Critically Effective

Samo’s thread, The thrill of (game) bashing., has generated some interesting discussion about the nature of boardgame criticism, an endlessly fascinating topic (to some of us anyway). I wanted to follow up with a few related thoughts of my own, aimed at established and aspiring boardgame critics – but also more generally to everyone, even outside of the context of boardgames.

The subject at hand is two-fold; first how to be an effective (or “constructive”) critic, and second (to a lesser extent) how to “take criticism.”

Professionally, I’m in the architectural/landscape design profession, working both in private practice as well as teaching graduate-level design and planning courses. In my view, the entire field of design (related to but different than purely artistic fields like fine art) is predicated on criticism; or in the verbiage we use “critique.” Criticism provides the mechanism to advance a specific design project and make it successful – as well as advancing the entire design field. It works a little like this:

For the Love of the Decktet

This past father’s day a little package arrived in the mail, which contained the official Decktet book. I’ve owned a copy of the Decktet cards for about two years – and was mostly relying on the Decktet wiki to look up rules for games I heard about and wanted to try. But having the book itself has made all the difference in the world – and has somehow magnified my appreciation and love for the Decktet.

This post will reflect a little on the Decktet and some of the games I’ve played (and enjoyed). In addition, I wanted to use this opportunity to highlight a Decktet game I’m creating – one that is attempting to create a 4X / Civ style game using the Decktet; a tall order for a little deck of 45 cards.

Digital Kills the Physical Star

There is an interesting debate raging over in THIS thread, which has to do with how much of the “video game” content related to iOS or other digital ports of boardgames is permitted (aka moderated) to permeate into BGG. This is one small manifestation of the watershed of changes the boardgaming hobby is experiencing as iOS and other digital implementations of boardgames continues to grow by leaps and bounds – and the pressures to come to terms with these changes will, I feel, continue to mount.

I’d prefer not to get into the policies of BGG and where content can or should land on the BGG/VGG divide. That’s a whole separate and specific topic to the Geek. Rather, I’d like to use the moment to talk about what the debate and the line between boardgame and video game represents for the future boardgames more broadly. And I have some questions in mind!

A View from My Lerkim

This may or may not be the start of an intra-blog series where I blather on for a spell about what I’ve been up to in various arenas of the gaming hobby. Dr. Seuss references aside, consider it a companion piece to my Skunkwork posts – which talk about my current game design projects.

I’ll tackle a few different topics, so please feel free to chime in and let me know what strikes your fancy.

My Journey into Haunting Ambivalence

Not to be outdone by fellow bloggers, I figured I’d post my own link to a Michael Barnes article that resonates well with me. The article “So Sick of Your Excuses” is a memorable tirade about the corporatization of the video game industry that routinely results in worse game products:

Michael Barnes wrote:

And maybe- just maybe, guys- gaming consumers aren’t Pavlovian idiots responding to your marketing. Maybe- just maybe- consumers should be respected instead of treated as marks for day one DLC scams, unasked for multiplayer, and used game lock-out tactics like online passes. Could it be that maybe people are starting to NOT want the shit you’re selling? Could it be that with more choices available, the guys that treat their customers like mindless trash are the ones seeing losses, failures, and missed expectations?

I’ve been a video gamer since the 80’s when I was a young little lad. Perhaps I have always look back with rose-tinted glasses, but for me the best moments of video gaming existed roughly in the 1997 to 2003 era. Since then, I really struggle to engage with most video games – despite high levels of initial interest. Perhaps it’s that I’m getting burnt out on most of the titles, or perhaps my expectations are off and I’ll never recapture the glory days. Or perhaps, it’s as M. Barnes says, and the games “just fucking suck.”

A Budding Infatuation with Game Systems

Infatuation

I’ve found that I’m becoming more and more infatuated with abstract gaming systems, or at least the idea of them, since I haven’t dug too far into the possibilities. This all started with acquiring the Decktet and discovering a number of games that I enjoy, most notably Magnate, but I’ve also played Jacynth, Goblin Market, and Emu Ranchers. Beyond the Decktet, the things calling to me include IceHouse/Tree House, Piecepack, as well as possibilities unlocked with 6 suited decks such as the beautiful Blue Sea deck. And I’ve always appreciated traditional card games as well, Euchre, Rook, President (& Asshole), Golf in particular.

Part of my interest is driven by the idea that you can have this relatively compact set of components that can be used to play many different games, perhaps even a lifetimes worth. And the range of potential games spans across the whole gamut from heavy strategic games to light fillers. What’s not to love about it?

A Failure to End - Too much "What" and Not Enough "Why"

When it comes to games, I want gameplay genuinely deep in strategy. I want the question of what the best strategic choice is at a point in time to be significant. If there is always a clear path forward, the game isn’t about formulating a unique strategy to match the moment, it’s about following a prescriptive pathway. That’s not depth, its optimization. I don’t want to play Empire Manager: Spreadsheet Edition. I want to play Empire Uberlord: Mastermind Edition.

This post considers a number of things that I feel 4X games (computer games specifically) aim to achieve but routinely fail to deliver in the pursuit of “deep” gameplay. In large part, I believe this is a result of game developer’s spending too much time working out the “what” of gameplay instead of working out the “why”.

This is going to sound cynical and snarky, be prepared!

Searching the Depths: Strategy, Tactics, and the Deception of Complexity

Ah, this was a fun - but tricky - post!  The thinking I developed here has carried with me well on my design endeavors as I try to accentuate and emphasize the strategic depth of a design without adding unjustified complexity.  It also clarifies, for me at least, some of the key distinctions between strategy and tactics and how those relate to goals and shaping the decision space of a game.  Enjoy! (July 3, 2014)

---

Gamers often discuss the concept of depth - and along with it strategy, tactics, and complexity - with a great deal of fervor. I am guilty as charged. For a while now, have been ruminating on the nature of depth and I how I have come to understand it. I’m driven by an interest in putting my thumb on what qualities in games tend to relate to depth; how our understanding of depth applies differentially to the concepts of strategy and tactics; and how the idea of uncertainty and complexity plays into the greater discourse on depth.

Earlier in my investigation of depth, I asked a few questions in this thread, and received many insightful replies. I will be quoting and referencing a number of the responses in the course of this blog post. But, I believe I’ve arrived at a point where I can put forth some basic hypotheses that summarize my thinking on the matter. And as with all my blog posts, this is merely the start of a new thread of inquiry - I’m interested to hear your reactions and how you may have been, or continue to be, searching for depth yourself.

My Collection After the End-of-the-World Didn’t Happen

I’ve done a bit more speculation over the nature and make-up of my collection, following from my prior blog post (Collection Recollection). In particular, I was interested in sorting out all of my games into more-or-less discrete buckets building off the gestalt method described in the prior post. That is, to think about how different games can be classified in a way that’s easily understood from the context of “choosing what to play” based on what the gaming group “is in the mood for.”

Here’s the breakdown with descriptions in some arbitrarily logical order. Note that the categories also consider the importance of weight, as a function of rule complexity, strategic depth, time, or any combination thereof. I was also curious to split up my collection between what might be considered more mainstream (i.e. can you find it on the shelf of a big box store?) versus what is more in the “hobby” side of the line.

Never too Late to the Party! Skunkworks Update 2012

Last year I made about post covering the current state of my various game design projects and where they stood. I thought it would be interesting to circle back again this year and see what ended up being worked on and what other ideas are on the cooker. Also – I can’t help this feeling that my designs and concepts are just a hare late to the party – that some idea I have ends up gelling in my mind at the same moment someone else releases a game aiming at something similar, either thematically or mechanically. Who is scanning my brain waves while I sleep? Reveal yourself! 

Anyway, onto the business at hand.