Eric,

A trial kiosk would be a great idea, no question, but the thing that really intrigues me in this article is that you say (and you are not the only person to say it) that BSW is a great way to try games.

I can’t claim to be a BSW expert, I have only played a dozen games or so, but I found it to be a big learning curve, even on the games I know. Whilst everybody I have played with has been helpful and explained the interface when I have had a problem, this has tended to be through the one-liners that drive chat, like the example I had in my first BSW game of Bucket King:
“how do I draw a new card?”
“click on the grey card top right”
“it isn’t working”
“you need to click within 5 seconds of playing a card”
“ah, got it”
I can’t see that working for discussions on the complexities of the rules of a euro.

Worse, games move very quickly on BSW, far more so than F2F which generates a feeling of pressure on me, never mind for the slow, learner player. I am sure this is self-inflicted and most opponents do not mind the pace you play at, but it doesn’t help you learn, my first BSW experience of Diamant (which I know very well) was awful because I could not work out what cards had been played, where the scores were or how I selected whether to stay or go. In addition, a lot of the important mechanics, such as calculation of scores, are over in the blink of an eye, and if scoring happens mid game (such as in Ra!) the pressure is on to keep moving rather than study what has happened. Equally, I find that in games like Carc I often struggle to spot where my opponent has placed their tile; and I have been frustrated to find that I have missed the placement of a key farmer until it was too late. None of this is conducive to learning.

F2F, on the other hand, is slower. Much more information is visible, each move is clear and can be discussed, scoring can be done communally so that everyone understands where points were won and lost.

I would see BSW as a last resort for learning a game, if F2F just wasn’t an option.

As I say, you aren’t the only one to put this view forward, can you or anybody else tell me what I am missing?

And can you allow editing of comments on BGN? Apologies for all those commas where full stops should be. :)

Chris, you’re now responding to an article that is no longer present! Scott Tepper and I are trading Mondays, but we both posted today, so I scooted my article to later – but not before you responded. Expect my replies on the weekend.

Yes, the pace of BSW is typically faster than in real life, but you can start a slow game or learning game, making a note that identifies it as such and often picking up an opponent who’s willing to teach you the ropes. I’ve had this happen many times and have returned the favor as well. You can also drop into a room to watch games being played, and that often helps you pick up which icons do what in terms of game play.

What’s really good about BSW is that you can play a game multiple times in a row, allowing you to immediately learn from what you just did and try out new strategies. Most people in my game groups don’t want to play games twice in one night, never mind six times, whereas I like being able to dive into something to see how it holds up. Is one strategy always dominant? Can you do something to counteract what seems to be a dominant strategy? Only multiple plays gives you an idea of this.

Eric

Thanks for your reminder not to overwhelm the uninitiated.  As I’m about to organize a “German gaming group” for friends in the U.S., I need to remember to concentrate on the “Om Shanti Om” of games without delving into the star, his other films, how it differs with other Bollywood hits, etc.  (By the way, wouldn’t it be great to see M. Night do a take on the Bollywood phenomena?).

If you’re a game geek, I do think that online play is probably a great tool to help you decide if a game will hold up enough to purchase it for your own collection.  I wouldn’t really know, though, as I’ve never tried it.

I like the idea of a gaming kiosk with sample turns, although games aren’t quite the same as music, as most games can’t be played solitaire or used as background music.  Some games really do need to be tried out by your group of friends before you know if you want to add it to your collection (thus, the Loduthek or “Game Rental” idea might be best).

"Little Mosque on the Prairie” struck me as Art imitating Art.  I still have fond memories of a late 70s, very non-Politically Correct (as if there was any other kind) skit on Saturday Night Live.  It presented an Arab version of The Beverly Hillbillies called The Bel-Airabs, complete with revised theme song.  I imagine that Little Mosque gives a somewhat more balanced view of the Muslim lifestyle.

I think the important thing to take from this issue is that there are a multitude of such niche areas throughout the world and they continue to multiply and be maintained.  As long as a similar niche like boardgaming is thriving internally, it isn’t necessary for it to achieve mainstream status for it to be successful.

Eric---have you seen the Kosmos/Teuber “Professor Easy” things for games? They are quite impressive. 

Any kiosk I’ve ever seen in TRU or in a mall has crashed and/or is being vastly ignored by people walking by. That does make me wonder is that would be viable.

Little Mosque is a Canadian production, so hooray for us. :)

I’ve given up trying to be a game evangelist.  People will gravitate towards games if they are predisposed towards such a hobby / diversion, but to imagine that the masses would flock to Ticket to Ride instead of watching television if only they were exposed to the game is lunacy.  It’s time to recognize a fundamental truth: games are what the public play at parties, with kids, and during Thanksgiving.

I agree completely with Larry - the industry doesn’t need to “go mainstream” like the video game industry to be considered a success.  The mainstream is a tempting but ultimately unrewarding place - it’s much more fun to be on the fringe (which allows much broader experimentation, too).

pk