Making an Investment in Games
Just to be clear to start off here, this is not about spending money on games. Instead, the investment I'm talking about is that of time, effort, and attention in learning, playing, and developing a deeper understanding of a game. And this article is really just a further exploration and response to an awesome discussion held between the guys at Into the Gamescape on episode #51 of their most excellent podcast.
So, just to absolutely clarify the topic, what makes a game worth investing in?
Most all of us have relatively limited time to spend playing games. As we look at our game collections or browse through our local game stores or gather together trying to decide what will hit our game tables next, what sort of things go into that decision? A lot of things come to mind for me, so I thought I'd spend a little time exploring this concept a little further.
But let me start by telling you a story about Magic: The Gathering. I really love Magic as a game and as a sub-hobby all its own. Twice in my life, I've been into it heavily, the last of which was during the Odyssey, Onslaught, and Mirrodin blocks. I didn't have a lot
of opportunity to actually play the game, but I collected it aggressively, spent an inordinate amount of time reading about it online, and continually fiddled around with deck construction. Despite only getting to play in tournaments (mostly Friday Night Magic) once or twice a month, I still made the investment of time and money to keep up with it. Then, one random day, I was able to pop into the local store to play a few games one afternoon. A handful of the regulars were there, and I knew they played Magic, but for whatever reason, no one wanted to play with me. Maybe they just played it so much that they wanted a little break or something or there was a new video game on the console in the back of the store that they had been excited about for a while, but for whatever reason, what I found then was that despite all the time I had poured into preparation, clearing the time with my wife, and then driving across town, Magic (both the game and the hobby) didn't pay me back with the fun I expected. As I walked out of the store, I knew I was going to give up Magic, probably for good, because it just wasn't worth the investment to me anymore. A lot is different in my life now; with my family, my job, and in having a regular gaming group. But I still guard my gaming time very jealously, and want to invest it as wisely as possible to reap the greatest yield of fun that I can. And in thinking about this topic, I really have to sort games into three categories in order to clarify how I might decide which ones I want to play.
The first category is Games I Haven't Played Yet, and the decision here is whether or not to try (and/or buy) a game for the first time. Factors that I consider (roughly in order of importance) include: what my friends/geekbuddies think of it, reviews from people that I trust online, general buzz on BGG and around the internet, game length, theme, and (if I have time) what I think after reading the rules. In addition, new games all have an extra allure to me because learning, teaching, and just figuring out games is fun for me almost regardless of how good the game itself might be. And so, obviously, the more unique or interesting things I hear about a game, the more I'm excited about checking it out myself.
Let's keep moving, however, and talk some about my second category of games, which I'll call Games I've Already Invested In. These are games that I've already spent a good amount of time playing in the past, am familiar with their rules, and probably have gone to the "next level" of understanding for play and strategy. For the most part, I've probably already made up my mind about how "worthy" they are of additional play time, but sometimes I think I have a subconscious "been there, done that" attitude about them, regardless of how much I like a game, that makes me more willing to turn to new stuff.
But the main focus of the discussion in the podcast was actually more about Games I Might Want to Invest In, which are games that I've played a time or two, am generally familiar with, and which show some potential for further depth and exploration. The #1 indication that I need to spend more time with a game is when I find
myself thinking about it away from the gaming table. If a game can capture my imagination and almost demand attention in this way, then it will almost certain result in more gaming time. The second factor that makes me want to invest time in a game is related to something I usually refer as "multiple paths to victory", but which really just deals with how many possible strategies exist in the game. I use the word "explore" a lot when I talk about playing games, because a good part of the love I have for games is an appreciation of the games themselves, the systems they create, and what sorts of things they can do, and uncovering all this through play really does feel like exploration to me. I can value and sometimes even enjoy games that are mostly about being efficient in one particular path, but the ability to do something completely different from one game to the next (and still hopefully have a chance to win) is a lot more fun to me. This is one of the things that made me love Magic so much, because to me, deck building was all about exploring the possibilities contained within a particular card set and seeing what sort of things you could make it do. While some people would often focus on one or two decks that they felt were the most competitive, I usually carried around 2 or 3 card boxes full of different decks that I wanted to play around with and see how competitive I could make them.
The next thing that I'll throw out as a factor is game length. Let me be clear, however, that I'm not actually against long games at all, in fact, I played a 3-hour game just this week at game night. But if I'm going to invest more time than usual in playing a game, I expect to get more fun than usual from my investment. So the term I like to use for this is "fun density", which is (to give a mathematical definition to a thoroughly subjective concept) the amount of fun I get from a game divided by its length. I've had a lot of fun playing Twilight Imperium in the past, but for the same 8-hour investment of time, I could have had a heck of a lot more fun playing 12 or more games of Pandemic or Hansa Teutonica or something else that has a much higher (in my opinion) fun density.
Looks great, right? But how long did it take to get to this moment of fun?
Something else that play a part in my decision is the game's learning curve, which can be sort of a double-edged sword at times. First and foremost, I need to feel like I'm getting better at a game the more I play it, so a game needs to have enough depth and learning curve that you can tell a noticeable difference in your skill level with repeated play. If a new player can catch on immediately and have a decent chance of winning, why then would you ever bother investing much more effort in "learning" the game? But on the other hand, sometimes a game will have such a steep learning curve that you have to invest a considerable amount of time in it before you really have much fun with it at all. This "required investment" can definitely become a
significant barrier to entry and is what keeps me away from many games that ask players to play successive games or scenarios that introduce rules incrementally.Learning curve can also become a problem if you find yourself on the wrong side of it. Games like chess and Puerto Rico are very hard to enjoy when you're playing with people who are far more skilled in them than you are. If you're all discovering the game together and staying at roughly the same place on the curve, then they can be fun, but catching up once you've been left behind is often quite miserable.
The last factor that I'll mention is actually external to either the game or me personally, and that's how excited my game group is about a particular game. If everyone is already playing a game, then it's very easy to get in more plays of it and make the investment. Plus, excitement is often contagious and can spill over to me and others very quickly. But the converse is also true, because if your gaming partners have an aversion to the game for some reason, it becomes that much harder for you to make an investment in it, regardless of how much you may like it.
And of course, in real life, rarely do I think quite this explicitly about why I may or may not be interested in giving time to a particular game. I think that all of this stuff is still floating around in my head, but it often feels a lot more like a "gut" sort of thing when I am attracted to a game enough to make an investment in it.
Still, though, what do you think of my list? Are the same things involved in your decision-making? What gets you fired up about a game and makes you want to get it back to the table?
*Magic: The Gathering image provided via BGG by Mike Hulsebus
Great article Chris. I also think a lot of games can be brought back out. Just because a game is 5-10 years old does not make it a bad game. A lot of players seem to play just the latest game that has come out on the shelf that month or within the last couple months. But, every now and then, a game that is several years old makes it to the table. One that comes to mind is Ra. It makes it's way back into our group even though it;s now several years old. It's still an oldie but a goodie. i too get disappointed by buying a game for 50-60 bucks and then nobody want to play it, but I keep it with the thought that some day, i'll crack it back out and it will be one of the popular games of the night again. One can only hope.
Reply to this
You also need to remember that you've come into a relatively mature gaming group. We've already played a lot of games, and members may have already made up their minds about something that is completely new to you. And even if they liked the game, there tends (as I mentioned in the article) to be a feeling of "been there, done that" because they have already figured out what the game has to offer. Ra is actually one of the exceptions that has always gotten a lot of play, but there are a lot of others that languish in no-play limbo.
For me, on the other side of the membership spectrum, it's been pretty cool to see how many games actually have had revivals in play. Notre Dame is one that was almost completely ignored (for what reason I don't know) when it first came out, but then got super popular and had a really awesome run as GotM! in this "new group". And probably the biggest sufferers of the BTDT syndrome are old GotM!'s, many of which I'd love to get back out and play some more.
And while this article was specifically not about spending money on games, a lot of the same factors also go into deciding what you want to buy. If you're buying before you try it, you're always taking a pretty big chance that it will bomb (both for the group and for you personally). But as one of the long-term "game buyers" of the group, sometimes you gotta go for it anyway based on what you think you'll like. And if you're buying a game that's already popular, you really do need to gauge the wave of excitement so that you're not on the tail end of it.
Reply to this
Nice write-up, Chris. I agree with a lot of your points, here, and I think that I go through most of the same thoughts (but like you, as a "gut" reaction). For me, which factor is biggest will even sway back and forth - right now it is Internet write-ups, previously it has been which company makes the game, I've also felt the sting of whether my gaming group will accept it. Overall nice thoughts, though. It really made me think through my own gaming habits.
Reply to this
Into The Gamescape is BACK! Hooray! I had given up hope. They podfaded and I was sad. Now I'm glad. Chris, you are my hero for the next 5 minutes.
To the topic, I agree with most of your points. I have a similar story as your Magic one but with Star Trek CCG. Lots of $$ spent, no one would play it. Pokemon also to some extent. So I use this as one of my benchmarks. "Is this new game going to be another Star Trek?"
I like your categories. I would say I use this too. I have another that you do not (yet) have. 'Can I play this with my kids/will my kids play this?' I'll address this one at the end. Though my game collection is very much smaller than yours. The 'not played yet' category is large. I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts and read a lot of gaming blogs. So I have a ton of games that sound interesting that I want to investigate. Your suggestion of reading the rules online is a good one that I need to do more often. My 'games I might want to invest in' list is long. One function of our game group to me is to try out games. I can see if I want to buy some games before I actually buy them. Online versions also serve this purpose. Example: Notre Dame and Arkadia. I bought ND based on play at Hypermind. Arkadia is on my Buy List because of Yucata.de. I totally agree that a game that has me thinking about it after play is probably worth of investment. Macao is my example of this. I can't get it out of my mind. Strategizing afterward is a good sign that I will want to visit this game more. Multiple paths of victory is another key I have too. And this speaks to replay value. A game must have replay value for me. Here the $$ comes into play.
Game length is a big one too. I just don't have 4 hours to invest in one game that often. 45 - 90 minutes is about my limit right now. Though there are exceptions. Tuesday nights in particular speak to this point. I drive 45 minutes each way to game night. I want to get as much bang for my time as possible in the 4-5 hours I there. Also my eight year old's attention span is about 45 minutes so I have to take that into consideration. I like your idea of 'fun density'. I use this too just haven't named it. This is a really big aspect of a game for me. And really this is a big one for everybody. "How fun was this game?" It is hard to quantify sometimes but again Macao is an example of this. I really enjoy this game. That is why it is my #1 for 2010.
Learning curve. Learning curve is usually steep for me. It takes me at least 3 plays on MOST games to get them or feel comfortable or feel like I actually have a chance to win. I'm slow like this. If a game is difficult for me to get, frustration sets in and it goes off the list. Dominion is an example. I just don't get it. And I do not want to 'waste' time playing it. Group excitement does play in also.
I want to speak to Shawn's point of being new to the group. I'm relatively new also. Continued below.
Reply to this
Continued from previous post
Being new to the group. As I said I have been with the group only a year. So there are a lot of older games that I haven't played. I too would like to see some of them come out. I was very glad to see Ra come out. It's a really good game and is on my Buy List. Things like San Juan, Acquire, El Grande, Taj Mahal, and Citadels are in this category. Maybe have a GOTM where we bring back former GOTM and old games?
Addressing the idea of spending money on a game. This is a big one for me. And for everyone I'm sure. That is one of the givens of this whole article. You don't want to buy a game and then no one play it. By the way, I appreciate all of our 'long time game buyers' that allow us to try new games. I'm trying to add new games to the group stock. I've decided that half my purchases in a year will be games new to the group (either brand new or only one other copy available to play). Does that make sense? Homesteaders was a game that I decided to take a chance on. Good reviews and relatively cheap. It was a good investment from the standpoint of it has become my daughter's favorite game. My kids will play it. But I could not get anyone at Hypermind to give it a chance for 4 months. Alton finally jumped into a game because he liked the theme. Charles joined us. They liked it pretty well. Recently several more have played and liked it. So it will be in my bag and I hope more people will want to play. Point is investing in a game no one else has is a risk and plays into whether I will buy a game or not. And everyone has this hurdle to jump with each game they play I'm sure.
In summary, good article.
Reply to this
The biggest difference in the "Will My Kids Play This" category is that kid's games (for the most part) don't really require a lot of investment, other than the money to buy them, of course. But speaking about buying, I'd definitely say that the possibility of playing the game with Gwen or, someday, Samantha and Corinne is a huge mark on the pro side of the equation.
And I just don't know why it takes so much effort to get some games noticed. I still, for instance, haven't tried out Homesteaders! I don't have anything against it, but it has just always seemed that when it was mentioned, I was either already committed to a game or really excited about playing something else that evening. And then sometimes, for no good reason, I think that people and maybe even the whole group get a bad or weird or just wonky impression of a game.
Your point about length is also something that I need to note. I mentioned in the article that I don't mind playing longer games, as long as the "fun density" is good. But at the same time, I agree that on a purely length basis, I just don't have the opportunity to play games longer than 3-4 hours much at all any more. And when I have a block of time like that, I'm probably going to think more along the lines of doing some roleplaying rather than a big boardgame. Because it's also true that those big boardgames are usually pretty complex and deep, so they would shine best with repeated play, which I just can't give to them at this point in my life.
Reply to this