “The Board Room” videos *are* on youtube. Search for “board game show” (with quotes):

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query="board+game+show"&search_type=

As for defining “what is what” it’s never about the style of game, but about the look and feel associated with a publisher (and the channels they market to). Thats the only real standard as these terms are so subjective and mean different things to fans of different publishers.

Ooops. Some are not under “Board Game Show” ,but only “board Game”. In particular the great Tigris and Euphrates w/ Reiner Knizia series…

Actually, Barnes and Rob Martin have been some of the saner voices in the whole AT thing. The only real offenses I’ve noticed is that Barnes would occasionally attack Schlosser, Thornquist, and Tom Vasel instead of their work.

It is a very fine line, and they are dancing very close to it.

But it really needs to be done. Anye’s comment about not trashing a game in front of its creator is particularly terrifying.

I seriously loathe playtesters who just nod, tell me “good game” and walk away. The ones who rip it apart are much more useful.

Even seeing a published game ripped into is more useful. That way publishers and authors learn what to do next.

...otherwise it’s Carcassonne from here on out. Kill me if that happens.

Ryan, good job in bringing these two together.  As usual, the writing and thought process from all three participants was top notch.

However, I think this was an unfortunate opening topic.  Whether gateway games exist is a totally non-controversial subject, as the comments to the article illustrate.  Of course they do.  Whether or not Game X fits the definition is subject to disagreement (I still don’t think Settlers is a good gateway game), as is the purpose of the potential gateway game.  But we’ve all seen cases of non-gamers being introduced to gaming through some of these games and have even seen games like TtR occasionally serve as the conduit to more complex designs.  Many of these folks didn’t care for the standard introductory games like Monopoly and Risk and enjoyed the chance to try something different that wasn’t too threatening.  The subject honestly felt like a non-issue and was therefore a bit of a letdown.  I’m sure more contentious topics will be used in future editions.

By the way, I think Heroscape is a great gateway game, particularly for youngsters, and can’t imagine why anyone would think differently.

Mike: What is it with the 18-25 demographic you keep mentioning? By the description, I don’t believe you are including women in that demographic. You are excluding MOST of the world - talk about elitist! Baby boomers are roughly in their 50s - if you would like to expand the hobby, here’s a great place to start. They are more established (income) and probably have families with whom to share in the gaming experience. Your world (view) is very small if it only includes 18-25 year old males.

I enjoy playing board games with all ages, even young people, as long as they can sit still long enough to play. :-)

Hobby games haven’t always been about conflict. The RPG/Wargame/GAMA slice of the market is definitely geared that way.

Well, here’s where we may be treading really close to what I think is a very real separation in our hobby- I’m not entirely sure that “family” games and what were generally considered “hobby games” before the Euro thing happened are really the same thing. I think the differences between the audiences, styles/modes of play, and design expectations run deeper between the two areas than genre, even.

It is more of a Gemblo->Carcassonne->Ticket to Ride...stop

See, that’s part of the problem...a “Gateway Game” that leads only to other “Gateway Games”?  Have you really brought someone into the hobby, shown them its scope and potential, if you’re constantly sitting these kinds of games in front of them?

For all that, Arkham Horror, Tales of the Arabian Nights, and Prophecy make just as good of a gateway games for people that aren’t turned off by the themes. But notice--no direct conflict in those....

That’s not true.  There’s no direct conflict between players, sure, but there is still meaningful opposition which makes all the difference in the world.  There’s something you’re “against”, even if it’s just an antagonist game system or a monster on a card.  You can tell a nongamer that the goal is to steal a magic sword from an octopus and they’ll get that.  Tell them that they have to score VPs based on which of the four colors of cubes they have the least of and you’re hitting a roadblock.

GAH!  I can’t operate this website!  F:AT has spoiled me with its WYSWIG editing capability...sorry for the screwed up post...just know that the underlining signifies that every single word is MASSIVELY important.

Mike: What is it with the 18-25 demographic you keep mentioning? By the description, I don’t believe you are including women in that demographic.

I’m certainly not trying to exclude women from gaming nor am I foreclosing on the fact that plenty of women enjoy all kinds of gaming.  That would be ludicrous.

However, the hobby game market is- whether you choose to accept it or not- overwhelmingly male.  And it has, historically, been geared toward the 18-25 year old male.  Actually, it’s probably more like the 12-25 year old male.

It’s a critical demographic in a lot of mediums- music, film, and video games- and it’s unfortunate that hobby gaming often misses the mark and doesn’t focus on this group.  Another game that appeals chiefly to 45 year olds is the last thing the hobby needs if it’s going to stay viable and continue to grow in the digital entertainment era.

Anyway, if that’s elitist then so be it, but that’s also the real world outside of the hobby bubble and I guess that makes most people working in and studying marketing elitist because invariably appealing to everybody in the world with a single product or marketing tool is impossible.  Aside from that, the very word “board game” automatically excludes MOST of the world as it is.

I enjoy playing board games with all ages, even young people, as long as they can sit still long enough to play. :-)

Now that’s something we can get together on.  One of the most fun games I’ve ever played was with my pal Will and his 6-year old daughter.  We played BLOKUS and between turns we played with these little ponies she had at the table.  I believe she actually wound up winning.

The market may currently be dominated by that demographic but demographics may be changed. A smart business person will not be satisfied with a smaller share of business than is possible. That’s part of the point of studying market demographics. I do believe this hobby has the potential of attracting all demographics. It’s more a cultural thing. I have introduced women, people in their 60s, and others who do not fit your demographic to the hobby, all have enjoyed it. And don’t Germans of all ages play board games? It’s more culturally accepted.

I believe this quote from the Boston Globe applies:
But the history of computer science demonstrates that more elusive cultural factors can have a major impact on a field’s ability to attract women.

As the popularity of computer science soared in the first half of the 1980s, many university departments became overburdened and more competitive, some professors argue. Introductory classes were taught in a way that emphasized technical minutiae over a broader sense of what was important and exciting about the field, a style catering to the diehard—and overwhelmingly male—techies rather than curious new recruits. The last thing educators, besieged by students, worried about was attracting more, so they didn’t see the need to combat the image that took root in popular culture of the male computer geek with poor hygiene and glazed eyes.

That’s actually a good point, Mary, and I’ll concede to you that changing demographics isn’t necessarily a bad thing- usually.  I don’t know that it’s good that gamers tend to be older now than they used to- it shows that some people are still in the hobby from way back (the “lifers") but also that it may have become an older market.  And that chafes me.  I want to see youth and exuberance in the hobby.  I want to see kids getting into it.  I want to see more women and less whitebread suburban American males in it.  But if the market is older and the focus is older, then that’s not necessarily healthy for the young people who could really be the next generation of gamers.

No wonder GTAIV is such a hit- it speaks directly to today’s youth culture, it’s modern, stylish, and immediate.  Does PUERTO RICO have those things?  That’s not a moral question and it has nothing to do with which medium or title is culturally more relevant, nor does it have to do with which is a higher or lower form of entertainment.  I mean, they’re all just games in the end, right?  The point is that one is marketed right to the demographic I mentioned, the other isn’t really marketed to anyone but has an appeal that’s much older and decidedly male.  There’s probably no way that PR will ever sell like that regardless of who it’s marketed towards anyway.

But the fact of the matter remains, that the activity of playing hobby board gamessimply appeals to some demographics more than others.  That’s nothing wrong or exclusionary, it just is.  But what we’re also talking about is cultural uptake more than actual marketing practice. 

And the “all Germans play board games” thing is kind of a myth.  Hobby games still have the same marginalized status there as they do here, but their family games field is much broader and includes SETTLERS, CARCASSONNE, etc. and they (on scale) watch just as much TV and play as many video games as any other national population.  The best selling games in Germany are not hobby market games (or even titles that are family market games there but hobby market games here)- it’s MONOPOLY, CLUE, and whatever wins the SDJ.

I hope Anye Mercy will forgive me for this breach of confidence, but it seems as if her name is being incorrectly taken in vain.  This is what she had to say, in another forum, on the subject of game criticism:

“A game is not ‘bad’ just because I don’t like it.  There are many games that I don’t enjoy at all that I can tell are not bad games.  There are some games that are bad, sure, but I think it is classier to point out the flaws in a game without being insulting than it is to deliberately use histrionics to gather attention and to be deliberately rude.  I might *privately* comment to a friend that a game is crap (never in front of the creators of course), but I hope I’d never be that insensitive publicly.”

If I’m reading her comment correctly, she isn’t saying not to point out flaws in a design, but to do so without being insulting.  It’s the tone she is concerned with, not the act of criticism.  Eric made this point as well during the discussion.  So sure, mention to a designer where his or her game is lacking, but there’s no need to add, “that was the worst piece of crap I’ve ever played!” It serves no purpose other than to hurt.

When I think “gateway” I think a game that doesn’t feature roll and move or a normal trick-taking feaure.  I also think of a game that can be explained in five minutes and played in an hour or so.  It also helps if the beginner has a chance to win. If the game is short, then the being competitive in the second game would be ok. 
I don’t usually expect these to lead the newly initiated to more complicated games.  Instead I view them as a game that both (mostly)non-gamers and I can enjoy together.  They often do lead more traditional gameplayers to see that you don’t have to have a rolled die dictate your potential actions that turn.  This can sometimes be a real eye-opener to new players, often leading to the question, “What should I do?” or “You mean I can play anywhere?” This eye-opening is usually a good thing, but I have seen people throw up their hands at that point and say, “That’s too complicated!”

Games that I have used often as “gateways” have been: Kleine Fische, Daytona 500, Ticket to Ride, Settlers, Manhattan, Mamma Mia, Set, Njet, Great Dalmuti, Exxtra and similar games.  Recently, Wicked Witches Way and If Wishes Were Fishes have also worked.

I think that Michael’s point that the video game crossover could be used as an introduction to boardgames, but I wouldn’t call them gateways.  They are taking existing gamers that happen to use electronics and exposing them to cardboard.

The last bit is my point - whatever wins the SDJ, it is unknown to most of the US (and other countries). There are so many different games; there is a game to appeal to every type of person (unless they just plain don’t like games). Most people just haven’t tried enough different games to even know if they like them or not. They only know of a very few, like Monopoly, Risk, and Clue. I also believe distribution is part of the problem - these are the games offered at big stores like Target and WalMart.

I haven’t played GTA, although I suspect it wouldn’t be my first choice in video games - but I do love Rock Band. I know lots of people who enjoy it, all ages, male and female. The key is introducing others to it. Another factor, board games do not get a share in the huge advertising that video games enjoy. The companies which produce video games are huge - Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. If you compare the scale, board games are practically not marketed.

The video game market includes games for all ages - many different types of games, similar to board games. Board games are just not on the radar - not as culturally accepted, not as advertised, not as seen by the general public. Note, the cost of a video game is about the cost of a board game.

So Scott, what you’re saying is that roll-and-move and trick-taking are somehow not part of hobby games?  I get what you’re saying, but I think a better parameter (that you get around to in your comment) is games that offer a broader range of decision points.  That’s something that really does separate hobby games from family games or mass market games.  It still doesn’t change the medium, format, or general concept of what a game is or does though.

Mary- something you’re getting at is something I’ve watched happen all my life, having recieved an Atari 2600 in 1981 as a good report card reward.  It used to be that video games were not socially accepted or culturally relevant and were much more of a hobbyist concern.  When THE SIMS and other casual games came out, the market broadened and suddenly moms and grams were playing MAHJONGG on the PC or DINER DASH.  But more significantly is that electronic games were helped by a tremendous increase in the technology used to generate the experience- now video games provide more cinematic, realistic, and experiential activities that aren’t nearly as nerdy as, um, ADVENTURE.  There’s also the impact of socialization (video gaming is no longer a solitary activity) and the ability to engage in gaming as a communicative activity through MMORPGs or “party” games like ROCK BAND.  I’m kind of off on a tangent here, but what we’re seeing happen is that video games are gradually becoming an entertainment medium as economically viable and culturally significant as cinema.

The thing is, when companies like Fantasy Flight see that video games are such a huge market and that there’s a lot of potential there, they go after licenses like GEARS OF WAR and STARCRAFT.  And they sell tons of games, most of which probably wind up in the hands of people who may not even be aware that SETTLERS OF CATAN or this website even exist.  And those people, again, are likely overwhelmingly in that 18-25 male category.

Barnes:

You kind of have to go back to the 60’s and 70’s. Two books in particular are an interesting look into that time period:

Gamut of Games
A Player’s Guide to Table Games 1975, 1979

Both cover games, a lot of small press games, and do not make as vast a distinction between mass market, hobby, and abstracts. They are just...games.

Columbia’s Quebec 1759 right next to Battleship kind of oddness.

I bought my games from the 70’s in two places: Thornbury’s Toys (which stocked SPI, AH, TSR, and GDW alongside the mainstream stuff), and a craft/hobby store (which carried slightly more obscure International Team (a mix of Euros, abstracts, and wargames from the same Italian company) and Atlantic plastic historical figures. Next to the String Art.

This hobby game thing you describe didn’t really quite exist.

I bought a lot of my first “hobby” games at craft stores too...in fact, my mother’s interest in macrame likely put me into contact with a lot of games that I otherwise may not have been exposed to at that time.  Hell, in the mid-90s I was buying MAGIC cards at a shop that mostly sold model trains and RC cars.

Evaluating the history of gaming as a whole, I think you’re absolutely right and it’s pretty telling that even the EON boys were shopping COSMIC ENCOUNTER around to the mass market publishers in the mid-late 70s.  Because there _wasn’t_ that strong of a distinction then although wargames still represented something pretty different (Q1759 vs. BATTLESHIP for instance).  It’s really not until the 1980s and likely the rise of roleplaying games that we really see that distinction happen- the hobbyist game versus the mainstream or family game.

But now there definitely is that distinction, and it’s a very sharp one.  It does seem that the 1980s were the period where the hobby games branch really developed as a separate entity and in some ways along a different path.  I wonder how much of that has to do also with the popularity of comics in the 1980s and the fact that many comic shops carried games as well?

Michael once again complains about 45 year old guys playing board games. It’s valid that the hobby needs to always recruit new people, but he appears to want to push anyone 26 or older out to the curb as untermensch. 

Weren’t all these 45 year old guys once younger guys, too? In fact, weren’t most of them brought into the hobby by the original D&D when they were 18-25 themselves, 20 years ago?

Will these new faces never age or get older themselves? What will he do with this latest crop of 18-25 year olds when 2028 rolls around and they’re now in their 40s? Yell at them that they’ve disappointed him by getting 20 years older and middle aged?

What’s his plan for people who do successfully get into boardgames at age 18-25 and then dreadedly stay in the hobby past his target age group? What’s his proposal for when they turn 26, 45 or even 92?

And if his solution involves palm flowers and a Carousel, run for it! ;-)

I think I have said this before but I think that the best in boardgames is still before us.  There are some great things in “Eurogames” and some great things in “Ameritrash” games. 

Take the best of both… and viola! 

I can have a dream anyway....

Just commenting to uncheck the notify me box.
This junk wont stop coming.

Well, I really didn’t want to get into a discussion here, but since I was misquoted now I have to.

I never said not to trash a game in front of the creator.  I said there were ways of pointing out the flaws in a game that were not rude, and I think it is classier to point out flaws politely than to just toss around insults.

I playtest for Kevin Nunn and others and I am very frank (no pun intended) about pointing out issues that I see.  I just do so without resorting to histrionic insults.  I think Kevin would vouch for the quality of my playtesting and also that I’ve managed to be very helpful without being mean.

Frank apologized privately for accidentally referring to comments made elsewhere here, and I accept that apology.  Barnes’ method of replying to it though epitomizes why I didn’t post it here in the first place, and why, now that I have clarified what I *actually* said and meant, I will leave the discussion.

Oh, and thank you Larry, if I had seen your response before I hit send I wouldn’t have posted at all, since you summed up my intent perfectly.

"I said there were ways of pointing out the flaws in a game that were not rude, and I think it is classier to point out flaws politely than to just toss around insults.”

Nobody can argue with that logic.  : )

Anye:

Unfortunately, you hit one of my pet peeves. When I was doing the Origins walk for a few years, there was always that half dozen booths that you just knew you would never, ever see again.

The folks who sunk massive chunks of their life savings into a game, and you just wish that someone had told them how awful their game was.

I have had a night to sleep and put my head together. I was mad all day yesterday.
Let me sum up my thoughts.

1. I like the fact Eric wants to give voice to and I hate this term Ameritrash. I like those games too.

2. I do not like the fact he chose Michael Barnes to be that voice. After the insulting things on the Geek to my friends Greg and Ric I feel he has no place on the site Mr. Thornquist started it is just in poor taste.

3. The only way I would want to see him on this site as a writer is if the Board Room was between himself Ric and Greg and he was apologizing. If you want to mend a rift that would be the way to do it.

4. If Mr. Barnes continues to be a writer here I will not only NOT be a subscriber in the future. I will also cancel my current membership.

5. I think up until this decision Eric has done an absolutely fabulous job of running BGN. I commend you sir. But this was a mistake of paramount purportions. Yes it got people to log on to your site. If that was your goal it worked.
But in my mind the end did not justify the means.

Terry Bailey Sr.

Terry- Nobody makes you read anything I write and if you’re not accomodating of alternative viewpoints and ideas then its you, sir, who are hurting the hobby.  It seems to me that you aren’t interested in dialog and discussion at all and simply need Boardgamenews.com to validate your presence and participation in the hobby, which by my estimation are these two posts since I’ve never heard of you. I’m sorry if the whole Ameritrash thing doesn’t fit into your view of what the hobby should or shouldn’t be, but for a lot of people it does.  And I think Boardgamenews.com needs to get with the program and recognize that the hobby has changed- for the better- because there is an alternative to the way things had been for too long and this whole “i like all games” thing is a given throughout the hobby but there are still differences between games and gamers.

But I will not apologize to Rick or Greg because there’s no reason to do so.  I never “insulted” them as people despite the common myth fostered by many folks who likely never even read most of my posts or articles and know them solely by reputation.  I criticized them, I had strong opinions about their perspectives and the things they’ve brought to the hobby, and even poked fun.  But I’m not about to apologize for my opinions and positions on things.  That would invalidate everything I’ve ever said or stood by in my life.  If you can’t take a stand on what you think or feel, then what good is having an opinion anyway?

And if his solution involves palm flowers and a Carousel, run for it! ;-)

Damn it Mr. Bourgeois, you beat me to it!  Is your name really Stanley Bourgeois?  That’s an _awesome_ name.

Look, I’m 32 myself.  In 13 years I’ll be one of those 45 year old guys, albeit without the white Reeboks, middle-aged paunch, and fanny pack.  I’m not saying “old people shouldn’t game” at all- I just think that the focus in the hobby has shifted in such a way that it’s older.  And the emphasis on Eurogames has precipitated this.  I never sold a Eurogame to anyone under the age of 25.

Doesn’t it make you question the state of the hobby and its future when you go to a big game event and everyone there is over 25- sometimes over 30? 

I love gaming.  I want gaming to be the absolute best it can be, no matter the genre or who’s playing what games.  I want the industry to thrive, I want retailers to be able to actually make a living out of it, and I want publishers to have the ability to do more and be able to produce the highest quality games possible.  I want board games to be elevated such that they are held to the same standards of quality, artistry, and cultural value as other mediums- it’s not impossible, especially given that the medium represented by the kinds of games we’re talking about is still very young.  I think gaming can be better, attract more people, and become an important part of the entertainment spectrum.  But as long as things are limiting that- including ignoring the younger market, the complete failure of critical dialog undermined by intimacy with designers and a sort of political correctness, and a general “don’t rock the boat” sense of status quo, then it’s going to stay like it is from now on, and eventually shrink as gamers get older and less and less people get into the hobby.

What good is that for anyone?

Well, I really didn’t want to get into a discussion here, but since I was misquoted now I have to.

That’s fair Anye, because on another board game website you commented about all my “deleted posts and lists” yet apparently you are completely sold on the Myth of Michael Barnes- I never had any posts or lists deleted and actually, the only warning I even got was the ol’ “Dear John” letter that the webmaster posted in a public forum but didn’t to me privately.  The only time I was asked to change something was by the webmaster himself, and I respectfully agreed to do so given his reasoning.  Maybe Frank misrepresented you. If you feel that way, then we’re on a even keel.

Barnes’ method of replying to it though epitomizes why I didn’t post it here in the first place, and why, now that I have clarified what I *actually* said and meant, I will leave the discussion.

Of course you will, because nobody on this side of the hobby seems to want to have meaningful dialog, countering viewpoints, or discussion about the hobby, the hobby community, or where the future of all this lies.  You’re more interested in getting in a tiff over Michael Barnes than you are about talking games.  All I see from this side of the hobby are gentle affirmations and back-patting and few people really taking games as a medium seriously or really examining how the community could be made better.  Maybe that’s why I’m such a misfit. :-(

Now, what I *actually* said (because I know you’re still going to come back and see I responded) was that your statement, at least as Frank may or may not have misquoted it, was “fracking disgusting” because it is.  It disgusts me that in an authorial, even artistic, medium that there’s no critical evaluation and any sense of peer review is destroyed by fear of hurt feelings and fostering intimacy.

But if y’all just want to talk about Michael Barnes, have at it.  I like to argue, bicker, and fight.  I’d really rather talk about the Gateway Games thing and the article, but I’m not passing up an opportunity to light a fire under some asses over here, and I don’t mind being your Satan.

I have not yet had a chance to read the entire article but *pow* *zap* right away the one thing I tend to disagree with Michael rears its head.  For as much as you seem to be sensitive to “the Eurogame crowd” ghettoizing your perspective it really annoys me when *I* am seemingly lumped in with some “them” by “you.”

OK I think I over quoted. 

I started calling myself “Eurotrash” awhile ago.  I really think that beyond the valid indifferences in genre there is also a very important social/psychological aspect to the gaming hobby. 

I PLAY LOUD. 

I also play mostly Euros. 

I have said it before and I will say it again, I am 100% convinced that MB, Skels, Ken B et. al. could sit down with me and play Die Macher and we would have a BLAST! 

Because of *how* we play.  Not *what* we play.

Might it not be their favorite game?  Probably but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun.  Please Michael, I know you push that button on purpose but I think you do yourself a disservice because I truly believe there are a lot more “Eurotrash” players out there than “the Eurogame crowd” which you often write about.

I have not yet had a chance to read the entire article[/]

(Sorry about the screwed up posting...you guys just get me so HEATED that I forget basic HTML skills. Fixed above.)

I have not yet had a chance to read the entire article

Nor have many of the respondents here.  Eric could have just posted the words “MICHAEL BARNES” as the article text and the discussion would likely be the same.  In fact, if he were to change the site name to Michaelbarnesnews.com it would likely generate more passion and heated debate than most of the articles here- even the best or most interesting ones- seem to muster.  Don’t you people like to talk about board games?

For as much as you seem to be sensitive to “the Eurogame crowd” ghettoizing your perspective it really annoys me when *I* am seemingly lumped in with some “them” by “you.”

I’m not lumping anyone anywhere because I don’t know you.  Now this guy John I know, he’s definitely a Eurogamer.  And Steve Avery, he’s an AT gamer.  There, I’ve lumped them into their respective categories.  I’m sorry, but I have not been given the jurisdiction to declare who belongs in what category.  Where you fit into the hobby is for you to figure out on your own, if you so choose.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I am 100% convinced that MB, Skels, Ken B et. al. could sit down with me and play Die Macher and we would have a BLAST

And I don’t doubt that at all.  Because that would be a fun crowd, and we could make even the most dreadful game fun.  You get that group together and I’ll play CAYLUS with them.  Because you know what?  After all is said and done I’m more worried about having fun with friends than whether or not the game is any good.

Because of *how* we play.  Not *what* we play.

And that, my friend, is really the crux of the difference between Eurogamers and AT gamers.

My thoughts:

I agree with the thought that “gateway” can mean different things to different people. I think it should remain a term that applies to game that is good at getting a particular person that has limited exposure to the wider variety of games to try more games. I completely agree that there may be a limit to how many and what kind of games that person may be willing to try and I think this is more in their personality than the experience, the people around the game or the game type. I think that the personality and the experience of the person should influence what is a “good” gateway game.

My experience was Dungeons and Dragons in middle school and onto Axis and Allies. Some more tabletop, RPG’s, minis, M:tG and CCG’s, Euros and party games followed.

I’ve played many large FF games and many Euros, and I would rather play Euros given my choice. Why? Because of the ABC. That’s the Anti-Baldwin Coalition for those that don’t know it yet. A phrase that popped up some years ago when I was trash-talking and winning quite a few games.

Since then, when there was a choice to gang up and attack, I was the logical first choice. Get rid of the strong player first. So… TI:3 is 6 hours of no fun for me. Sometimes, it is 10 hours of no fun. Sure, I play it to enjoy my friends. But what fun is a game that essentially can come down to team tackle? None. It’s RISK with bells and whistles.

Now, I like big games as much as the next person. The problem in player elimination is that it generally doesn’t come down to strategy… it comes down to gang up and you certainly don’t need a complex set of rules to do that… just play Diplomacy.

Since TI:3 is like Risk with a bunch of bells and whistles to me I would rather play a Euro over a player elimination game. If it is cooperative play, then I am more than willing to sit and play it, though Arkham and FF games have too much unneeded material and aren’t any more immersive than Chess to me. To some, they are. I like the board artwork and the bits, but I could throw out the umpteen rules and all the card decks that slow gameplay. I don’t like any game where people lose because they forgot 1 rule out of 1000.

Player elimination games should have the tag on them so I can just avoid them altogether… unless the outcome could reside mostly (or all) in my hands.

Mr. Barnes and I would have to agree on many points.

If TI:3 is the first introduction to games for 100 females, I gurantee that 95 of them are not going to play that game ever again. No set collection, no social interaction, too long to play, and not cooperative play. ESPECIALLY if the female is the first to be removed from the game.

Say what you want about Euros, but unless it’s a tomboy, there is a much better chance that a woman will not want to play a player elimination game. 18-25 year old men, sure.

I do agree to a certain degree about the criticism issue… a bad game should be called a bad game. Now what I mean by bad game is this: regardless of the experience, if the game is played by the rules, it has a potential to be a no-winner for a person in the game, tell the world.

Example: Conquest of Pangea. This game got an Origins Award (which makes me not trust that award EVER again). However, it’s random beginng can ruin a person’s chances for winning merely by the luck of the draw unless the opponent is playing brain dead. When a game like this comes out, I expect the critic to do his job and say that it wasn’t playtested thoroughly or that they simply didn’t care that one player could be marginalized from victory at the beginning of the game.

Imagine this game as the gateway for a new player… they play this cool looking thing that utterly gives them no chance of winning. What fun.

I should amend to say that at least a CCG has the rules on the card and give you a refresher to the rule when it is played, so I guess that is the exception to the 1 rule of 1000 clause in my book.

Michael:

Three points, which I’ll deal with in three separate comments, because they’re independent of each other.

The first deals with the 15-25 male attraction to AT games.  Statistically, I’m sure you’re on solid ground.  But our game group has been lucky enough to attract quite a few fellows in that age group, all of whom love Euros.  Most of them also like AT games, as do many of our older members.  But from my perspective, there’s no fear of the Euro segment of the hobby dying out with us graybeards, because I’m seeing a continual new influx of blood.  That doesn’t support a separation of the Euro and AT groups, nor does it mean that AT is necessarily the only future of the hobby, although I think it’s great that it can be used to bring certain groups into gaming.  Basically, I think if gamers continue to evangelize the kinds of games they love, gaming as a hobby will continue to exist for years to come.  And that’s all good.

Halla-frackin’-lluja, somebody wants to talk about games rather than Michael Barnes around here.

Great post William, I appreciate your perspectives.

It’s funny because I have an ABC Coalition (Anti-Barnes Coalition)too...I get completely hammered in pretty much every negotiation/diplomacy game I play but that’s fine- I still have a great time being a bastard.  And when I do squeeze out a win, it’s even more satisfying.

But really problems like that are more of a metagaming thing than an issue with the game itself.  I’d rather play a game that lets that happen than a game that lets that happen than one where there’s an artificial mechanic that lets a losing player limp to the end, finishing within 2-3 points of the leader.

As for Euros and women, I just don’t get it.  I know a lot more women that want to play mean, vicious, or highly thematic games than those who want to collect sets and lay tiles.  That may be just from my experience, who knows.  But the women I know more than hold their own when it comes to playing games like TI3.  Apart from my wife, who hates all games equally.

But you know, gender theory and board gaming is neither here nor there, and assuming that women don’t want to fight and would rather get into a game of FLOWERPOWER is lazy.

I do agree to a certain degree about the criticism issue… a bad game should be called a bad game. Now what I mean by bad game is this: regardless of the experience, if the game is played by the rules, it has a potential to be a no-winner for a person in the game, tell the world.

And that is what I try to do.  When you review a game, it’s crucial to separate (but not ignore) the subjective experiential component from what is actually in the box.  It’s critical to draw on those experiences and relate the kinds of experiences a game creates but in the end the review is about the game, not the fact that your game group ruined the game in some way.  But I do think games can be good and bad, successful and unsuccessful.  And there’s nothing wrong or bad about having a strong opinion either way.

CONQUEST OF PANGEA, now that is a horrible game.  I don’t think that it wasn’t playtested thoroughly, I think it just sucks.  The mechanics aren’t fun, the interaction is not fun, and the game is just a complete failure.  Does the designer read BGN?  Should I worry about hurting his feelings? 

I dunno thouh William, I think the “forgetting anexception to the 1 rule of 1000” thing is kind of an almost mythical exaggeration...I haven’t really seen many games where that kind of thing happens and a player totally loses due to minutiae...and if it does, so what.  You’ll never forget it in the future!

Thank you Larry, that’s two in a row (three counting William’s double post).

I don’t think AT is the only future of the hobby at all and I don’t think it’s the only viable entry point for the 18-25s- that would be an unsustainable argument that your experience, for example, would discredit.  But I _do_ think that the shift in the hobby away from the overabundance of Eurogame advocacy and design paradigms toward more hybridized designs and really identifying how a game like TI3 differs from AGRICOLA is an important step for its future.

So what we’re looking at here is sort of marking out where and how people get into the hobby.  I still argue that there must be some kind of gamer gene that gets awakened when you play POP UP PIRATE, CANDYLAND, and on up through MONOPOLY, RISK, etc.  Maybe you fall in with role players in high school and that stirs it up.  Or maybe your friend knows you really dig the LOTR movies and he shows you THE CONFRONTATION or WAR OF THE RING.  Or it could be that you’re an lineman and somebody sees POWER GRID and gets it for your Christmas present.

There’s lots of paths to this hobby and some of them run deeper or longer than others.  I know people who started with ASL.  I also know people who stopped with ASL, too.  A huge part of the hobby experience to me has been finding my own way through it and I never had to have a Greg Schloesser or Tom Vasel to guide me nor did I need an internet list to determine what “Gateway Games” I needed to get into the hobby.  I have my path, I know where it’s been and where it’s going.

Basically, I think if gamers continue to evangelize the kinds of games they love, gaming as a hobby will continue to exist for years to come.  And that’s all good.

And I absolutely agree with that 100%.

Point 2.

“It disgusts me that in an authorial, even artistic, medium that there’s no critical evaluation and any sense of peer review is destroyed by fear of hurt feelings and fostering intimacy.”

I will admit that many Eurogamers have close association with some prominent game designers.  I am friends with several myself.  And there’s always the chance that that will lessen the objectivity of reviewers.

But if you look at most reviews (not all, but most), you see both negative and positive comments.  Designs which are lacking are called out and even positive reviews will point out flaws in the design.  The state of game reviews could be better (improvement is always possible), but overall, I don’t see that there’s too much chumminess between designer and reviewer.

Now what there isn’t in these reviews are exaggeration, hyperbole, and insults.  You seem to think that often these are necessary to make a point.  I couldn’t disagree more.  I can make my point by presenting the facts and backing up my conclusions with my reasoning.  It isn’t necessary to insult the designer or publisher in order for me to state that a game isn’t any good.

Will a bombastic, insulting review be more entertaining to read?  It might be for some (it’s a real turn-off for me, but that shouldn’t be surprising).  But we’re talking about the efforts of individuals who are trying to contribute to a hobby we both love.  Accuse me of being too close to the designers if you must, but I still contend I can accomplish just as much (and probably more) by sticking to the facts and keeping an insulting tone out of my reviews than you can by calling out those who put out a game that displeases you.  It’s a difference of style and also shows consideration for the feelings of those creating the games.  And no, as long as I do my job and point out the flaws in a game, I will not apologize for taking those feelings into account.

Point 3.

“Nobody on this side of the hobby seems to want to have meaningful dialog, countering viewpoints, or discussion about the hobby, the hobby community, or where the future of all this lies.”

That’s only partially true, Michael.  What people really don’t want is to have those discussions with someone who they think is liable to tear their head off.

Different people react differently to arguments.  I love to discuss issues with someone who has a differing viewpoint on a subject I care about.  As long as the discussion remains civil and good points continue to be made, I will engage in that argument for a long time.  But I have no interest in flame wars.  When the discussion turns to name calling or rigid pointmaking, I just walk away.

Many like a good brawling commentary and are happy to participate in one.  More power to them.  But choosing to keep things civil isn’t a sign of weakness.  Nor is it necessarily less effective.  I am reasonably sure that most people on “this side of the hobby” (poorly defined, but I guess we can infer what you mean) avoid discussions with you because they don’t think you fight fair and don’t want to deal with the crap.  Whether that reputation is deserved or not is another issue, but there is plenty of introspection and self-criticism in the Euro world.  We just like to maintain friendships while we’re doing it.

"I _do_ think that the shift in the hobby away from the overabundance of Eurogame advocacy and design paradigms toward more hybridized designs and really identifying how a game like TI3 differs from AGRICOLA is an important step for its future.”

I agree.  The rise of the hybrid design (one that combines the German and American paradigms) has been one of the big stories in gaming during the 21st century.  The only difference is how you define which games are hybrids.  I think both Struggle of Empires and TI3 are hybrids, although I suspect we may differ on which we prefer.  But the trend is still the same, even if the contributions of the two parents may differ.

And as I said earlier, I agree that gateway games can be different things to different people.  While I think including ASL or E&T as a gateway game makes the term basically meaningless, I absolutely accept that a game like Heroscape can be a great gateway game.  Where we differ is that I still feel the term is useful, even if we accept that a wide variety of games can fill the role.  But I suspect that we agree about more on this topic than we disagree.

Now what there isn’t in these reviews are exaggeration, hyperbole, and insults.  You seem to think that often these are necessary to make a point.

Could you cite any of my published reviews either at Gameshark.com or F:AT that contain exaggeration, hyperbole, or insults?

The state of game reviews could be better (improvement is always possible), but overall, I don’t see that there’s too much chumminess between designer and reviewer.

Larry, you gave every game you played at the Gathering of Friends a 7.

Will a bombastic, insulting review be more entertaining to read?  It might be for some (it’s a real turn-off for me, but that shouldn’t be surprising).  But we’re talking about the efforts of individuals who are trying to contribute to a hobby we both love.

I’m still trying to remember if I’ve ever done a bombastic, insulting review.  Maybe you can help me?  Forum posts are not reviews, BTW.  I have plenty of bombastic posts on this page alone. ;-)

But anyway, I love movies, music, fine dining, literature, and comic books.  If encounter an example of any of those things that I don’t like, or that doesn’t meet expectations, do I consider the feelings of the individual who at least tried to contribute to something I love?  Of course not, and nor do you.  Unless you have a vested interested in maintaining a relationship or fostering a sense of intimacy.

What people really don’t want is to have those discussions with someone who they think is liable to tear their head off.

I thought Tom Vasel was made out of rubber, I swear! 

Now you’re making me feel like Ozzy Osbourne.  I don’t tear people’s heads off nor does anyone involved with F:AT or AT discourse.  I may take stand or make a strong statement, but I’m not trying to hurt people.  That’s dumb.  Don’t facilitate that myth, Larry.

Alright, we’re back to talking about Michael Barnes.  I’m bored of that subject so I’m going back into my F:AT death cave, littered with the dessicated bodies of meeples and those little wooden hat guys, to paint “gRig Shlossor SuX” on the wall in Eurogamer blood.  Moo ha ha!

I have not yet had a chance to read the entire article

Nor have many of the respondents here.  Eric could have just posted the words “MICHAEL BARNES” as the article text and the discussion would likely be the same.  In fact, if he were to change the site name to Michaelbarnesnews.com it would likely generate more passion and heated debate than most of the articles here- even the best or most interesting ones- seem to muster.  Don’t you people like to talk about board games?

It was gut reaction to something I’ve seen you occasionally do… You know I’ve got love for ya holmes, but at the same time, I’ll call you out when I think you miss the boat.

Because of *how* we play.  Not *what* we play.

And that, my friend, is really the crux of the difference between Eurogamers and AT gamers.

I think we agree on this point.  What I meant is that I just think you sometimes set yourself up for criticism because it sometimes *seems* like you are lumping “the Eurogame crowd” in together.  As far as this being about games and not MB - it *IS* about games!  I just want to make sure that folks know I feel like “the Eurogame crowd” is just as useless a term as “gateway game.” I suppose it is game hobby short hand (as mentioned by Ryan I think) and in as much is valid to some degree (in both cases) - but I just want to represent the GWA (gamers with attitude) who also happen to play more Euro style games.

Interesting discussion in any case and I think it is great that BGN is doing this round table.

"Could you cite any of my published reviews either at Gameshark.com or F:AT that contain exaggeration, hyperbole, or insults?”

I haven’t checked your reviews out at either, so no, not at this time.  I was thinking of your old Boulder reviews, some of which were pretty ripe.  And, of course, of your ratings comments, many of which are excellent, but some of which go rather far.  Okay, they go very far.  Not sure why they don’t count, but oh well.

“Larry, you gave every game you played at the Gathering of Friends a 7.”

That was my first of two reports and the games were ordered by ranking.  I rated a couple of the ones I played a 5 in the second report, including Palastgefluster, which has gotten much praise elsewhere.  But I also try to play games that I suspect I’ll like, so if every game I played at the Gathering was rated a 7 or more, that would just reflect my peerless judgment.

“But anyway, I love movies, music, fine dining, literature, and comic books.  If encounter an example of any of those things that I don’t like, or that doesn’t meet expectations, do I consider the feelings of the individual who at least tried to contribute to something I love?  Of course not, and nor do you.”

That’s just not true, Michael.  If I’m at a restaurant and my meal is poor, I may send it back, but I won’t browbeat the chef or the waiter over it.  Life is too short for those kinds of stressful histrionics.  Similarly, I may rake a game over the coals (and have done so, including a few instances in Counter that pissed off a designer or publisher), but I won’t go so far as to question the heritage, or for that matter, the professionalism of the designer.  What is the point?  To gain a few laughs, at the risk of being hurtful to someone who sweated blood to create that excremental game?  I hope I can be honest without being cruel.

Here’s a case in point.  I don’t like Bruno Faidutti’s games.  Bruno loves chaos in games and I avoid it like the plague.  He likes randomness and wild swings and favors theme over gameplay, which are all negatives to me.  So, with a few exceptions, I’m pretty critical of his games.  But I also recognize what a tremendous contribution he’s made to gaming over the years, particularly for the French gaming industry.  I also know that the things I dislike about his games, many others love.  Moreover, the man knows his craft and is a skilled designer--just not in areas that I like.  So I can pan his games, while still admiring the other things about him.  I don’t see any way that that comprimises me as a reviewer.

This was the most interesting thing I’ve ever read on Board Game News.  I liked the format of having Eric Martin and Michael Barnes debate the issue without having other people take over the post with other issues and name calling. I was going to cancel my membership to BGN but now I’m reconsidering that idea.

Far from a regular reader so I don’t know how it compares to the regular material here but I found this really good. Very strong, almost aggressive opinions from both sides which manged to stay on the rails without shooting off into nonsense tangents. Great stimulation and new perspective on a fairly old topic, I’d say they both matched each other very well with maybe a slight edge to Eric as I felt his core argument was a bit stronger.

Shame some of the comments let the article down.

>Doesn’t it make you question the state of the hobby
>and its future when you go to a big game event and
>everyone there is over 25- sometimes over 30?

Nah, not really. I think convention attendees are a skewed sample of the larger community that you can’t make many conclusions from. The distinguishing threshold for attending a convention is having the cash. Who really has money for $90 weekend entrance tickets and rents $120/night hotel rooms to play games except the post-school over-25 crowd?

Nor do the hotels hosting these conventions enjoy renting out rooms to the under-25 set much, either, which is another gatekeeper that tends to push them out.

But I don’t think it’s realistic to expect people who buy less than 5 games a year to be able to cough up the hundreds necessary for a convention weekend.

Given a choice of attending a convention or buying Twilight Imperium, the normal choice for the under 25 set is going to be buying games with their limited cash. They have plenty of time to play and are surrounded by other friends with similar schedules with lots of free time ...but not much money. A convention takes away what they have little of (money) while offering them at a high cost something they already have in abundance (people to play games with). It’s just not a good value proposition for them.

Conventions are about catering to the opposite: People with money, but not much time in their lives to play games and whom have a hard time finding other players.