Unfortunately, this line of reasoning and argumentation is successful around 0.0% of the time.
Furthermore, as it turns out, different people enjoy different things for different reasons, and what they enjoy has zero bearing on your ability to enjoy the things you do.
So why all the arguing?
Seem similar? I do not understand why quite some designers up here, notably including Tom Lehman, who didn't use any reason and logic to repute the accusation that his Race/Roll for the galaxy is a bad design. But just yelling and screaming that someone is being 'unfair' and 'impolite', without any legit reasoning.
Perhaps one can look into the case of An Are of Snow, again.
A Few Acres of Snow and the Critical Silence On The Biggest Flawed Game of 2011
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/9073/few-acres-snow-and-critical-silence-biggest-flawed
So what did Martin Wallace did to upset. Well, the game won an award, but there was an inherent flaw within, most would not agree. Until that game is played online, someone showed a record of winning 100% of the time. Wallace tried to patch the game, it didn't work. And then later he walks away with the money and the award.
hmm.
This is an extreme case, but there is a lot out there.
- First version of Caverna: The Cave Farmers with the infinite ore auto-win bug.
- Axis and Allies veteran found it very easy to spot OP strategies in the first game of a new version AAP1940.
How many times do we have to produce a legit proof, before any 'designers' would admit it is a bad design? To be fair, it is not as bad as nobody is perfect. Scienfic experiemtal project fails over 90% of the time. It isn't even as bad if one admits one of their designs is bad.
Perhaps it is money.
What bad is, designers thought themselves are in a position of [i]"aesthetic preferences are inherently superior, and furthermore, believe it is worthwhile trying to tell other people that their tastes are, in a word, wrong."[/i]
Because they call themselves a designer? Because they "did" some playtest (how about open those experimental records for peer review like in the academia field?)?
Becuase you didnt design and publish a boardgame so you are inherently bad?
Freedom of speech?
So nobody should comment football before they earn their world cup, because [i]"aesthetic preferences are inherently superior, and furthermore, believe it is worthwhile trying to tell other people that their tastes are, in a word, wrong."[/i]
This industry is too much about
-buying the game just because you can
-buying the game just because everyone says it is cool
-buying the game just because Dice Tower says so
-buying the game play it once and then shelf it.
It is too much about buying and 'playing' it once, rather the game itself. I never have a doubt why modern games are losing their replayability in these 10 years.
---------------------
There is a lot of AP Tryndamere syndrome going on in the boardgame world. If anyone wonder what it is, some people in the popular game League of Legends figured out a way to play a character differently, most notably unintended by the designers, and raised their global ranks a lot.
The designers didn't like it. So the keep on patching the game until it is not viable. And then later even ban players out of their systems just because "it wasn't intended by the game designers (Riot Games)" and it "destroys fun".
Being locked into the tunnel vision of the designer is very dangerous. For instance, most should know about 1856's rule of "you cannot sell the same certificate back into the market in the same turn". What does it do? Well, perhaps one cannot trash shares so hard (not quite sure why one would trash so much shares before 6T CGR), or the president couldn't pump funds into the company too fast?? (really??) or some random player doesn't own any of the company shares could not trash so hard.
???
It really doesn't stop anything. A company could still be double shorted at the turn of CGR formation.
If you had thought carefully about the possible intention and the result or such rule, likely there would be players find this rule unnecessary.
More days into 18xx, I finally start to understand the idea of "permutations of player strategy should form the game itself sufficiently replayable" or "do not bother to fiddle around with the random noises of the game". No ass-licking here, I disagree with him quite often.
Locking most players into one or two branches of strategies with all other 'creative ideas' to be not viable is generally a bad idea and a bad game. But it is very frequently seen in modern games, particuarly in modern Euro Econ Snowball games.
Examples
1. Le Havre. You do not build boats or build buildings.[i] You buy them.[/i] Wait until the colliery comes out and it turns into a toilet queuing game. One goes out, the next goes in. And then there comes the Shipping Lines, let's ship, let's buy more buildings, let's buy more ships. Who cares to build?
2. Agicola. Yes, it is well regarded as a strategic game. But think about, why not two family members are allowed in the same action space. Why do everyone go for family growth one by one once it is available? Why wet nurse and lover?
3. Brass. Cotton or port. Pick one, or you can try hard to win yourself in this multiplayer solitare research shipping and cotton all on your own. Iron wasn't even viable unless everyone on the table let you solo it...
4. Eclipse. Orion has to be in GCD in two turns, elephants have to hit good science tiles, those green plants have just to keep explore... etc. Anyway, if you didn't have X econ by the turn T, you are done!
All of them have the same property if you do not have X by turn T, you are lose.
These are some prime example of games it is more about a clash of players more than clash of strategies. One of the core reason is that there is too little viable strategy to choose from, another one is there is a constant flow of resources out of the game. The flow is so high, your relative net worth difference would not be a difference. There is no comeback mechanism and the game is too short. Once you are off the orbit, you are forever gone.
Everyone is literally playing more or less that strategy a/b/c you pick. In a few games, this becomes very repetitive and uninteresting as everyone is playing the same thing you had seen.
Well, perhaps except those who have some artistic minds valuing these...
18xx is not quite different. It is still a snow ball, and it is still quite not comebackable as it is well known it is a front-loaded game. But intentional or not, ther eis a lot of possible comeback strategies in 18xx. For instance in 1830,
-intentionally not pushing trains
-intentionally pushing trains
-intentionally buying up all shares risking being thrown quite a few companies
-intentionally open 6 companies in one SR
-intentionally dumping all shares possible
-intentionally trashing your own company
-intentionally feeding into another company with your own company
-intentionally abuse game bugs (i.e. not reasonable and feasible in the real world, e.g. suitcase company) to steer the game into unknown waters
etc. Yes, the side effect is that kingmaker is being extremely strong, but it is a game so deep, a few years later I still do not master it.
[q="Jasonbartfast"]
Then why have designers at all? Why not just play with lego?
[/q]
Lego began in the carpentry workshop of Ole Kirk Christiansen in Denmark. So someone started it, as one or a group of designers behind.
Or you mean we should all play building blocks or sand castles. Or why megablocks is not as successful?
Sir, I do not think you ever understand why Minecraft or some other open world games become so successful nowadays, and why World of Warcraft has been losing their subscribers.
--------
Dota have lost quite of its player base. But that could render down to the fact that the developer has crappy infrastructures and centralized all games. But still, it has one of the top viewer counts and prize pool given out after 15 years of its birth.
Perhaps, it is a good example why games should not be too centralized, and opinions and actions should not be too depended on a few people power in hands, so call 'developers' or 'designers'
After all, I do not recall 1830 was playing as intended in the rulebook. Or, if there is an clear intention at all?
