Those of you who are blessed with both an excellent memory and an unusually high degree of tolerance may recall that I started this year on a quest to demonstrate that I was definitely playing my existing games more through the use of John Farrel’s stats pages. Six months in, I’m sure that no-one cares how I’m doing, but I thought I’d tell you anyway. And then maybe devote a bit of space to thinking about patterns of game-playing generally, which might be marginally more interesting. 

We’ll get the dull numbers out of the way first. The big target is percentage utilisation. I started out at 32%, and my target is 50%. Six months in and I’ve reached 42% so I’m marginally ahead of schedule. The trouble is that I spent most of January in a mad dash to stack up plays of all the easy targets - games I could play solo or online. So things aren’t quite as rosy as they appear. However, at the end of next month I get to go visit my parents, where I can hopefully clear out a lot of the old chaff from my collection that has been in storage for ages and that I don’t really want to play again. What’s worrying me about this clearout is the number of games I might find which are actually incomplete: as a lover of games, I’m not entirely sure I could actually throw away an incomplete game especially when there’s hope I might find the missing pieces and be able to trade or sell it later on. It’s not about money, but simply the desire to ensure that the world doesn’t loose one more copy of some old out-of-print game that some gamer somewhere would probably love and cherish. But I may have to - we’ll have to see. I’ve sold a handful of games as well, mostly unplayed.

I started the year with a big splurge in spite of trying to keep new purchases down. And for many months, I was as good as gold, not buying anything new at all. But then I got hit with the Artscow bug, which lead me adding a number of self-made games and expansions to my collection. Then, shortly afterward, I found myself compelled to shell out for the wargame Bastogne: Screaming Eagles Under Siege because I’d played it multiple times on Vassal, and loved it, and it seemed unfair to MMP not to pick up a copy in spite of it being an eight-hour monster that I’ll probably never play face-to-face. And with it came Dunwich Horror because I managed to find a very attractively priced copy and I was sure I’d play it, solo at least.  We’re only half way through the year - there will undoubtably be more in the months to come. Like the Pitchcar Extension because my daughter has just started playing that, and quite possibly Last Night on Earth when it gets reprinted because, well because it’s short and easy and is bound to get played sometime. I’ve got my eye on some of the newer titles due out as well, but I’m usually content to wait until the hype has died down on those, so I can probably hold off until next year.

No more stats for the rest of the article. But there is one more thing about this particular personal quest that I wanted to highlight because it’s had wider ramifications for the way I think about games as a whole. The way that John has set his system to calculate the values, you get very little back for playing a game more than ten times. So it’s encouraged me to get in several plays of some titles that have sat gathering dust on my shelves for some time, most notably Traders of Genoa which proved quite a big hit at my local gaming group. But on the flip side it’s actively discouraged me from playing most of my favourite games, because in many cases I’ve already played them more than ten times, so in the pursuit of my fairly abstract goals you could say that what I’m actually doing is playing more of games I like less. So, although on balance I’m probably getting more entertainment out of checking out new titles than I’m loosing from not playing my favourites, it’s not entirely a good thing at all.

What this made me think about is why I maintain a wider collection of games at all. Why don’t I just pick my absolute favourite games and stick with them over and over again? Some of the answer is simply logistical - one of my favourite games is Twilight Imperium which only gets played on the rare occasions we can organise the time for it, and on the flip side it’s useful to have a few games that are very fast and simple. Some of it is the inevitable fact that even for the very best games the shine will wear off eventually and the game will start to seem a little dry. But beyond that, the honest truth is that all that’s making me want to keep a bunch of the games that I’m keeping is the sense that someday, sometime, I might want to play it. And frankly, that’s a pretty poor excuse to be sitting on top of ninety-odd boardgames and continually agitating to play those I’ve not played before just in case they’re any good, when I could be lavishing my time on stuff that I know is brilliant. When you add expansions for those favourite games into the mix, extending their longevity, it becomes an even more compelling case.

The same thought is what’s behind my occasional rants about the difficulty of picking out “good” boardgames in advance of playing them, no matter how many reviews you read. I end up investigating a game and buying it, only to find that for one reason or another it never hits the table and then suddenly I’ve been holding on to a game for months on end on the off chance that when I finally get to play it, it’ll turn out to be brilliant. So again, time gets taken away from games I know I love just so I can check out other games that might have the potential to join that hallowed club. Looking back on my board game collection, this issue is what’s driven me to acquire the majority of games that I own, and is certainly what’s behind the majority of purchases that I’ve got lined up. I really wish there were some better way of finding out in advance what games are going to be for you, some sort of all-time classic standard we can agree on like there seems to be for video games. But there isn’t.

The picture is further complicated by decisions to make about what, exactly, passes as a favourite game. I adore Titan. But I’ve long since stopped attempting to play it face-to-face: it’s become a play-by-email only excercise. And even then a small part of me thinks that since the game occasionally throws up situations in which players can get into a loosing position through little fault of their own, can it really be quite as good as some more modern titles in a similar mold that avoid this trap? That line of thought is, if pursued too far, the same chain of ideas that leads to the sterility of some egregious examples of over-controlled, interaction-free Euro games, but there are sensible balances to be struck along the way. Fortunately for me, Titan remains, in my opinion, unique and challenging enough to justify play time in spite of its flaws. But can I really call it a favourite? Can I really justify owning a copy that will almost certainly never see face-to-face play? Whatever the answer I hold on to it, and many similar games, simply because my tastes might change and one day I might regret ditching it. It’s an unfortunate reactionary attitude, after all, there will always be other great games around to play, but it’s partly what’s behind my keeping of so many games that see so little table time.

Of course you might argue that I ought to keep a copy of any game I continue playing on the internet, as I undoubtedly will with Titan, because otherwise I’m doing a game publisher somewhere a disservice. I don’t really think you can counter that argument - publishers need support. But there is an unfortunate manner in which the availability of on-line play can actually influence your game acquisition in a very negative manner. An example is Santiago. I bought a copy of this after playing it on SBW a couple of times because I was intrigued by the mechanics and I could see that it would likely be a much superior game played face to face. There’s a negotiation and screw-your-neighbour element to the game which is entirely lacking in the on-line experience. But of course having got the game, I’ve never got it to the table. Having played it on-line, the novelty value of bringing it to a group as a new game has worn off for me. So in spite of its merits, it has become another dust-gatherer which can never quite seem to get enough impetus to see it ahead of other, genuinely unplayed titles.

We all do this. All of us. The lure of new games is always too strong, in spite of the best intentions, and there’s never enough time to play them all. So I’d like to hear about how you deal with this issue. Do you have the time and the willpower to keep on bringing back your favourites time after time and still find space to slot in the occasional new title that you buy? Do you perhaps only restrict yourself to games you’ve played before somewhere and know are good - I guess this is part of the lure of going to conventions and getting to see demo copies? Are you happy to see yourself as much, if not more, as a collector of games rather than a player of games? Or is this all just so much hot air and if so, do you have any good suggestions to stop me being so damn careful and indecisive about what games I choose to pack up and bring out for game nights?

Dave Chalker posted the winners of the 2009 Origins Awards on his Twitter feed, then on his website, Critical-Hits.org. Dominion took home the award for best card game, while Pandemic was named best board game. Both games have been nominated for the 2009 Spiel des Jahres, the winner of which will be announced a few hours after this posting. Other winners include Say Anything in the children’s, family and party games category and Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear for best historical board game.

Pocket Rockets is a new title from designer Antoine Bauza, who will have released more than a half-dozen titles in a year once Spiel 09 rolls around, including Bakong, Pony Express and Ghost Stories.

Race games seem to hold a special appeal for Bauza, and Pocket Rockets has racing elements as players are trying to complete rockets quickly before the limited fuel supplies run out and the game ends. As in many games, efficient building in an inefficient factory will be key to your victory. Six cards comprise the factory, with a launch site and a recycling workshop sitting opposite one another, while a conveyor and three assembly plants (white, red, yellow) take up the other four locations. On a turn, a player has four action points with which to move her token in the direction of the conveyor, draw a rocket card – whether base, fuselage or tip – from one of four decks near the factory, or use the power of one of the factory cards. The assembly plants let you play a card of the appropriate color, the recycling workshop lets you trade a card in hand for another one (which is needed due to a three card hand limit), and the launch site gives fuel with which to launch a completed rocket.

The game ends when fuel is exhausted, and players score two points per fuselage card in their completed rockets as well as 1-4 points for the fuel used. Rocket tips provide players with special powers, such as an additional action point and the ability to move either direction on the conveyor.

Pocket Rockets is for 2-4 players, ages 10 and up, with a playing time of 20 minutes. The publisher, Hazgaard Editions, will release the game in July 2009, and Asmodee Editions will distribute it in North America and elsewhere. Rules are available in German, French and English on the Pokcet Rockets website. This game has been updated on Gone Cardboard.

In what is clearly a unique experience for me, I’ve actually played several of the Spiel des Jahres nominees BEFORE the award is announced.  While I love playing new games and tend to be on the cutting edge of my local game group, I do not import games nor do I attend boardgame gatherings where I would have access to prototypes.  However, with two of the five titles developed here in the US, I’ve managed to get ahold of them before the nominees were announced!  As the winner will be announced in a matter of days, I thought I’d share my unsolicited opinion on the three that I have played: Finca, Pandemic, and Dominion.

Finca
Disclosure:  I received a free copy of this game from Rio Grande Games to review.
This title is the game I’ve played the least of the three, but I do find it an interesting experience.  Players move pawns around a rondel (circle) to gather fruit or choose to deliver fruit to one or more spaces on the game board to collect tokens worth points.  Extra points are awarded for collecting sets of fruit (one through six) or for having the majority of a fruit delivered when a game board space is devoid of tokens.  When enough spaces are cleared the game ends.  While not a complicated game, there are still some strategic and tactical decisions to be made.  Should I go for collecting sets or try to get majorities in specific fruits?  Should I horde fruit looking to seize prime opportunities or should I deliver as quickly as possible to the tokens I want?  In a nice touch, if everyone hordes resources there is a good chance that the resources will get dumped back into the bank.  I think the game would be just a bit dry for me if it weren’t for the four rules exceptions given to each player to use once during the game.  Just when and where to perform an extraordinary action can really leverage one’s position.  The game is colorful and has great bits to help attract the game-adverse.  I prefer a bit more strategic interaction to my games when I can, but I think it does a great job of being a unique candidate in the family-friendly category.  It could be a fine introduction for new gamers to a rondel mechanism as well as set collecting and area majorities for victory points.  It plays fairly fast even with four players, making it a good warm-up game for a longer gaming evening.

Pandemic
Disclosure: I traded for this game via a BGG trade, but have sometimes received discounted games from Z-Man games in past years.  I have also met Zev personally at GenCon.
I was very happy to see Pandemic get a nomination this year.  I’m a big fan of cooperative games as they fill a needed niche within the hobby.  Some folks just don’t take to the forced competitiveness of a standard boardgame and it is nice to have options where everyone can win or lose together.  Pandemic stands out for me in this category as it is easy to explain and plays in a moderate amount of time.  Most importantly, rather than having a rigid story or path for the players to follow on a set board (as in Lord of the Rings, Arkham Horror, or perhaps even Shadows over Camelot), Pandemic’s board ebbs and flows according to the order of the cards making some games a race against outbreaks while others are more of a struggle to collect the right cards for a cure.  Rather than rely on cards or events to drive changes to the board, all the rules and effects are known at the start of the game.  This means beginners have a better chance at making reasonable decisions and lessens the likelihood of other players running the game for the new players.  Pandemic has also earned my respect as it functions very well as a two-player cooperative game.  It has served me well for game evenings with my wife, and I know it is popular with other couples.  It may be just a cult of the new showing through, but I feel it has better long-term replay ability than other cooperative games I’ve tried.

Dominion
Disclosure: I bought this game with my own money, but I did play the game when Dale Yu (one of the developers) was in the same room sitting a few tables away.  I also once played the game In the Year of the Dragon with Dale’s brother.
Of all the games I’ve played this year, Dominion is still my favorite.  I don’t’ often get to play games over and over again, but I have played more Dominion in the past 9 months or so than any other game.  It helps that it was a favorite at the high school game club as well as the local club.  Dominion hits a sweet spot for me as it seems to me to pack nearly everything I want out of a game into as short a time frame as possible.  I love building up an economic engine (also why I like gardening) which is then turned into points.  I also like having multiple choices for a path to victory.  Sometimes a set of 10 cards will have only one or two recommended victory paths, but there are usually a few different options.  The many different combinations of available cards helps to keep the game fresh after many different plays.  I’ve even made the game one of my most portable ones by placing the entire deck into a box for trading card games, complete with dividers I made to keep them separate.  (I plan to upload the dividers I designed to BGG someday, they have the rules info for each card right on the dividers so I don’t have to cart the rulebook around either…) There are some drawbacks to the game, primarily the constant shuffling which can grate on the nerves of those who find it too fiddly.  (I don’t mind.) It can also be a bit much for a non-gamer to jump into for their first taste of eurogames.  Thus, I don’t spring it on anyone who hasn’t already played a few of these games of ours.  Finally, Fate can be a harsh mistress in the game with the luck of the draw giving a player a significant boost or hindrance in the early game, stalling out the game for that player while others forge ahead.  This doesn’t happen too often, but often enough to be a little frustrating.  I love going through a game in my head after finishing to think about what might have gone wrong, but I will occasionally have games of Dominion where I lose fairly seriously and have very few of my own poor decisions to blame.  Despite these minor drawbacks, I really enjoy the game and still bring it out to play as often as I can.  I look forward to the upcoming sequel with anticipation, although I was a bit disappointed with the recent BGG 2-card expansion.  The one was somewhat interesting for variety, but the Black Market card was fun but also slowed down the game immensely as players had to pause to peruse which of the three cards they were interested in purchasing.

So, which game do I think will win?  I don’t have enough information to guess.  If I were going by my personal favorite, I think Dominion is unique enough and definitely fun enough for the win, however it is a bit more of a stretch to play for those who aren’t already into the gaming hobby.  Finca is a solid title and is a good family game, but is a bit abstract and dry for me.  Pandemic is great all the way around, but I fear some might accuse it of having less replay value and the cooperative nature may put some folks (judges?) off.  If I’m forced to guess what’s in a German judge’s mind, I’d go with Finca as it is most like games that have won previously.  If they’re not afraid of a little innovation, I’d love to see Pandemic or Dominon take home a win.  Best of luck to all the publishers, designers, (and developers!) for the final announcement next week!  Feel free to chime in with your own opinions below (if you haven’t already burnt yourself out on the discussion.)

In other, videogame news, I’ve been playing a bit of Hey, That’s My Fish on the Wii console as a download game and a lot of Magic: the Gathering as an Xbox 360 download.  Both are fairly well implemented, with Hey, That’s My Fish having very cute graphics and Magic having a decent computer AI.  I haven’t played either enough for a good review yet, however I have enjoyed my Magic games despite most games vs the computer coming down to who draws better cards and the game’s too harsh of restriction on deck modification.  I hope to let everyone know my thoughts on them in a future post.