On the latest Game On! with Cody and John (Episode 42, the Great Debate), their "big deal" was a discussion about the difference between a game being "great" and being "fun".  It almost made me mad listening to it, not because I don't like them or anything, but just because they fudged around saying a few interesting things here and there, but never came to any real conclusions or even really defined their terms very well.  So go and listen to it; it's still a really good episode (because I still really like them, even if I'm about to unleash a bit of a raving rant here about this topic).

Alright, now let me get some stuff off my chest. 

I made some decisions about this subject way back in February of 2008, when Power Grid was the Game of the Month! for my group.  Just in case you haven't been paying attention around here, I don't like Power Grid much (and you can check out my review of it to see why).  But going into the month, I was programmed by all the positivity surrounding it on BoardGameGeek.  And even while I'd sit there bored out of my skull playing, I could appreciate the elegance and innovation of the game design.  But as I thought over and over again all month long about what kind of rating I would give it, I had to decide whether or not reputation and design pedigree alone were enough to make me rate it highly. 

But as I've said before, the whole point of playing games is to have fun.  Notice that I am not, however, trying to define what you might personally think is "fun".  For some, it is hooping and hollering in wild, silly jubilation.  For others, it would be through engaging in a cerebral battle of wits with over something particularly brain-burny.  For me, it might be either one or both or something in between, depending on my mood, the group I'm with, or any other number of factors.  But again, if the game is not making you happy by having whatever you define as fun, then why the heck would you be playing it?

And so, therefore, why would you ever rate a game highly or (in the terms of this particular discussion) ever call a game "great" if it fails to do for you what the whole point of games is to do?  And in the end with Power Grid, I came to the realization that a game cannot be considered "great" if you don't have fun with it.  (I rate it a 6, by the way, which really isn't that bad, but reflects that it's pretty boring...)

Now, I think where Cody and John really failed in their discussion was in deciding whether or not "greatness" was or was not something that could be objectively defined.  They waffled back and forth about it, and never really defined what factors would constitute greatness.  And in my exalted and all-important opinion (when it comes to writing on this blog, anyway), that's because it can't be done.  Greatness is inherently subjective. 
 
So, can there be anything that actually is objective about a game?  I think yes.  Production quality is pretty cut-and-dried.  Rules clarity is more or less obvious.  And, as Cody and John frequently alluded to, even design quality (efficiency, elegance, refinement, or whatever words you want to use) can be assessed independently from personal opinion.   So while I can appreciate that Power Grid is a well-designed game with a very clever resource market and extremely tight and efficient mechanics, I still wouldn't feel comfortable calling it "great" because playing it is only slightly more exciting to me than watching paint dry. 

And on the flipside, there are also lots of games that I have a lot of fun with, but which I still wouldn't consider "great".  Bang! is a good example, because I can have a lot of fun with it, especially with the right group and when it's late in the evening and we're all a bit loopy from getting up early and working all day.  But still, there are some major issues with the rules and balance in the game. 

To me, a game is "great" only when you have the perfect storm between all these different factors. A great game is well-designed, intuitive to understand and play, engages my thoughts even away from the table, looks nice, plays in a reasonable amount of time for its depth, and is, more than anything else, fun.  

And finally, I'll make one last little rant.  Cody and John, along with several other podcasters and other people around the internets, seem to frequently disparage the rankings on BGG and refer to them with more than a little disdain.  They seem to imply that these ratings were based on the high-minded and judgemental opinion of snooty game snobs.  But in reality, between 3 and 20 thousand gamers rated the top 10 games there, and voting is open to anyone, regardless of what kind of games are their favorites.

And contrary to this popular opinion, the rating system at BGG is not based on how "great" or "well designed" you think a game is.  Instead, the ratings are supposed to be a reflection of the subjective replayability that a game has for you.  In other words, you rate how much you want to play it, how excited you are about it, or really, how much fun it is for you.  Now, of course, I can't guarantee that people actually use the ratings as they were designed, but at the same time, you also can't assume that everyone misuses them either. 

And who's to say that the reason that Agricola, Puerto Rico, Twilight Struggle, Through the Ages, and yes, even Power Grid aren't there because people who rate them highly actually have fun playing them. And even then, as with any voting process, the "winners" will be determined by overall popularity and general opinion, rather than some objective standard.

Okay, that's all out of my system now.  So, what do you think about the relationship of greatness and fun in games?  Am I going to prompt a