I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying, but I really don’t understand one sentence in your conclusion:

> Sure, I’ll call out bad games when I encounter them, but “bad” isn’t a synonym for “something I don’t like.”

Is the point that when someone says a game is bad, that they really mean that they don’t like it? If you’re saying we can categorically define a game as bad, then we’re back to me declaring Twilight Imperium is bad. You lost me on that one.

I believe his point is that there is a difference between games a person does not like and games that do not achieve their intended goal.  To perpetuate the stereotypes, if a Eurogamer does not like an Axis & Allies style game it is probably a matter of personal preference.  If an A&A fan doesn’t like it because he perceives a flaw, then the game is more likely to be “bad” in that it does not please the target audience.  We can all try to appreciate a good piece in a genre we do not prefer versus a something that is bad even within its own genre.

James has the right idea, Curt. To pick a particular example, I loathe the idea of singing in games (or hearing random people sing badly in general), so I cringe whenever I hear anyone mention Hossa to me, even though I’ve heard many others praise the game. If I were to play and review Hossa (which is unlikely), I would ideally be able to critique the game on its own merits and not slam the game solely because people sing when they play.

Eric

It’s not been difficult for me to avoid the whining because there doesn’t seem to be any superiority complexes in Germany that I’m aware of.  German gamers and designers play everything.  They even import longer, big-boxed games from the U.S. No one is afraid to share their opinions, mind you, but it’s always honest criticism and not whining about specific genres.

The main criticism is more focused on “Is this recycled or new?”

I avoid much of BGG because of all the “this game/genre is better than that game/genre” kind of bickering, and have been happier for it. 

I think that many people just like to take a stand (even on something so trivial) and then watch people jump on the bandwagon in support for it.

Great article, by the way:)

This is your tour de force as editor of Boardgame News.  Simply a beautiful, extremely well-written article.  It is the supreme defense for why writers keep a positive tone when they review.

I AM trying to shake this notion of you walking down the street, whipping games out of your coat on a moment’s notice like some boardgame superhero.  How many of them do you actually keep in your coat at any one time? (LOL)

As for me, people say I will never grow up, so I will continue to occasionally whine.  But you provide excellent justification for why we shouldn’t jump on writers who mostly focus on the positive.  Valerie Putman’s writings are a perfect example of someone who can keep it positive… and interesting.

Well done, Eric.

"Does the existence of these games threaten your ability to play something that you do like? Do they secretly neuter a game designer’s brain and prevent him or her from producing some great creation that would have been perfect for your game group if not for their enjoyment by others?”

I do not have an example in the game world, but Piers Anthony posted on his website that he stopped writing non-Xanth series even if he (and, incidentally I) would have preferred to write other stories.  I particularly lament the termination of the Isle of Women series.

There is also going to be some competition for gamers.  I’ve some friends that enjoy World in Flames.  When they start a game, they are mostly out of “fun” gaming for a couple months at least because all of their game time is taken up with WiF.

All in all, though I very much agree with your theme in that belittling others’ choice of games will rarely convince them to play “my” kind of games.

Sure, I completely get that we can choose to not label a game bad just because we accept that someone might like it but we don’t (e.g. Hossa), but it’s the reverse that I still don’t get. That somehow we (or you, or someone) can label a game bad, and it has any meaning other than the person who said it doesn’t like the game. Can you give an example of a game that you WOULD say is bad, and not just because you don’t like it? I’m looking at the geek, looking for games that are ranked, and it looks like the lowest ranked published game is Snakes & Ladders, which has 19+ who rank is 7+. Followed by LCR, which has 17 people who rank it 7+. And the numbers go up quickly from there. Life (4th lowest ranked published game) has over 100 people who rate it 7+. Are those games in actual fact bad? If so, are those people wrong? Help me understand.

I guess what I’m trying to say is (not actually trying to be nit-picky) is that in order to adhere to the principles presented, one must actually *avoid* saying any game is bad, and rather simple say that (s)he didn’t like it. Or say it’s bad with the common understanding that doing so really IS synonymous with “I didn’t like it”. Which I don’t think there’s anything wrong with. This is exactly the way reviews for movies work, for example. Reviewers will say a movie is bad, and many people will still go see it anyway, some of whom will like or even love it. And there are no hard feelings (that I have been able to discern) toward any reviewers, except perhaps from those whose livelihoods are possibly affected by said reviews. Do games need to be treated differently?

Very nice article.  I’m 100% behind you on the tone and theme.

Luckily, I don’t find any time to surf the forums at BGG or other sites so rarely hear any of the sort of talk you describe.

I was a gamer from birth so find it hard to bash any game too harshly.  (Not that there aren’t games that are less enjoyable than others.) In fact, the whole BGG rating system is somewhat hard for me as I find playing just about any game is much better than not playing a game.  Only in recent years have I toned down my universal enthusiam as I begin to take the perspective that a “lesser” game might be ranked lower because it superceded the opportunity to play a better game.

I think I keep my perspective best because one of my least favorite types of game is not Euro vs Ameritrash but abstracts.  (I like a few interworking fiddly bits and they tend to work better with a theme.) Far be it from me to decry how Chess or Go are bad games, just because I don’t find them riveting.  (I do find Ingenious playable - I think its because of all the pretty colors...)

As for game proselytizing, I admire the “oh, I have a game in my pocket right now!” attitude you have.  I like to do the game sommelier thing and try to pick the perfect game for any given person/situation/group.  This is often trickier due to the majority of a group being non-gamers.

I get what you’re saying, Curt, and maybe my error was in saying that “I’ll call out bad games when I encounter them,” which perhaps conveyed the notion that I’ll stick a big label on them reading “BAD GAME – AVOID!”

If you look at my review of Parasites Unleashed, for example, I think it’s obvious that the game didn’t do anything for me because of its simple game play. You have few meaningful choices to make and the rules allow you to flush through cards quickly to find something that will let you win. Despite my negative comments about the game, I don’t say the game should be avoided, is awful, etc. I’m descriptive about the parts that fail for me, but ideally in a way that someone who does like the idea of a parasite-based game can decide whether the game is right for him: “My son is 7, he’s really into bugs, maybe this will be something he’ll enjoy.” My Wizard’s Gambit is another example of this – my displeasure didn’t keep others from wanting to play the game. Heck, my negative review led them to want to buy the game from me.

The ideal review is one in which each reader will realize whether the game (book, movie, etc.) will appeal to that person, regardless of what the reviewer thought of it. My mother-in-law, for example, is almost an anti-movie reviewer for me. If she detests something, I know that I’ll often enjoy the film. Her review is meaningful in addition to being negative.

I realize that I’m skirting your “bad” = “don’t like it” equation. I’ll have to think more about that. I’ve always believed (to throw this into math terms) that the set of items I don’t like includes all bad games (i.e. If a game is bad, I won’t like it), but I haven’t thought the reverse. Maybe my thinking has been muddled on this issue.

Scott, does Piers Anthony say why he stopped writing non-Xanth books? Did publishers refuse to publish anything not filled with excruciating puns? Or did the Xanth books just sell better than everything else, so he decided to go down that path? Richard Morgan talks about this topic in his essay, mentioning that if you want to write about something weird that few people will be interested in, go for it – just recognize that you’ll need a second job and may have to publish the work on your own. You have to decide who you’re creating the work for, then live with the fallout. I’m sure Anthony could find a publisher for non-Xanth work; he’d just be earning a lot less money.

Eric

Eric, well said.
Dale

One of the best things you have written here at BGN Eric.  Outstanding!

Eric,

It’s been a while since I read the Piers Anthony statement, but as I recall, he felt “encouraged” by his publishers to do only Xanth because they made so much more money.  My recollection was that he would have been ok with the lower sales, but the publishers weren’t as interested.
I am only presenting this as a counterpoint to others liking things that you don’t won’t decrease your ability to enjoy things that you do.

The conclusion that it’s silly to put down others for enjoying other things than you is still one that I agree with.

Scott

First, cool to see someone else reading Richard K. Morgan’s blog (and, one presumes, his books). I particularly liked this post of his when I first read it.

Second, all I can really say is “hear, hear”, as I agree with your idea. I can’t say I’m always able to maintain that sense of perspective, but I try to!

Tim

I agree! +1! Me too!

Excellent piece Eric.  Why can’t we all just get along?  But does this mean I have to stop making fun of LARP’ers?  Some traditions are sacred.

Another well-written article, Eric!  You had me at Richard K. Morgan....

Seriously, nice work!

Curt, I think there ARE such things as bad games, as opposed to games that the reviewer just doesn’t like.  These are games which don’t meet their goals or which are truly broken.  My games group had the displeasure of trying an old Gamewright design called Eagle Kingdoms that they assured me was broken in multiple ways, but I’ve never played it, so I can’t say if this is an example for sure.  But I would cite Polterdice, which is supposed to be a light, frothy dice game a la Can’t Stop, but which lasts over two hours (WAY too long) and where the second place player often does better than the one finishing first, leading to some bizarre play.  There are other examples, but you get the general idea.

Fluxx is a game with a significant flaw, but I wouldn’t call it a bad game.  The flaw is that a game can last for 3 minutes or over an hour (which, for all but the game’s greatest fans, is an excruciatingly long time).  However, there are many that love the game who accept this, so you can’t say the game is bad and its continued success and many alternate versions are indicative of that.

Great article.  I guess while I can understand somewhat why people bicker about their preferred game type being better, I never really “got” why so much vitriol has been injected by the fans of Euro’s and AT’s and spewed at each other (and FYI for those avoiding BGG because of it...there’s a LOT of BGG stuff not containing said vitriol).  Certainly, things people enjoy (such as games) are going to have people defending the ones they like because fun and enjoyment is something very important to people.  What I don’t understand is why folks can’t adopt a live and let live feeling towards each other for most things, but particularly for games.  Games are meant as a fun diversion, yet arguments over “My game type’s better” simply accomplish nothing.  If we’re all playing for fun, then what does it matter if you dislike game X and the person next to you loves it?  What does it matter if your game’s win condition is VP’s or destroying your enemies?

I’ll admit, I’ve certainly looked down on games like Monopoly and Life, since, to me, there’s so many better games of that roll-and-move style out there.  But then, I think back...for many, they’re what has got us into gaming.  So while most would rather perform surgery on themselves than play Monopoly, it’s worldwide sales certainly seem to point out that a number of people do like the game.  And if we can use that as a jump point to introduce them to a game we enjoy more, all the better. 

Something I do find interesting (though slightly off-topic) though is the way much of the vitriolic spew is done online.  I certainly wonder how much of the increased division is due to the anonymity allowed by posting online.  Maybe it takes place in person, but at the numerous game events I’ve been to, I can’t recall any “rumbles,” verbal or otherwise, between CCGer’s and Board gamers, or between AT’s and Euro’s, etc.

There’s an idea for a musical parody, though...Gamer West Side Story.  Jets = AT’s, Sharks = Euro’s.

IMHO opinion, whether I like a game is a different quetsion from whether the game is “bad.” I think there are two different ways to use “bad.” Both uses are intended to convey information to someone who has not tried the game.  (If someone has tried it, then they don’t need advice as to whether they might like it.) When I say a game is “bad” I am not saying that I don’t like it.  Depending on the context, I’m saying either (1) I don’t think that the average member of the intended audience for this game will like this game or (2) I don’t think that most members of the specific audience reading my comment will like this game.  In other words, the “bad” label is intended to communicate to specific groups of people who have not had the chance to try the game so they can budget their limited time and money.

If you like a game, you shouldn’t care who lables it “bad.” But if you haven’t tried a game, then you should be able to find people who have similar tastes and can trust when they label something “bad.” Life is too short to play “bad” games for whatever your given definition of “bad” is.