Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diving into BoardGameGeek

jvanelteren.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#11

Post by praash »

This analysis is clever! I'd love to see someone use these ideas in an interactive tool for board game discovery.

Geeks appreciating complexity is obvious, but it's very interesting to see how much it actually matters in ratings. Some mechanic complexity is essential for replayability and depth, but maximizing the potential of individual components is a sign of great game design. Many successful games usually fit the saying "easy to learn, hard to master". Good games bring joy to pretty much anyone.

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#12

Post by praash »

mlindner wrote: post #2

> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

> And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

Yes, different games fit different needs and situations, but games designed to last six hours are also designed for a very niche audience. Public game/book/movie ratings average out to reflect how widely people find them likable.

If a 15 minute game can make players feel nearly as invested and thrilled as a 3 hour campaign, that's an accomplishment in game design that deserves recognition.

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#13

Post by StephanTLavavej »

anonymoushn wrote: post #8
mlindner wrote: post #2

> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

I've found bgg's weight to be pretty uncorrelated with whether the game actually survives when players make a sincere effort to win. An illustrative sample of games sorted by weight might be Splendor, Wingspan, Res Arcana, Roll for the Galaxy, Race for the Galaxy, Warhammer 40,000: Conquest, A Feast for Odin, and Through the Ages. Of these, the middle games Res Arcana and Roll for the Galaxy completely collapse under…

Can you expand on how Roll breaks down when the players are trying to win?

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#14

Post by [deleted] »

iopq wrote: post #4
mlindner wrote: post #2

> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

Is that really true? Go is a game where the simplest rule sets only have 7 or so rules. Well, the complexity is 3.94 on that site: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/188/go But it's complex because of strategic considerations, not because it is difficult to learn the rules.

[deleted]

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#15

Post by scrollaway »

mlindner wrote: post #2

> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

This is like saying bigger books are better because more pages = more complexity = more interesting plot. You must be a big fan of the dictionary.

I've found the best board games are often the simplest ones. 2-player vanilla Splendor is one of my favourites and all it takes to play is a deck of cards and a stack of tokens. When both players have a good level, the depth of strategy of that game is crazy good. And unlike chess, it's very approachable for new players.

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#16

Post by JonathanFly »

vasco wrote: post #5

The fact that "pandemic" is at the top means that either we have a coincidence where the best game happens to be closely related to events of the past two years, or ratings merely reflect current fashion rather than game quality. This is further reinforced by the fact that pandemic didn't top best selling games lists until 2020-2021.

I'm sure it did receive a sales boost, but it was almost as highly ranked before the real pandemic. It really is mostly a coincidence.

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#17

Post by DicIfTEx »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #3

> I was a bit shaken by Eat Poop You Cat, but it seems a nice game you can play with pen and paper. This looks like a marvelous game that requires no purchase and no special equipment. Why would it shake anyone except for a ridiculous name?

Interesting; I've never heard of Eat Poop You Cat (and I doubt I would've forgotten it if I had), but it's basically the same idea as Consequences[0] or Picture Consequences[1], only less structured.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_(game)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exquisite_corpse#Picture_conse...

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#18

Post by chongli »

anonymoushn wrote: post #8
mlindner wrote: post #2

> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

I've found bgg's weight to be pretty uncorrelated with whether the game actually survives when players make a sincere effort to win. An illustrative sample of games sorted by weight might be Splendor, Wingspan, Res Arcana, Roll for the Galaxy, Race for the Galaxy, Warhammer 40,000: Conquest, A Feast for Odin, and Through the Ages. Of these, the middle games Res Arcana and Roll for the Galaxy completely collapse under…

Yeah. Some of the heavier games are casual, cooperative, relaxing game night affairs, for example Pandemic Legacy (weight 3.24).

Yet Santorini (weight 1.73), despite its cute art style, is an absolute monster of a game when played competitively against strong opponents. Many of the reviews reflect this, with a lot of people comparing it to chess and go.

Honestly, I think you could approximate the weight rating of most games by setting the box on a scale. Other than telling you how many different components you’ll get, the weight rating is only a rough approximation of depth.

Another pair of games to compare is Agricola and Caverna. These ones have very similar weights (a bit under 4) yet they play dramatically differently. Agricola is extremely tight and vicious with competitive play. Caverna, on the other hand, is a victory point bonanza. This has led to a sharp divide in the community, with Caverna having stolen a lot of the ‘thematic’ players from its older sibling.

Edit: I need to add that I in no way intended to disparage thematic players. I love thematic games too. My preferences usually change based on my mood and energy levels. Thematic games are much better on a Friday night after work, with good friends, good food, and tasty beverages. Fierce, competitive games are much more of a Saturday afternoon rainy day type of situation.

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#19

Post by fridek »

Interesting analysis. It has some signs of the author introducing variables until the ranking looks "right" though. I also disagree with some of the conclusions, based on my moderate experience with the site and its users.

A few suggestions to improve:

* Consider that most users rank 1-10 to stack rank their own games. BGG explicilty encourages this, insisting it's YOUR rating and there is no wrong way of arriving at it. I'd try to normalize for this (i.e. convert user collections from ratings into stack rank percentiles, see where games end up on average).

* Board games objectively got better over the years. There is more material on mechanics, it's easier to publish than ever, simulating and playtesting games is easier, etc. When I look at some (not all!) old games on top 100 I always think "come on, it's a good game but has no place here". It would be interesting to see rankings based on ratings assigned in a specific year.

* Drop the notion of complexity as something to correct for. As others mentioned this is a very inconsistent data point. Personally I'd rather play two 8.5 games in an evening than one 9. Perhaps fun per hour would be better, but this is personal bias, no matter how you assign the weight you will get complaints :)

* Kids and party non-gamer games are almost a distinct universe from gamers games. There is no way to fix or account for that. It has nothing to do with compexity or play time. I think this is more down to a combination of how well the game was playtested combined with the distribution channels available to the publisher. Gamers will happily play 15 minutes gimmick games, non-gamers will pull out Monopoly in a pub and go throught this monstrous waste of cardboard while downing pints.

Re: Diving into BoardGameGeek

#20

Post by slightwinder »

iopq wrote: post #4
mlindner wrote: post #2

> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.

Is that really true? Go is a game where the simplest rule sets only have 7 or so rules. Well, the complexity is 3.94 on that site: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/188/go But it's complex because of strategic considerations, not because it is difficult to learn the rules.

Go has also a thousand years of history and is very popular. Even if the basic rules are simple and fast to learn, you still need a long time to learn the game's current meta and reach an acceptable level of ability by today's standards. This is very different from any new game with similar complexity, where you only play against people who invested a similar short amount of time.
Post reply on HN