The Gulf Between: Civ vs 4X Games

I am always interested in 4X or Civilization style boardgames. I was thinking earlier about what aspects of these games makes one game a 4X game and not a Civ game. Or another Civ and not 4X. And another game a bit of both, or neither. I took a stab at outlining some of the key traits that distinguish and these two genres from one another.

A Designer’s Perspective on Audience Feedback

When at BGGCON I was discussing game design with a friend and fellow game designer. He asked me what the biggest lesson was that I learned in the process of getting Hegemonic designed and published. I don’t think I had a very good answer to that question at the tip of my tongue. I believe I muttered something incoherent about streamlining mechanics or some other gibberish. I wasn’t satisfied with whatever it was I said, and I’ve been mulling over what I should have said ever since.

After a week or so, I’ve come up with the following answer, which is a little more insightful:

---

Realize that your game can’t be everything for everyone - even within the intended audience.

---

Of Finding Civilization in a Barn

A few weeks ago I was rummaging around in a family friend’s barn where they have all manner of amazing stuff stored - as befits any proper barn. Heaped in a storage stall and buried beneath all types of barn-stuff were some decaying old crates filled with ….. BOARDGAMES!

And specifically boardgames from at least 25 years or more ago. This included a number of old wargames in giant foggy plastic bags (our family friend was apparently a wargamer in the old days), a copy of the 1976 Avalon Hill edition of Acquire and … wait for it … Civilization! I mentioned that Civ in particular might be worth something, and that regardless these shouldn’t be kept in the barn where all manner of calamities (no civ pun intended) that befall barns might begat upon the treasured games as well. He looked at me sideways and said … “why don’t you just take them”.

Begrudgingly I said thanks and accepted the games, promising to get at least some of them to the table and invite him over as well. He had never played his copy of Civ, and to my surprise it was only about 30% punched out. I started drooling.

So last night, in a rare more of quiet and solitude, I poured myself a gin-and-tonic, opened the box, lovingly punched out the components, imagined myself back in the year 1981 (except I was only 1 year old at that time!), cracked open the rules and got to seeing what all the Civ fuss was about.

Breaking the Shrink

I had the pleasure of driving four hours yesterday to hand sign a modest number of copies of Hegemonic for Kickstarter backers with Minion Games. And a special thanks to Jeff, a local KS backer, for helping out during the signing bohnanza. Regardless, this was also the first chance I’ve had to look at the finished product and to break the shrink wrap off my own first game box. A surreal yet humbling experience seeing the culmination of many people’s hard work and diligence in seeing the game come to fruition.

If you’ve been following the Kickstarter campaign (or participated in it), you no doubt have caught a glimpse of the logistical and timing challenges associated with making games. It all sounds quite straightforward and easy on paper – yet the realities and timing considerations are myriad. The signing event took place at a warehouse/shipping/packing where Kickstarter orders are being organized, packaged up, and shipped out – and there is a lot to consider in how to best accomplish what amounts to 1000+ custom orders. It was all cool to see – especially the giant tower of games on pallet that represented ~400 copies and only a fraction of the total volume. Crazy!

Conflict Soup for the Gamer’s Soul

This post was a key link in the Game Genome Project effort to characterize a particular dimension of games, in this case the level of competition in a game.  It has been a great reference post that clarifies my thinking on the topic quite nicely.  I hope you find it helpful as well.  (July 7, 2014)

---

Lewis Pulsipher's recent post, “Competition, direct conflict, wargames, and screwage games,” discussed the degree of conflict in a game. The post stirred up a number of prior conversations I’ve had on the topic, and in particular the thinking a number of us invested in the Game Genome Project – specifically in the “competitiveness” category.

I posted a reply to Lewis’ post summarizing my stance on the subject, but thought it could warrant additional conversation, clarifications, examples, and general blabbering. So here we go...

Emissary: A Study in Brain-burn and Emergence

Hopefully this whole post doesn't come across as pompous - but here's the gist of what I'm talking about today: I designed a Decktet game called "Emissary" as a Hegemonic-inspired light 4X style game. And, having played quite a number of games so far, I've been pleasantly surprised by the amount of "brain-burn" and also "emergence" that seems to be emanating from the game. Apologies for the self-indulgence - but that's how I feel about it, and it makes me excited.

So, I wanted to take a step back and look at the game through my critical-ish filters and articulate why it seems to induce brain-burn (in a good way mind you!) and emergent gameplay. All this in a game that plays in about 15 minutes per player (and supports 2-4 players). Maybe we can learn something along the way...

Hegemonic - A Pictorial History

James Mathe from Minion Games received the first final production (retail) copy of Hegemonic from the printer, and took a number of unboxing photographs. All I can is that the game looks incredible. Hegemonic is a complex game with a lot of different pieces, and James did an outstanding job getting it all coordinated with the printer. I'm certainly inspired by what I see!

I thought it would be interesting to pause for a moment and do a little photo documentary of Hegemonic’s evolution from the early prototypes to the final copy, making note of some of the important events along the way.

The first steps for the design of Hegemonic occurred around September in 2010. In total, the process has taken roughly 3 years, with the game due to be shipping out to kickstarter backers later this fall.

Enjoy!

Game Compulsion Disorder and the Call for Discipline Games

This post started as a reply to Patrick Carroll’s recent blog post: Aha! So That's What I'm After!. I’ve been thinking similar thoughts, and after my reply snowballed into over a page of text, I figured I might as well go for it and make it blog post of its own. Here we go…
When playing a video game, a tough situation often comes up for me. I'm playing along and pause to reflect, asking myself "why the heck am I playing this?" What is it I'm getting out of the experience (if anything?).

I recently read an article from Keith Burgun's blog titled an "Anti-Videogame Manifesto" that I think you'll find insightful.

I’ve got my eye(s) on you!

Since joining BGG I’ve kept a somewhat monstrous wishlist. It blossomed into 100+ affair creature early on when I had delusions of grandeur about how much gaming time I would have and how many awesome games there are to be found. What has happened though is that I use my wishlist as a memory aid more than anything – with a little bit of wishful thinking mixed in for good measure. For the most part, when I read a bunch of reviews about a game, get directed to check it out, or otherwise spend more than 15 seconds looking at the game entry, I usually add it to the wishlist.

The 1’s and 2’s on the list (the Must Haves and Love to Haves) are the only games I would consider actually buying, yet even then I’m not in any rush to do so. The fact of the matter is that I have more than enough games at the present moment that I’d like to play many more times before rushing off to purchase something new. Nevertheless, the 1’s and 2’s have had my interest sufficiently perked for one reason or another, maybe it was an awesome review or a photograph that just suckered me in (I’m a sucker for a beautiful design) and sold me on the game. Or it might be that the game is doing something clever or original and I just want to check it out so I can get a sense for the mechanics.

The 3’s (Like to Haves) are a big hodgepodge of stuff. Mostly, I wouldn’t consider buying any of these games outright, but if there was a too good to pass up deal or a favorable trade opportunity, I’d probably take it. Mostly, these are games I’d be happy to try should the opportunity present itself, but I’m not going to go out of my way either.

The 4’s and 5’s are basically the “long-term memory” vault – game’s I’ve examined at one point or another but really have no intention (or much interest) in actually playing. But there might be something about it that I want to refer back to in the future when I’m lying awake at night trying to remember, “what was that game with the thing that did this?.” If I’ve added it to my wishlish I can probably find it!

So, what is today’s post all about? I wanted to look at the top few games in my wishlist, the 1’s and 2’s (and a dash of the 3’s) and talk about what has me interested in each of them. 

What makes a Euro a Euro?

Every so often (like every other day it seems) a topic comes up discussing what it is that makes a eurogame a eurogame, and not something else, you know like an Ameritrash game. Or a wargame. The reality is that there will never be a perfectly accurate definition or checklist of traits that makes a game part of one particular group or genre and not another. All the terms are too subjective and mutable, and frankly the discourse continues to evolve at a rapid rate, making it a challenge to pin things down as generalizations.

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while, in large part as a response to an older article, The Essence of Euro-style Games by Lewis Pulsipher at the Games Journal. His article discussed 13 points, which he felt broadly defined the eurogame. Since the time the article was written, 2006, I feel the list remains only partially valid as the cauldron of eurogames has grown immensely since that time, and in particular the complexity of many euro designs has increased markedly since then.

Really, Pulsipher’s article is more successful at defining a particular slice of the broader euro-game spectrum: the “German family game.” German family games started the whole eurogame phenomena - and many of the underlying tenants of German family game design remain signature aspects of eurogames today. Yet the early German family games were designed to fit a particular social niche (note the word “family” in the label) and breaking out of that context we’ve seen designs evolve in all kinds of directions, particularly in regard to complexity and game length, yet they all share a common ancestry.

So, this post is an attempt to “update” the list of traits that typically make a euro a euro – and not something else. But first, a disclaimer: