Really interesting! Another important category for me is pacing/duration. There are some games I really enjoy but come down a notch when they go on too long and the end becomes boring, or when it takes forever to come back around to my turn. Keen to hear your thoughts :)
I like this. I do think it falls into a subjective category as something like Twilight Imperium would get a zero from someone that doesn't have the time. I wonder if there is something deeper than just time, like what are the aspects of the game that make it go too long. I have had that feeling with hour long games but when I played a multi hour game that puts me in flow state the time flies by. I could imaging the time of another players turn could impact. Maybe a game that tends to have a runaway leader which makes the back half of the game feel inconsequential. interesting angle to explore nonetheless
I also tend to like games where you don't know everyone's scores until the end eg Isle of Cats, as it eliminates the runaway leader issue and you can have fun the whole way through even though you may not be close to winning (and have no idea 😅)
Excellent video - very thought provoking! I will definitely check out the book, it looks interesting. I think the BGG ratings (not rankings) can be useful if used as part of a larger decision-making process when deciding whether to purchase a a game. I think the thing to keep in mind is that the rating system is not intended to rate how objectively "good" a game is - it is intended to be a subjective rating related mostly to how much a person wants to play that game again. It benefits from the law of large numbers. That said, your idea of community ratings is an excellent one. While we can get close to that with the geek buddy system, it would be nice to have something more like what you described.
I had never thought about the rating as being a measure of desire to play but makes sense. Assuming this people should probably update ratings often. I know my desire to play games wains over time.
Great video and discussion! I think the key to making the scoring work would be to allow each category to go into the negative. I agree that the theme can add around 5% to a score, but a poorly themed game (or one that is themed something you don't want to simulate) could be a strong negative- far more than losing the 5%. The question I'd ask is- At what point does this factor begin to ruin the enjoyment of the game? That's where it goes negative. Monopoly (especially a special edition) can easily top most of these categories, but the mechanics are so bad they don't leave the game at a 7.5 / 10, but much lower.
Good food for thought. I don’t think I have come across a game where the theme would be that drastic of a detraction for me but I certainly can see that for others. In that instance for that person I might recommend giving theme a higher weight in general. I will say that I have found some instances of the opposite variety. Where I fall in love with the theme and might wish it could weigh more. Septima and the associated witch trials implementation was a recent one that comes to mind. I suppose there is nothing stopping you from throwing a negative number in there regardless.
Fascinating discussion. Definitely think that any person’s rating (or weighting) of a game is only relevant in relation to ALL of that persons ratings and preferences. Which is why UA-cam can be useful once you learn the creator’s preferences and such - like you said in a recent video 😊
I do think there is value in listening the the masses who are in no way incentivized for thier views on a game the problems is differences in criteria. I do think it also might be helpful for creators to spell out how they value these categories. I do agree that ratings in relation to all other is important. I found that helpful even when I was rating a particular category and I had the other scores of like games lined up.
Ratings are so dang hard. With it being all opinion, they will vary greatly. Like you said, I enjoy most of being part of a community with like minded people. Echo chambers can get very expensive as you are exposed to many more games than you normally would be lol. I have also really enjoyed joining groups that have a different perspective and it gets me to see value in what I didnt value before. Ratings will never be an amazing solution. Best bet is to surround yourself with people that you enjoy, and take part in conversations to learn more about games you dont know, as well as the ones you know you will love.
Have you had much success with personal connection in these communities? If so how did you do it? I find that the chats feel like static and are hard to follow unless you live there
On the note about trick-taking. Taylor's trick taking table is a great youtube channel for more info on a lot of games. I'll admit, I'm torn on putting a number to a review. On one hand, it communicates so much information so quickly. On the other, what information is being communicated isn't always clear. And when it becomes a way to rank games, it can get kind of funky (e.g., when people review bomb for one reason or another). It would be great to really find a community and build new friendships. And I'd love to find an environment for something like that too. But in the interim, while I definitely have found a few reviewers that seem to have similar tastes, I also have learned (a little more) where my tastes lie. So if a reviewer at least describes why they like a game, I can try to decipher what that would mean for me
Yeah finding a reviewer that works for you is certainly good. I just think more data is better especially from people that have zero incentive to be kind or even pull punches with particular publishers. It’s just the problem of not having unified systems that stops that from being helpful. Taylor is great he gave some suggestions when I was starting out.
That's why I like when Mr. Gorilla keeps mentioning Board Game Hangover. Definitely not the same tastes as me, but they structure their reviews in a very condensed, informative way that I can't help but truly appreciate.
It’s really important to find reviewers that align with your taste. In my early days I would buy any game that Quintin smith from susd would recommend. Later to find out we have very different tastes. But also look into why some reviewers rate a game lower in their final scores. Dice tower for instance. Chris the other day rated a game lower because it was long (2-3 hours). The argument was that it might not hit the table as often. That for me is not a valid reason to rate a game lower. If the game is good and a good experience. Then it shouldn’t get a lower score just for playing time alone. Personal preference is valid as an argument for why it’s not for me. But as a reviewer you do have an obligation
What a good example with Chris, I think i have done that as well even if implied and not stated directly. 2-3 hour long games sucks to some and if in flow state is the best thing in the world. 2-3 hours seems like the objective measure that should be a yes/no qualifier rather than something that is tagged into a game as a negative. It’s also a shame that those scores coming from dice tower have a big influence over many in the space and have effect on that games ultimate performance.
@@Neon_Gorillaexactly. I really like how some reviewers like shelfside does it - and maybe you did on some occasions I believe 😊 Give it an objective recommender score and then a personal score. Like.:” it’s an 8 for game design, components, rule book, etc. But for me personal it’s a 7”. Something like that 😊
Top 10? 1) The 10 games you WANT TO PLAY the most/again? 2) The 10 you would take with you with a group to an isolated island for 5 years? 3) The top games based on the actually most played games (min/average on all inhabitants) in the world? I guess these three lists will differ...
You're absolutely right that a single number rating is not going to capture the nuances involved in personal preference and enjoyment. For me, theme is a critical part of gaming, in that if the rules of the game and the actions you're taking don't make logical sense in regards to the theme of the game itself I will ABSOLUTELY struggle with learning and retaining the rules. I think that's why I don't like trick taking games since they frequently boil down in my brain to numbers and then it just doesn't care.... And I immediately lose. Great topic, and I very much enjoyed the video. I'm also nearby Portland so I guess I should leave the house to see what's out there. 🤔 Maybe.
thanks for watching, yeah another viewer mentioned theme needing to be connected to mechanics. I think I might want to refine how I think about theme. I just don't know where I would take it from. I do think I am unconsciously taking into account what you are talking about in the mechanic rating but not sure how to separate the two
I disagree pretty strongly with what you are saying here. I think that the BGG rating system works pretty well. The biggest strength of the BGG system is that you get a lot of votes. Making it more complicated to rate a game is only going to drastically decrease the amount of information we get. I also don’t like the idea of people insisting on rating a game using certain categories with different percentages as you show here. I don’t want people flattening their scores up or down toward 6 in some misguided attempt at objectivity. I hate it when people say things like “ I didn’t enjoy the game at all but clearly it’s a great design so I’ll give it a 7”. I want to know if you liked it, that’s pretty much it. You said you liked Cascadia better than Harmonies but then rate Harmonies higher… I really don’t like that. The mistake is thinking that the top 100 games should somehow be an accurate representation for any individual gamer of games that they will like. It’s like assuming that the IMDb user top 100 will be my favorite 100 movies. It’s just an aggregated list of things that people like and I quite enjoy that it exists. It’s a good way of quickly identifying major hits that you might have missed. If all that you saw was algorithm directed pushing you further and further into whatever sub genre you are already in, how would you ever try new things? I think you would actually be less likely to find something like a newfound appreciation for trick-taking games if you were fed everything by an algorithm. The Crew shooting up the top 100 not long after it was released helped that game get exposure and introduced trick taking to a lot of people who may not have been identified by an algorithm as the “target audience”. The key is to look at various different sources of information. Even on BGG the geek rating of a game is just one piece of the puzzle. You can set certain users with similar taste to yours as “geek buddies” and then see only their ratings. There are countless lists and rabbit holes that will take you off the beaten path and point out hidden gems. The there are countless resources on UA-cam, Facebook, discord, etc. that can give you more targeted recommendations and information including playthroughs of the games. If you bought a game solely because of its ranking on BGG and then don’t like it, that’s not because the ranking system is broken, it’s because you’re too lazy to find out if it’s a game for you or not.
I respect your opinion but clearly have a different one. My position is that many ratings are outdated, knee jerk without nuance and using different rule sets. It’s a diluted meld that is ultimately used as a marketing tool to sell games. You mentioned using many different resources to triangulate which is fine but time consuming. In terms of diversity of thought within these groups I think if you split by game type similar to what a ton of the discords I have been involved in already do then yes they become echo chambers. However if you connect on the building blocks of enjoyment, what ever they might be you might actually find more diversity then you are today sitting in the echo chamber that is BGG. Just my opinion. I thank you for yours.
@@Neon_Gorilla I still don’t really get what your actual suggestions are to fix the bgg ratings. I didn’t really see anything actionable in your video. I also don’t get why you consider me to be in an echo chamber just because I find the simplicity of the bgg system to be useful. I never advocated only using bgg and I have no trouble finding games I like in many different genres, so I’m not sure what the problem is supposed to be. Bottom line is that you will never get super high quality info from a bunch of unpaid hobbyists, nor should you expect to. You will never have a single number that tells you if you will like a game or not. But you can ask people on a scale of 1 to 10 how much did you like this? And you will get a general overall feel for what things are popular, which is something I enjoy having. Expecting user generated ratings to do more than that is honestly just a pipe dream.
@@andrewburnett6215 I think text is the disconnect. Face to face discussion might help us understand each other. Good news is we don’t have to agree which is the beauty of opinions.
@@Neon_Gorilla Maybe. It would help if your response was more concrete and specific. I was hoping for more based on the title of the video but I don’t really get what changes you are actually proposing.
@@andrewburnett6215 create categories, rank categories, use weighted average to derive nuanced overall rating, pair members based on weightings of different categories, create a community that helps those people connect and compare rankings. This is the entire video...sorry it did not come across, I am not a paid professional just a dude making videos that you do not have to watch.
I will pay you back in the form of playing trick takers with you online some time. It is tough seeing some really great games suffer in the BGG ratings, especially trick taking/climbing/shedding games, and BGG is horrible for party games.
@@Neon_Gorilla it is amazing. Spring is smaller than fall. Only downside to spring is lack of food options without driving 10 to 15 minutes. But there is lots of good food. You just have to leave the airport.
I tried to evaluate my games, the dififculty came when I guessed the thematic about each of them. I agree with you ; some games don't need a strong thematic. Nevertheless, others ARE thematic game, the narrative ones and ones that are card driven. I think about Arkham Horror (V3 and LCG), Fortune&Gloy or Fallen Land. I do like the quality component of the games, I pimp mines.
yeah you bring up aother interesting wrinkle that I have been thinking about which is a dynamic weighting based upon a game. A thematic game where that is a main feature should probably be judged differently than a euro.
Chess actually doesn’t expand the board. Chess board is 8x8 and checkers board is 10x10 But ok. You get to play on all squares on a chess board and not only half of them.
They are both 8x8 and chess expands the use to all squares in result expanding the number of squares. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboard#:~:text=Most%20commonly%2C%20it%20consists%20of,and%20white%20(printed%20diagrams).
I might've missed the part where you clarified this, but what site/tool did you use to compile the gallery? Is it a personal project of yours that is not yet released or an existing one? I would be glad to use it as well. Great video and insights, btw.
@@Neon_Gorilla Thanks for the quick answer. I really hope you do, as it is really nice and useful, in my opinion. I made a rating system of my own as well, but in Excel. Among other boardgame-related Python projects.
@@ionursan9291 yeah it’s a pretty nice visual dashboard with what amounts to an excel spreadsheet driving it on the back end. It is pretty manual so I would need to add a couple automations prior to release.
Great points. The rating system on bgg is a weird system. Also it’s weird when people rate a kickstarter game when it’s not even out yet. Or rating it low because the publishers were bad at communication or deleting very late during the campaign. The point about thematic as a rating. Is interesting. I usually didn’t care much for thematics. Beige euro was my thing 😅. But theme is actually quite important when explaining and playing it game. The theme could really help you understand the mechanics of they make sense towards the theme. An example could be barrage. A quite heavy game. But the contracts, the placement of dams and conduits and what ever. Makes a lot a sense. So you understand that idea/theme from real life. A great support to understand the rules/mechanics. 😊
You make a good point about the themes connection to mechanics. They are certainly a necessity to tell the story of why that game exists. It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine barrage without theme. I will say I would have to think about Barrages thematic implementation a bit as it’s set in a dystopian 1930s in the description. Not sure that comes through. Good food for thought thanks
When a reviewer rates a game they likely can say with little bias if its a good game or not. That is not what we all do on bgg. We dont rate if a game is good, we rate how fun it is for us. I dont think Terraforming Mars is objectively a 4. But its a boring thing for me cause ixhate economic euros so thats what it Got from me. Period.
@@Neon_Gorilla i mean, no, not really, because... if a game is liked a lot by a lot of people (not me, i dislike most of the top games on bgg, in top 20 there isxlike 1 i like and its a huge exception to my rules of what I generally like) then... yeah its likely a very good game. Again, not for me, but for most people. Unless everyone saw their own separate top whatever list, like tou sugested, it is the ebst we can have. Do you think games in the top 10 or top 100 are generally in technical sense greay board game design? Or not really? I think they are very good games that i dont want to have anything to do with, most of them at least, but hey. Definitely a better guideline for anyone who is not me than any top list i could create.
@@dago6410I think your perspective on not relating to the top ranked games is one in which I am trying to solve for. I think it is great and fun to have a man aggregate list just not particularly helpful to find games for an individual who like my self will likely never play twilight imperium.
First you need to get people to not use completely different rating criteria. The recommended from BGG scale is not about game quality. It's about "How likely am I to play this game again" ... and a lot of people take that very seriously and rate games low just because they are too heavy for them. Others rate by game design quality - some times trying to be objective, other times not. And some rate a game 1 because the kickstarter was delayed ... and some rate it 10 to offset the stupid 1s ... In conclusion... you won't fix this.
Good video. Was disappointed by the theory of fun book and its... well... theory of fun. I haven't read it, so I'm just going off your description. There are so many other things that contribute to "fun" in playing games than components related to skill/ability/challenge, depending on who you are - and of course that's the point of your video. For me, fun in games doesn't come from elements of skill/ability/challenge at all, but rather the experience of the game through its mechanics and emergent properties. As an example, I can play War of the Ring (solo - haven't found someone to play with) ad nauseum purely for the joy/fun of seeing a different story unfold every time. I really don't care whether I win or not, or whether I'm getting better at the game. I just want to see the saga play out and I really enjoy the unique mechanics of the game. The same is true for most games I play. For me that's the big disconnect with how most others view and rate games - I just want to experience them, and so many of the things that turn others off (like randomness) aren't a problem for me. Good video and totally agree with your premise on individual weightings of categories and cohorts of like-minded individuals.
thanks for watching, as for the book to be fair Ralph pivots into more a a designer perspective how to make games fun, but I do wonder about the range of emotions a board game brings up and if fun is even a fair description. Are we actually trying to feel satisfied or accomplished. I just played a great game of root where I was politicing the entire time to get the heat off of me knowing I had an explosive turn that would put me so close the win they could not stop me. During that time I wasn't joyful I was nervous, and in a complete flow state anticipating each person move and feeling relief as each person went around the table and ignored my win state. When I won I cam away with a sense of relief, pride and accomplishment. I think saying I had fun might be too general. As for your play style, that is clearly not represented properly by the ranking. I think a weighted system might help you find some hidden gems that aren't on your radar.
@@jerryf196 fair opinion, i think it becomes difficult separating those from a players experience and ultimate review. A system of categories at least would let you click into why a game is rated the way it is. I guarantee those categories you mentioned are taken into account in many reviews on BGG.
I really appreciated the topic of this video, but as a gamer who primarily plays games for story theme and player interaction and not achieving some sort of mastery Flow State, I kind of bounced off the core premise.
Fair, I would say the core premise isn't about valuing one over the other it is about you being able to weight it how you want... Take the theme up to 50% and player inter action to 40% I don't care that is you and I respect that. Wouldn't it be great if you could be paired or at least see the best rated games from gamers such as your self. Looking at the top 10 on BGG I would wager those don't represent who you are as a gamer.
This is an outstanding video. I love the reflective, analytical way you think - you are breath of fresh air
Thanks Dave, more logic less emotion is what I "try" to bring,
Really interesting! Another important category for me is pacing/duration. There are some games I really enjoy but come down a notch when they go on too long and the end becomes boring, or when it takes forever to come back around to my turn. Keen to hear your thoughts :)
I like this. I do think it falls into a subjective category as something like Twilight Imperium would get a zero from someone that doesn't have the time. I wonder if there is something deeper than just time, like what are the aspects of the game that make it go too long. I have had that feeling with hour long games but when I played a multi hour game that puts me in flow state the time flies by. I could imaging the time of another players turn could impact. Maybe a game that tends to have a runaway leader which makes the back half of the game feel inconsequential. interesting angle to explore nonetheless
Agree! Sometimes short games feel like they drag whereas long games fly by.
I also tend to like games where you don't know everyone's scores until the end eg Isle of Cats, as it eliminates the runaway leader issue and you can have fun the whole way through even though you may not be close to winning (and have no idea 😅)
I don't think duration should effect a rating of a game. it should be mentioned and notified for new incoming users
Excellent video - very thought provoking! I will definitely check out the book, it looks interesting.
I think the BGG ratings (not rankings) can be useful if used as part of a larger decision-making process when deciding whether to purchase a a game. I think the thing to keep in mind is that the rating system is not intended to rate how objectively "good" a game is - it is intended to be a subjective rating related mostly to how much a person wants to play that game again. It benefits from the law of large numbers.
That said, your idea of community ratings is an excellent one. While we can get close to that with the geek buddy system, it would be nice to have something more like what you described.
I had never thought about the rating as being a measure of desire to play but makes sense. Assuming this people should probably update ratings often. I know my desire to play games wains over time.
@@Neon_Gorilla I agree, though I also know most don't.
Great video and discussion!
I think the key to making the scoring work would be to allow each category to go into the negative. I agree that the theme can add around 5% to a score, but a poorly themed game (or one that is themed something you don't want to simulate) could be a strong negative- far more than losing the 5%. The question I'd ask is- At what point does this factor begin to ruin the enjoyment of the game? That's where it goes negative. Monopoly (especially a special edition) can easily top most of these categories, but the mechanics are so bad they don't leave the game at a 7.5 / 10, but much lower.
Good food for thought. I don’t think I have come across a game where the theme would be that drastic of a detraction for me but I certainly can see that for others. In that instance for that person I might recommend giving theme a higher weight in general. I will say that I have found some instances of the opposite variety. Where I fall in love with the theme and might wish it could weigh more. Septima and the associated witch trials implementation was a recent one that comes to mind.
I suppose there is nothing stopping you from throwing a negative number in there regardless.
Fascinating discussion. Definitely think that any person’s rating (or weighting) of a game is only relevant in relation to ALL of that persons ratings and preferences. Which is why UA-cam can be useful once you learn the creator’s preferences and such - like you said in a recent video 😊
I do think there is value in listening the the masses who are in no way incentivized for thier views on a game the problems is differences in criteria. I do think it also might be helpful for creators to spell out how they value these categories. I do agree that ratings in relation to all other is important. I found that helpful even when I was rating a particular category and I had the other scores of like games lined up.
Ratings are so dang hard. With it being all opinion, they will vary greatly. Like you said, I enjoy most of being part of a community with like minded people. Echo chambers can get very expensive as you are exposed to many more games than you normally would be lol. I have also really enjoyed joining groups that have a different perspective and it gets me to see value in what I didnt value before.
Ratings will never be an amazing solution. Best bet is to surround yourself with people that you enjoy, and take part in conversations to learn more about games you dont know, as well as the ones you know you will love.
Have you had much success with personal connection in these communities? If so how did you do it? I find that the chats feel like static and are hard to follow unless you live there
On the note about trick-taking. Taylor's trick taking table is a great youtube channel for more info on a lot of games.
I'll admit, I'm torn on putting a number to a review. On one hand, it communicates so much information so quickly. On the other, what information is being communicated isn't always clear. And when it becomes a way to rank games, it can get kind of funky (e.g., when people review bomb for one reason or another).
It would be great to really find a community and build new friendships. And I'd love to find an environment for something like that too.
But in the interim, while I definitely have found a few reviewers that seem to have similar tastes, I also have learned (a little more) where my tastes lie. So if a reviewer at least describes why they like a game, I can try to decipher what that would mean for me
Yeah finding a reviewer that works for you is certainly good. I just think more data is better especially from people that have zero incentive to be kind or even pull punches with particular publishers. It’s just the problem of not having unified systems that stops that from being helpful. Taylor is great he gave some suggestions when I was starting out.
That's why I like when Mr. Gorilla keeps mentioning Board Game Hangover. Definitely not the same tastes as me, but they structure their reviews in a very condensed, informative way that I can't help but truly appreciate.
yeah I appreciate their consistent structure that takes into consideration different tastes.
It’s really important to find reviewers that align with your taste.
In my early days I would buy any game that Quintin smith from susd would recommend. Later to find out we have very different tastes. But also look into why some reviewers rate a game lower in their final scores. Dice tower for instance. Chris the other day rated a game lower because it was long (2-3 hours). The argument was that it might not hit the table as often.
That for me is not a valid reason to rate a game lower.
If the game is good and a good experience. Then it shouldn’t get a lower score just for playing time alone.
Personal preference is valid as an argument for why it’s not for me. But as a reviewer you do have an obligation
What a good example with Chris, I think i have done that as well even if implied and not stated directly. 2-3 hour long games sucks to some and if in flow state is the best thing in the world. 2-3 hours seems like the objective measure that should be a yes/no qualifier rather than something that is tagged into a game as a negative. It’s also a shame that those scores coming from dice tower have a big influence over many in the space and have effect on that games ultimate performance.
@@Neon_Gorillaexactly.
I really like how some reviewers like shelfside does it - and maybe you did on some occasions I believe 😊
Give it an objective recommender score and then a personal score.
Like.:” it’s an 8 for game design, components, rule book, etc.
But for me personal it’s a 7”.
Something like that 😊
@@Michaelrsted that’s not a bad idea. Board game Hangover does something similar. Sort of a right for you wrong for you.
Top 10?
1) The 10 games you WANT TO PLAY the most/again?
2) The 10 you would take with you with a group to an isolated island for 5 years?
3) The top games based on the actually most played games (min/average on all inhabitants) in the world?
I guess these three lists will differ...
# 1 would need to be updated weekly for me #2 that is a lot of pressure might panic and say tic tac toe #3 answer is probably tic tac toe :)
You're absolutely right that a single number rating is not going to capture the nuances involved in personal preference and enjoyment. For me, theme is a critical part of gaming, in that if the rules of the game and the actions you're taking don't make logical sense in regards to the theme of the game itself I will ABSOLUTELY struggle with learning and retaining the rules. I think that's why I don't like trick taking games since they frequently boil down in my brain to numbers and then it just doesn't care.... And I immediately lose.
Great topic, and I very much enjoyed the video. I'm also nearby Portland so I guess I should leave the house to see what's out there. 🤔 Maybe.
thanks for watching, yeah another viewer mentioned theme needing to be connected to mechanics. I think I might want to refine how I think about theme. I just don't know where I would take it from. I do think I am unconsciously taking into account what you are talking about in the mechanic rating but not sure how to separate the two
I disagree pretty strongly with what you are saying here. I think that the BGG rating system works pretty well. The biggest strength of the BGG system is that you get a lot of votes. Making it more complicated to rate a game is only going to drastically decrease the amount of information we get. I also don’t like the idea of people insisting on rating a game using certain categories with different percentages as you show here. I don’t want people flattening their scores up or down toward 6 in some misguided attempt at objectivity. I hate it when people say things like “ I didn’t enjoy the game at all but clearly it’s a great design so I’ll give it a 7”. I want to know if you liked it, that’s pretty much it. You said you liked Cascadia better than Harmonies but then rate Harmonies higher… I really don’t like that.
The mistake is thinking that the top 100 games should somehow be an accurate representation for any individual gamer of games that they will like. It’s like assuming that the IMDb user top 100 will be my favorite 100 movies. It’s just an aggregated list of things that people like and I quite enjoy that it exists. It’s a good way of quickly identifying major hits that you might have missed. If all that you saw was algorithm directed pushing you further and further into whatever sub genre you are already in, how would you ever try new things? I think you would actually be less likely to find something like a newfound appreciation for trick-taking games if you were fed everything by an algorithm. The Crew shooting up the top 100 not long after it was released helped that game get exposure and introduced trick taking to a lot of people who may not have been identified by an algorithm as the “target audience”.
The key is to look at various different sources of information. Even on BGG the geek rating of a game is just one piece of the puzzle. You can set certain users with similar taste to yours as “geek buddies” and then see only their ratings. There are countless lists and rabbit holes that will take you off the beaten path and point out hidden gems. The there are countless resources on UA-cam, Facebook, discord, etc. that can give you more targeted recommendations and information including playthroughs of the games. If you bought a game solely because of its ranking on BGG and then don’t like it, that’s not because the ranking system is broken, it’s because you’re too lazy to find out if it’s a game for you or not.
I respect your opinion but clearly have a different one. My position is that many ratings are outdated, knee jerk without nuance and using different rule sets. It’s a diluted meld that is ultimately used as a marketing tool to sell games. You mentioned using many different resources to triangulate which is fine but time consuming. In terms of diversity of thought within these groups I think if you split by game type similar to what a ton of the discords I have been involved in already do then yes they become echo chambers. However if you connect on the building blocks of enjoyment, what ever they might be you might actually find more diversity then you are today sitting in the echo chamber that is BGG. Just my opinion. I thank you for yours.
@@Neon_Gorilla I still don’t really get what your actual suggestions are to fix the bgg ratings. I didn’t really see anything actionable in your video. I also don’t get why you consider me to be in an echo chamber just because I find the simplicity of the bgg system to be useful. I never advocated only using bgg and I have no trouble finding games I like in many different genres, so I’m not sure what the problem is supposed to be. Bottom line is that you will never get super high quality info from a bunch of unpaid hobbyists, nor should you expect to. You will never have a single number that tells you if you will like a game or not. But you can ask people on a scale of 1 to 10 how much did you like this? And you will get a general overall feel for what things are popular, which is something I enjoy having. Expecting user generated ratings to do more than that is honestly just a pipe dream.
@@andrewburnett6215 I think text is the disconnect. Face to face discussion might help us understand each other. Good news is we don’t have to agree which is the beauty of opinions.
@@Neon_Gorilla Maybe. It would help if your response was more concrete and specific. I was hoping for more based on the title of the video but I don’t really get what changes you are actually proposing.
@@andrewburnett6215 create categories, rank categories, use weighted average to derive nuanced overall rating, pair members based on weightings of different categories, create a community that helps those people connect and compare rankings. This is the entire video...sorry it did not come across, I am not a paid professional just a dude making videos that you do not have to watch.
I will pay you back in the form of playing trick takers with you online some time.
It is tough seeing some really great games suffer in the BGG ratings, especially trick taking/climbing/shedding games, and BGG is horrible for party games.
yeah that is what really got me thinking about this video. Every one of these community loved trick taking games weren't particularly well rated.
Have either of you played nyet? Also if you want to play trick taking games I'll be at bgg spring.
@@txsportsfreak02 I have never played nyet, just read the description and looks interesting. I have never been to the BGG con, do you recommend?
@@Neon_Gorilla it is amazing. Spring is smaller than fall. Only downside to spring is lack of food options without driving 10 to 15 minutes. But there is lots of good food. You just have to leave the airport.
@@txsportsfreak02 the airport thing is what throws me off a bit. I have been to that airport years ago and can’t remember a convention vibe:)
I tried to evaluate my games, the dififculty came when I guessed the thematic about each of them. I agree with you ; some games don't need a strong thematic. Nevertheless, others ARE thematic game, the narrative ones and ones that are card driven. I think about Arkham Horror (V3 and LCG), Fortune&Gloy or Fallen Land.
I do like the quality component of the games, I pimp mines.
yeah you bring up aother interesting wrinkle that I have been thinking about which is a dynamic weighting based upon a game. A thematic game where that is a main feature should probably be judged differently than a euro.
Chess actually doesn’t expand the board.
Chess board is 8x8 and checkers board is 10x10
But ok. You get to play on all squares on a chess board and not only half of them.
They are both 8x8 and chess expands the use to all squares in result expanding the number of squares. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboard#:~:text=Most%20commonly%2C%20it%20consists%20of,and%20white%20(printed%20diagrams).
I might've missed the part where you clarified this, but what site/tool did you use to compile the gallery? Is it a personal project of yours that is not yet released or an existing one?
I would be glad to use it as well.
Great video and insights, btw.
Thanks for watching. You did not miss it I did not say. It is a Notion Template I created. I might release it if I can refine it a bit.
@@Neon_Gorilla Thanks for the quick answer. I really hope you do, as it is really nice and useful, in my opinion. I made a rating system of my own as well, but in Excel. Among other boardgame-related Python projects.
@@ionursan9291 yeah it’s a pretty nice visual dashboard with what amounts to an excel spreadsheet driving it on the back end. It is pretty manual so I would need to add a couple automations prior to release.
Great points.
The rating system on bgg is a weird system.
Also it’s weird when people rate a kickstarter game when it’s not even out yet. Or rating it low because the publishers were bad at communication or deleting very late during the campaign.
The point about thematic as a rating. Is interesting. I usually didn’t care much for thematics. Beige euro was my thing 😅.
But theme is actually quite important when explaining and playing it game. The theme could really help you understand the mechanics of they make sense towards the theme.
An example could be barrage. A quite heavy game. But the contracts, the placement of dams and conduits and what ever. Makes a lot a sense. So you understand that idea/theme from real life. A great support to understand the rules/mechanics. 😊
You make a good point about the themes connection to mechanics. They are certainly a necessity to tell the story of why that game exists. It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine barrage without theme. I will say I would have to think about Barrages thematic implementation a bit as it’s set in a dystopian 1930s in the description. Not sure that comes through. Good food for thought thanks
When a reviewer rates a game they likely can say with little bias if its a good game or not. That is not what we all do on bgg. We dont rate if a game is good, we rate how fun it is for us. I dont think Terraforming Mars is objectively a 4. But its a boring thing for me cause ixhate economic euros so thats what it Got from me. Period.
Is it a problem that the ratings using your criteria are also used to rank a game in the top 100 games of all time?
@@Neon_Gorilla i mean, no, not really, because... if a game is liked a lot by a lot of people (not me, i dislike most of the top games on bgg, in top 20 there isxlike 1 i like and its a huge exception to my rules of what I generally like) then... yeah its likely a very good game. Again, not for me, but for most people. Unless everyone saw their own separate top whatever list, like tou sugested, it is the ebst we can have. Do you think games in the top 10 or top 100 are generally in technical sense greay board game design? Or not really? I think they are very good games that i dont want to have anything to do with, most of them at least, but hey. Definitely a better guideline for anyone who is not me than any top list i could create.
@@dago6410I think your perspective on not relating to the top ranked games is one in which I am trying to solve for. I think it is great and fun to have a man aggregate list just not particularly helpful to find games for an individual who like my self will likely never play twilight imperium.
First you need to get people to not use completely different rating criteria.
The recommended from BGG scale is not about game quality. It's about "How likely am I to play this game again" ... and a lot of people take that very seriously and rate games low just because they are too heavy for them.
Others rate by game design quality - some times trying to be objective, other times not.
And some rate a game 1 because the kickstarter was delayed ... and some rate it 10 to offset the stupid 1s ...
In conclusion... you won't fix this.
My proposal is exactly as you say
Good video. Was disappointed by the theory of fun book and its... well... theory of fun. I haven't read it, so I'm just going off your description. There are so many other things that contribute to "fun" in playing games than components related to skill/ability/challenge, depending on who you are - and of course that's the point of your video. For me, fun in games doesn't come from elements of skill/ability/challenge at all, but rather the experience of the game through its mechanics and emergent properties. As an example, I can play War of the Ring (solo - haven't found someone to play with) ad nauseum purely for the joy/fun of seeing a different story unfold every time. I really don't care whether I win or not, or whether I'm getting better at the game. I just want to see the saga play out and I really enjoy the unique mechanics of the game. The same is true for most games I play. For me that's the big disconnect with how most others view and rate games - I just want to experience them, and so many of the things that turn others off (like randomness) aren't a problem for me. Good video and totally agree with your premise on individual weightings of categories and cohorts of like-minded individuals.
thanks for watching, as for the book to be fair Ralph pivots into more a a designer perspective how to make games fun, but I do wonder about the range of emotions a board game brings up and if fun is even a fair description. Are we actually trying to feel satisfied or accomplished. I just played a great game of root where I was politicing the entire time to get the heat off of me knowing I had an explosive turn that would put me so close the win they could not stop me. During that time I wasn't joyful I was nervous, and in a complete flow state anticipating each person move and feeling relief as each person went around the table and ignored my win state. When I won I cam away with a sense of relief, pride and accomplishment. I think saying I had fun might be too general. As for your play style, that is clearly not represented properly by the ranking. I think a weighted system might help you find some hidden gems that aren't on your radar.
Just have ChatGPT clean that shit up and offer an alternative score that ignores stupid and useless comments.
generic aggregation is the devil
Well... the person reviewing that gave a 4 to Ark Nova and Brass because they were "too complicated" is clearly at the tic-tac-toe stage
Agreed
That is not a good review if a game is complicated or not. Or even one of the comments is too long to set up. That shouldn't decrease a rating either
@@jerryf196 fair opinion, i think it becomes difficult separating those from a players experience and ultimate review. A system of categories at least would let you click into why a game is rated the way it is. I guarantee those categories you mentioned are taken into account in many reviews on BGG.
I rate Ark Nova a 3 because it is bad and I likely won't play it again. 😉
you made up my mind for me now I know its not for me
I really appreciated the topic of this video, but as a gamer who primarily plays games for story theme and player interaction and not achieving some sort of mastery Flow State, I kind of bounced off the core premise.
Fair, I would say the core premise isn't about valuing one over the other it is about you being able to weight it how you want... Take the theme up to 50% and player inter action to 40% I don't care that is you and I respect that. Wouldn't it be great if you could be paired or at least see the best rated games from gamers such as your self. Looking at the top 10 on BGG I would wager those don't represent who you are as a gamer.
i found this 10 seconds cutting video super annoying. Cant you talk for a minute straight without 10 cuts in your own subject?
No