Recently, one of the fine gentlemen at Games Magazine took me to task for making what he thought were spiteful pot shots at the magazine's choices for their Game of the Year award. He felt it unfair of me to sit from my position of editing a magazine in which I can pretty much say whatever I want to say about gaming, and to pass judgement on a mass market publication with a different readership and different marketplace realities. He also noted that while I criticized their choices, I wasn't offering up any alternatives.
There was a lot of merit in his polite chastisement. I'm not the only TGR reader to express dismay over board game coverage in Games Magazine. In recent issues, Games has started to give German games and their ilk more exposure (and the magazine got many positive responses to Ray Pfeifer's article on Siedler, 6 Nimmt!, Auf Heller und Pfennig, and Was Sticht?). There are a number of people who, like myself, would like to see Games do more than mention them as mere anomalies. TGR readers know that nothing American game companies have produced in recent years can hold a candle to the output from Germany, and in our enthusiasm we want to carry that message to as wide an audience as we can. If Americans would only find out about these games, one thought goes, perhaps the American game industry can experience the kind of renaissance seen in Europe.
That's what we'd like Games to be— a four color glossy version of TGR with national distribution. But the reality of the marketplace is that such a publication would probably fold within a year. There just isn't enough interest. Games is, first and foremost, a puzzle magazine. They didn't spin off a Games' World of Board Games sister magazine, after all. And the readers who are interested in board games want to read about games they can run out and buy for a reasonable price, not things they'll have to pay upwards of forty dollars for through mail order.
On the bright side, the market may slowly be shifting in our direction. Mayfair's summer invasion of German imports gives Games a legitimate reason to give these products some exposure. Winning Moves, a new company which counts among its prinipals Alex Randolph, one of Europe's finest game inventors, may be a Euro-style game company on our own shores. If these ventures succeed, we may see others follow and the American game scene may finally evolve into something more closely resembling the gaming circles TGR readers have been playing in for years.
So I understand why Games covers what it covers. On the matter of their Game of the Year award, however, I'm not inclined to give much ground. The Games staff chooses games they play again and again and again. They choose games they find entertaining and which they believe appeal to a wide audience. Peachy. I just disagree with their choices. But rather than throw stones, let me play Editor For a Day and revisit their choices for the past few years, offering up my own replacements. I'll even play fair and stick to games featured in their own Games 100 for that year.
In 1992, Games chose Pipeline and actually, this wasn't a bad choice. It's fast, it's fun, and it's easy to learn. It's not without problems, though— the rules could use some rewriting to clarify what constitutes an illegal play, and if you get lousy tiles you're pretty much hosed. For pure fun, though, I think I'd have chosen Split Second. When we first played, we did so skeptically. But we had such a blast that we immediately played it two or three times more. It's exciting, and nobody feels stupid if they don't know the answer because much of the time nobody knows the right answer— you're just trying to come closest. This game is always a big hit at the games class I teach, which is targeted at a general audience rather than serious gamers.
Another top pick would have been Adel Verpflichtet , but I am uncertain as to its eligibility. It won the Spiel des Jahres in 1990, but it wasn't picked up by Avalon Hill for US publication until later and first appeared in the Games 100 in 1992. Adel is a super game well-suited for family play. Your choices at any juncture are limited enough to keep the game approachable, but with enough depth to give you plenty to think about. Or, if you don't wish to think, you can play it whimsically and still be in the running. Perhaps it's that latter aspect which leaves a bad taste in Mike Siggins' mouth, but like Siedler (another Klaus Teuber game) Adel is a great crossover game with appeal to serious and light gamers.
The 1993 Game of the Year was Inklings. Another reasonable choice, but not one without serious mechanical and procedural problems. The game's central gizmo is constructed so that the open door of one clue obscures the clue above it, making it clumsy to go back and review clues you skipped. Each round also requires a period of dead time while players construct their clues. This can drag, since points are awarded for short clues and everyone's trying to be as clever as possible. When more than six people are playing (as there were one Thanksgiving at home), the extras are left with nothing to do (the game only has equipment for six). It may seem unfair to criticize a game for not supporting more players than it claims to support, but for a party game like Inklings, a large crowd should have been anticipated.
Frankly, the rest of the Games 100 doesn't offer many viable alternatives. The one which swept my little circle of friends, though, is Pick Two. This lightning-fast word game vaulted to the top of my repeated play list. Most of the time, we never even bothered to keep score— everyone got enough satisfaction from accomplishing their own personal goals, whether it was finishing first, making the longest word, the most unusual word, packing the most letters into the smallest space, etc). When winning becomes secondary to the play, that's the mark of a good family game. The new box is also a dramatic improvement over the horrid orange original. If fun and replay value are top criteria, Pick Two is definitely Game of the Year material.
My other choice might be Quarto!. I don't play many abstract strategy games, mostly because they don't appeal to the rest of my usual crowd. Typically dry, prolonged, and cerebral, such games have a tendency to gather dust on my shelves. Quarto! captured a good amount of play time because it breaks that stereotype. A game rarely takes over 15 minutes to play. It can't last beyond 16 moves. The rules are simple and easy to learn. And the twist of choosing the piece your opponent must play is fresh enough to hold interest. Quarto not only looks good on a coffee table, it's likely to get played. For a family crowd, Quarto! is a perfect introduction to the abstract world.
If I could break my own rules here, I'd vote for either Elfenroads or Santa Fe in an instant. Although published in 1992, the latter was actually reviewed in Games in 1993 and I was surprised by its omission from the Games 100 that year. Certainly it's more of a gamer's game than any of the magazine's Game of the Year choices, but if a family can handle Monopoly it can enjoy Santa Fe.
The most controversial Game of the Year was 1994's Myst. I've already written a commentary on that subject, so I'll simply remind you that there was some question as to whether or not a computer game should ever have been eligible in the first place.
There is a lot of merit in the editors' justification, however— a glance through the Games 100 shows it was a pretty bad year for adult games in America.. That's not to say there weren't some good choices available— just not very many.
There's no question in my mind that Boggle Master (aka Big Boggle) deserves Game of the Year honors— the only question is, which year? Rereleased after many years of unavailability, this is hands-down my favorite word game and one of my favorite games of all time. Finding a particularly good word is uniquely satisfying in Boggle Master, and once you've tried the 5x5 grid you'll never go back to the smaller version. Still, giving it the nod would have felt wrong. Would we give The Godfather another Oscar if it were rereleased this year?
That leaves us with only three choices, in my opinion. Peg Poker is a clever game with obvious hereditary links to Yahtzee. The nifty dice suggest all sorts of possibilities, and the gameplay is quick, light, and fun.
Freight Train isn't the best game from White Wind, but it's good enough to stand tall amidst this year's field. The concept and gameplay are simple— indeed, they're pretty much distilled from a couple of other games— but with tremendous scope for strategic play. We'll be seeing more of this game in the near future, as Mayfair's picked it up for wider American distribution next year.
Finally, I'd give serious consideration to Perspective. Prospective players often groan, "Oh no, I'm awful at history!" when the game is described, but once this timeline game gets underway the whiners often find they know more than they think. This game is colorful, non-intimidating, and insidiously educational. It's also a wonderful game for kibbitzers, and a solid hit among my game class students. Its bid for Game of the Year is most hampered by the question of replayability after seeing the same events come up in multiple games.
I've already gone on record with my opinion of 1995's Game of the Year, Sharp Shooters, and I stand by it— it's certainly attractive, but this emperor's got no clothes. I can't imagine choosing to play this game while Can't Stop is sitting just a few inches away.
I would have been happier had Games chosen Catch Phrase. Although not as good as Taboo and suffering from a huge random element which makes scorekeeping all but meaningless, it is still entertaining and well suited for a mixed, multi-generational crowd. That doesn't necessarily mean I think it deserves the honor, but Catch Phrase delivers more amusement than does Sharp Shooters.
Bluffers Beware, while hardly original in concept, is nevertheless terrific fun. Taking a cue from Balderdash and its ilk, this game has people making up descriptions for assorted bizarre and indecipherable items (as depicted in line drawings). The result for us has been a reliable source of belly laughs.
Finally, TSR's Dragon Dice would have made a fine honoree (although giving it the nod but not crowning Magic when it first appeared seems criminal). TSR managed to pull off what many thought would be a disaster— a collectible dice game. More complex than most family games but still approachable, the game is exciting, unpredictable, and playable with just a starter pack each. Dragon Dice hits the hobbyist market rather than mainstream America, but its inclusion in the Games 100 makes it a legal candidate within our rules.
Which brings us to 1996 and the latest award-winner, Winning Moves' 25 Words or Less. This is a fine game, certainly. But again— and especially this year— there were other games more deserving of the title. My chief problem with 25 Words is the downtime during the bidding, during which the other players twiddle their thumbs while they wait. For a party game such as this, downtime is the cardinal sin and 25 Words must repent.
But more importantly, the possibilites which were overlooked for top honors are exceptionally strong this year. Any of Mayfair's Eurogames (Modern Art, Streetcar, Detroit/Cleveland Grand Prix, Manhattan, Settlers of Catan— have I mentioned them enough this issue?) would have been better choices. The latter two even won Game of the Year in Germany when they were first published. Not only did Games snub them for the big prize, none of them won Best Family Strategy Game (Priceless did). The mind boggles.
Without a moment's hesitation, I'd give the nod to Settlers of Catan. Sure it has its detractors, but it's the biggest breakthrough game I've ever seen. Settlers appeals to serious gamers and family gamers alike. It's exciting, engaging, non-destructive, and addictive. An astounding percentage of first-time players want to play the game again immediately. And again. And again. This game completely consumed my regular gaming group upon its initial release, getting played over and over— this in a group which rarely plays the same game twice in a month. Settlers of Catan could be a major crossover hit, introducing non-hobbyists to gaming. Neither 25 Words or Less nor Priceless can do that. Neither has the undefinable quality Settlers has.
The only explanation I can come up with is that the Mayfair games were disqualified from consideration because they're not, strictly speaking, new. But since they weren't eligible in their initial German releases, dismissing their American debut seems rather suspect. Some have questioned whether there was favoritism involved in the high ranking of Winning Moves' products. I, being a naive, trusting sort, tend to dismiss such notions as absurd. Mayfair and The Great American Trading Company had more games in this year's Games 100 than Winning Moves (albeit in lower rankings). But still, I can't imagine a universe in which a random sampling of 100 players prefers Priceless to Settlers.
So that's my shot at playing Games 100 God. Obviously these choices are a matter of personal preference, and those of the Games staff differ. Perhaps it's time for a new award targeted at a more serious gaming audience. But that's a subject for another column.