I perosnally prefer to call boardgames things based on the material that makes up more than 50% of the included pieces (not counting the box obviously). My first step, when receiving any new game, is to separate every piece into corresponding piles on my kitchen table. I then gather each pile into its own jumbo sized ziplock bag and head down to the local supermarket to weigh each bag in the produce scales (I do not have a scale at home). I record the results in my journal, and then transfer the data into a spreadsheet. After analyzing the data, I label the game box accordingly; "Wood Fun Time" for mostly wooden games, "Plastic Play Joy" for the plastic ones, and finally "Paper Good Times" for the paper/cardboard ones. I have yet to find a mostly metal board game.
Here I thought I was the only one...
Crossfire is mostly metal if you consider the metal balls to be the core of the game.
So, is the entire point of this topic to just to bring in terminology from another social board to accommodate one person, or is this just a huge round-about way to say, "Stop liking what I don't like?"
When I describe the games I play to my non gamer friends and acquaintances, I explain to them that I play games that usually require more skill than luck, and often explain to them why some of the main stream games are actually bad games or non-games (like Sorry!).
The terms Ameritrash and Euro to describe games are used by people to typically play the "Euro" games. People who play the mainstream games like Monopoly call them board games.
Fair enough. I prefer elegant mechanics as well. It's just that after I had gotten into the board gaming hobby for a while, I noticed that my tastes lied within confrontational games and "Ameritrash" games suit my tastes better.
So, is the entire point of this topic to just to bring in terminology from another social board to accommodate one person, or is this just a huge round-about way to say, "Stop liking what I don't like?"
Initially, I had absolutely no idea that "Eurogame" and "Ameritrash" were not used here and I was quite startled when Rym and Scott, who are rather well-versed in hobbyist tabletop gaming, rejected the nomenclature. So, I tried to clarify the terms, and I inevitably received a shit-storm from various posters who wanted to make me "see the error of my ways". I'm not trying to stop anyone from liking what they like. I'm trying to state that those terms do have some utility.
Regardless, nothing will change my mind about those terms since they've helped me and countless others filter through the games we dislike and find the games we do like.
I've never seen someone who feels so strongly about the definitions of two words. I wonder how much you flip out about things that actually matter.
There are more of us terminology fanatics in the deep, dark, violent, pits of "combat-driven game" (since some people here hate the word "Ameritrash" or even "Wargame") forums on Board Game Geek! The same goes with those who prefer engine-builders. I've seen numerous threads on BGG where Ameritrashers start bad-mouthing Eurogames and vice-versa.
My preferences and priorities are definitely weird. For example, I get pissed whenever I got below 96% on a Calculus test in high school, and yet, I'm not concerned with my bodily health.
I think you just need to calm down. I play all the games: party, abstract, sport, ameritrash, euro and *gasp* casual.
Its cool to have a preference (mine is euro) but to simply say no when something new is offered is just being a dick. The game you thought you would not like may turned out could be something you would really enjoy.
I think you just need to calm down. I play all the games: party, abstract, sport, ameritrash, euro and *gasp* casual.
Its cool to have a preference (mine is euro) but to simply say no when something new is offered is just being a dick. The game you thought you would not like may turned out could be something you would really enjoy.
I don't mind trying out a new Euro. I gave Terra Mystica a go in the first place despite being heavily rooted in conflict-driven games. I'm just incredibly skeptical of trying one in the first place since games lacking combat feel lackluster.
But yeah, maybe I should cool my fervent Ameritrash/Wargame nerd rage and be a little more open to Euros. This is completely hypocritical, but I actually want to design a game where each player controls a corporation, and the whole point of the game is to eliminate other players by filing lawsuits, bleeding them to bankruptcy, buying up their shares, etc. It would be nice to have a German-style board game that's centered on player elimination.
OK; presumably by "abstract" you mean this, right? Complete lack of randomness (whether due to explicit randomization, hidden information, or simultaneous turns), and lack of a theme.
However, what does the presence or absence of a theme have to do with the underlying mechanics? Why should that affect the categorization? Similarly, why is presence or absence of randomness particularly relevant?
Based on what you've said, you're really into games involving what you call "direct conflict". In that context, what does it gain you to call a game "abstract"? After all, a game being abstract doesn't mean that it must have direct conflict, or that cannot have direct conflict, does it?
If direct conflict is what you're looking for, why do you need categories? Can't you just ask whether the game involves direct conflict or not, or ask about the extent of that conflict? Also, can you even give a definition for what, exactly, it means to have "direct conflict" in a game?
Well... you can't get eliminated-eliminated from Imperial. You can potentially sit around without having anything to control for the whole game, though. You can also crash armies into one another and (almost) shut down an entire country. Player elimination just won't win you the game by itself.
Euro where you WIN via multiplayer elimination: Puzzle Strike.
OK; presumably by "abstract" you mean this, right? Complete lack of randomness (whether due to explicit randomization, hidden information, or simultaneous turns), and lack of a theme.
However, what does the presence or absence of a theme have to do with the underlying mechanics? Why should that affect the categorization? Similarly, why is presence or absence of randomness particularly relevant?
Abstracts generally focus on achieving deep emergent gameplay through minimalist rule sets and simple components. Most of the time, this means abstracts will have deterministic outcomes since probability can add more complexity without increasing depth. At their core, their design concept revolves around maximizing elegance, especially through minimizing complexity. Of course, since emergent gameplay is such a key priority, most, if not all theme will be absent. Backgammon has a luck component to it, but it's still an abstract since its holistic design concept revolves around minimalism.
If direct conflict is what you're looking for, why do you need categories? Can't you just ask whether the game involves direct conflict or not? Also, can you even give a definition for what, exactly, it means to have "direct conflict" in a game?
I get your point. First of all, let me define "direct conflict". Direct conflict is any system of mechanics which allow a player to attack another player's or players' assets or means of production directly. So, if a game allows you to send troops to blow up another player's factories, the game has direct conflict. Note that this is different from mechanics which only allow players to deny or block potential gains, which are mostly indirect conflict.
The problem is, many hardcore hobbyist board gamers still refer to games as being "Ameritrash", "Euros", "Wargames", etc., so I use the aforementioned terms quite frequently. It's almost impossible to find a Eurogame (i.e. most engine-builder race games) with high levels of player conflict, whereas it's so much easier finding a Wargame with direct conflict.
Based on what you've said, you're really into games involving what you call "direct conflict". In that context, what does it gain you to call a game "abstract"? After all, a game being abstract doesn't mean that it must have direct conflict, or that cannot have direct conflict, does it?
That sort of proves my initial point about the utility of board gaming nomenclature. There are plenty of games which share similar mechanics, but the way in which the mechanics are presented can create an entirely different core experience. For example, in an Abstract, direct conflict may be used insofar as it contributes to the depth of a game. In a Wargame, direct conflict is portrayed more realistically, with terrain modifiers, penalties, morale bonuses, etc., whereas in an Ameritrash, direct conflict emphasizes drama.
Well... you can't get eliminated-eliminated from Imperial. You can potentially sit around without having anything to control for the whole game, though. You can also crash armies into one another and (almost) shut down an entire country. Player elimination just won't win you the game by itself.
Euro where you WIN via multiplayer elimination: Puzzle Strike.
Didn't David Sirlin get rid of player elimination in Puzzle Strike?
Fair play... Puzzle Strike pre-3rd Edition. I had to look really hard for a euro that not only has elimination, but where you have to eliminate people to win!
Fair play... Puzzle Strike pre-3rd Edition. I had to look really hard for a euro that not only has elimination, but where you have to eliminate people to win!
That's exactly why I argue in favour of the nomenclature.
Fair play... Puzzle Strike pre-3rd Edition. I had to look really hard for a euro that not only has elimination, but where you have to eliminate people to win!
That's exactly why I argue in favour of the nomenclature.
So the type of game you are looking for is something that has an end game mechanic of Monopoly. There is a classicifation for that, hostage games.
Abstracts generally focus on achieving deep emergent gameplay through minimalist rule sets and simple components. Most of the time, this means abstracts will have deterministic outcomes since probability can add more complexity without increasing depth. At their core, their design concept revolves around maximizing elegance, especially through minimizing complexity. Of course, since emergent gameplay is such a key priority, most, if not all theme will be absent. Backgammon has a luck component to it, but it's still an abstract since its holistic design concept revolves around minimalism.
OK; that's pretty reasonable, although I'm skeptical of the idea that randomness is contrary to minimalist depth.
If direct conflict is what you're looking for, why do you need categories? Can't you just ask whether the game involves direct conflict or not? Also, can you even give a definition for what, exactly, it means to have "direct conflict" in a game?
I get your point. First of all, let me define "direct conflict". Direct conflict is any system of mechanics which allow a player to attack another player's or players' assets or means of production directly. So, if a game allows you to send troops to blow up another player's factories, the game has direct conflict. Note that this is different from mechanics which only allow players to deny or block potential gains, which are mostly indirect conflict.
That adds some clarity, but then it relies upon a notion of what an "asset" is, which, I think, is actually not that easy to define in an abstract sense.
The problem is, many hardcore hobbyist board gamers still refer to games as being "Ameritrash", "Euros", "Wargames", etc., so I use the aforementioned terms quite frequently. It's almost impossible to find a Eurogame (i.e. most engine-builder race games) with high levels of player conflict, whereas it's so much easier finding a Wargame with direct conflict.
The terms are much less frequently used and understood on this forum, so around here it would generally be better to go into more detail. Besides, if you go into more detail you're much more likely to hit on more important aspects of the gameplay.
Based on what you've said, you're really into games involving what you call "direct conflict". In that context, what does it gain you to call a game "abstract"? After all, a game being abstract doesn't mean that it must have direct conflict, or that cannot have direct conflict, does it?
That sort of proves my initial point about the utility of board gaming nomenclature. There are plenty of games which share similar mechanics, but the way in which the mechanics are presented can create an entirely different core experience. For example, in an Abstract, direct conflict may be used insofar as it contributes to the depth of a game. In a Wargame, direct conflict is portrayed more realistically, with terrain modifiers, penalties, morale bonuses, etc., whereas in an Ameritrash, direct conflict emphasizes drama.
A reasonable point. That said, it doesn't get to the heart of why you brought this up in the first place - what are the underlying reasons why this kind of categorization matters to you?
I can't really follow the conversation. I'm fine with arguing semantics. Wanting to strictly categorize things has its purpose at times. All communication hinges on the audience. Honestly, Euro/American are probably two of the weakest terms. We already have terms for most of the really important pieces (hidden information, randomness, cooperative, competitive, number of players, game length, etc). And we have identities for themes and groups of similar mechanics.
As for being precise, it's true. Language is not precise all the time. But when you debate/argue among intelligent adults, as we do here, we ONLY use perfectly precise language. Your language is so slapdash we don't even know what you are trying to say.
The only "perfectly precise language" is that of mathematics, and that cannot apply directly to the real world without necessarily incurring some degree of imprecision.
Not bad. There does seem to be some merit in identifying different design philosophies, and how those philosophies tend to manifest in the design of a game. Of course, I think we've all made it clear that such distinctions can be rather blurry around the edges, but as long as you can reasonably put forth a solid number of nontrivial empirical examples there is some merit to having a category.
That being said, there are a couple of issues with your thinking that I think are important to bring up.
My point is, the terms "Eurogame" and "Ameritrash" still have utility in at least giving a generalized idea of the types of board games. I honestly don't see how it's stupid to group games centered on out-building your opponents and pushing cubes for VPs into one category and having a separate category for games more centered on direct player conflict. There are edge cases, but many games can be sufficiently as one or the other, and if not, there are plenty of other categories such as "Casual", "Cooperative", "Abstract", "Customizable", or "Wargame".
I take issue with the need to necessarily put something into a category. Games can and will be idiosyncratic! Yes, there are groups of games that share a lot of similarity, and there is nothing wrong with using a label for such groups, but you're making a big mistake if you try to come up with top-level categories for everything.
Another aspect of your terminology that bothers me is that you may be risking conflation of multiple aspects of games that do not necessarily go together. For example, in the "Ameritrash" category, some of the "tenets" include thematic design, player conflict, and uncertainty. Now, it may well be true, as proposed by the article, these aspects tend to enhance drama. It may also be true that some of these aspects are often grouped together with some design goal in mind.
If those things are true, what that translates to is a correlation between certain design aspects of the game. It tells you some information, yes, but does it answer the underlying questions? Apparently there's something that is typical of Ameritrash games that you like about them; if so, why the hell aren't we talking about the underlying issue rather than talking about semantics!?
What Ameritrash games with confrontation are you talking about? Monopoly? Sorry!?
Sorry for not providing examples: Titan, Runewars, Earth Reborn, Battlelore, and Burning Suns, to name a few. Give Runewars a shot. It's a great game.
I wouldn't consider any of those to be "Ameritrash". I dislike the term, but I think it would be more apt to reference games with very little or no skill involved, i.e. Sorry, Monopoly, or have poor mechanics and rely on theme or nostalgia for their sales (most licensed games by the larger companies are crap, though not all).
Comments
Crossfire is mostly metal if you consider the metal balls to be the core of the game.
So, is the entire point of this topic to just to bring in terminology from another social board to accommodate one person, or is this just a huge round-about way to say, "Stop liking what I don't like?"
Regardless, nothing will change my mind about those terms since they've helped me and countless others filter through the games we dislike and find the games we do like.
My preferences and priorities are definitely weird. For example, I get pissed whenever I got below 96% on a Calculus test in high school, and yet, I'm not concerned with my bodily health.
Its cool to have a preference (mine is euro) but to simply say no when something new is offered is just being a dick. The game you thought you would not like may turned out could be something you would really enjoy.
But yeah, maybe I should cool my fervent Ameritrash/Wargame nerd rage and be a little more open to Euros. This is completely hypocritical, but I actually want to design a game where each player controls a corporation, and the whole point of the game is to eliminate other players by filing lawsuits, bleeding them to bankruptcy, buying up their shares, etc. It would be nice to have a German-style board game that's centered on player elimination.
However, what does the presence or absence of a theme have to do with the underlying mechanics? Why should that affect the categorization? Similarly, why is presence or absence of randomness particularly relevant?
Based on what you've said, you're really into games involving what you call "direct conflict". In that context, what does it gain you to call a game "abstract"? After all, a game being abstract doesn't mean that it must have direct conflict, or that cannot have direct conflict, does it?
If direct conflict is what you're looking for, why do you need categories? Can't you just ask whether the game involves direct conflict or not, or ask about the extent of that conflict? Also, can you even give a definition for what, exactly, it means to have "direct conflict" in a game?
Euro where you WIN via multiplayer elimination: Puzzle Strike.
The problem is, many hardcore hobbyist board gamers still refer to games as being "Ameritrash", "Euros", "Wargames", etc., so I use the aforementioned terms quite frequently. It's almost impossible to find a Eurogame (i.e. most engine-builder race games) with high levels of player conflict, whereas it's so much easier finding a Wargame with direct conflict. That sort of proves my initial point about the utility of board gaming nomenclature. There are plenty of games which share similar mechanics, but the way in which the mechanics are presented can create an entirely different core experience. For example, in an Abstract, direct conflict may be used insofar as it contributes to the depth of a game. In a Wargame, direct conflict is portrayed more realistically, with terrain modifiers, penalties, morale bonuses, etc., whereas in an Ameritrash, direct conflict emphasizes drama.
So what are we specifically talking about again?
That being said, there are a couple of issues with your thinking that I think are important to bring up. I take issue with the need to necessarily put something into a category. Games can and will be idiosyncratic! Yes, there are groups of games that share a lot of similarity, and there is nothing wrong with using a label for such groups, but you're making a big mistake if you try to come up with top-level categories for everything.
Another aspect of your terminology that bothers me is that you may be risking conflation of multiple aspects of games that do not necessarily go together. For example, in the "Ameritrash" category, some of the "tenets" include thematic design, player conflict, and uncertainty. Now, it may well be true, as proposed by the article, these aspects tend to enhance drama. It may also be true that some of these aspects are often grouped together with some design goal in mind.
If those things are true, what that translates to is a correlation between certain design aspects of the game. It tells you some information, yes, but does it answer the underlying questions? Apparently there's something that is typical of Ameritrash games that you like about them; if so, why the hell aren't we talking about the underlying issue rather than talking about semantics!?
Seriously, when is that book coming out. I'm really jonesing for my Dunyain fix.
And Dominion