Well, having crunched the numbers (except that I didn't mention total # of plays - 625), what do I think about '07.
I think 2007 was a great year, personally. Two games I loved got published, a game I've come to love dropped into my lap (although its several years old). I'm told I'll love Agricola (and perhaps Cuba).
That being said, I only tried a smattering of new titles. I wouldn't say I actively avoided them, but I did shy away a bit. Today I saw Container at the store and wasn't tempted at all. (I know its not up my alley, but I just don't feel as much need to own new things. Ah, aging).
Just for giggles, I ran a search on BGG for recent ('07) games with a 6+ average (100 ratings or more). You can see the results.
On one hand, I feel too many new games are in the Top 100. I think one game of Tide of Iron has been played by SABG. I don't think any games of 1960 (and this from a group that tried to start a Twilight Struggle tournament). Starcraft got several plays. [That's mainly caused by BGG's growth, I wager].
I'm behind the curve for the newer stuff. Way back in the Usenet days, I was ahead of it. But those days are passed. The last few years I've been happier playing older games. In fact, I've been (slightly) obsessing about raising my Friendless stat. I still have something like 50 games in my collection that I haven't played this decade or so. Half of those I should just dump.
So, was 07 a good crop? I currently judge by the cream. I'd rather see a great game (or three) instead of ten good ones. I've got good ones.
Will I judge the current games harsher in the future? Undoubtedly. I don't play Caylus, Puerto Rico, Settlers, El Grande (etc) as often, just because. I suspect that will be true for the new batch, but Race, Phoenicia and Glory will always have their place.
