[Brian,
Friday January 28, 2005 at 10:34pm]
Psychological Investment and Reviews
One of the dangers in any form of communication, especially publishing (including blogging) is becoming 'locked in' to a previously declared position. People dislike admitting they were wrong, or may be wrong. They become invested in their position. You see it all the time.
Someone asked (via email) a while ago if I'd review Maharaja, and it's a good topic. I often write to flesh out ideas that I may have semi-consciously. Often, when I write a strategy article I type something up ("Green rules!") and then go back and read it and get a nagging thought. Then a few days later I realize I had the wrong spin ("Green rules, but because it's a primary color!"). Often, the published article contains at least one reversal from a draft.
And sometimes people just say I'm wrong. That helps too. (Witness the hospice debates in Puerto Rico).
Anyway, when I dismissed Maharaja, I didn't know exactly why. I knew it had a runaway leader (or perhaps fallaway loser) problem, but I like other games that suffer from that (Ursuppe). So I figured reviewing the game might give me insight. After a few false starts, I stumbled on the reasons I gave. After editing (and modifying them), I think I've captured what was gnawing at me. I don't think I'm locked in, but when answering Chris' comments, I certainly felt the "Defend your position" urge. I think I'm onto something. No surprise there, I'm invested.
Anyway, no real point. I still think I'm right, but let the reader beware.
Sadly, I'm not writing about politics. Then I could be psychologically invested, and get a few hundred thousand dollars from the government. Fiscal investment is nice, too.
Addenda:
I noticed an offhand comment about investment in my Amun-Re review. (Another game I disliked and couldn't immediately explain why). I think it's safe to say that I dislike games that combine analysis with simultaneous decision making that involve evaluating other people's positions. Or at least I find the games disconcerting (I use the word "jarring" in my review).
Someone asked (via email) a while ago if I'd review Maharaja, and it's a good topic. I often write to flesh out ideas that I may have semi-consciously. Often, when I write a strategy article I type something up ("Green rules!") and then go back and read it and get a nagging thought. Then a few days later I realize I had the wrong spin ("Green rules, but because it's a primary color!"). Often, the published article contains at least one reversal from a draft.
And sometimes people just say I'm wrong. That helps too. (Witness the hospice debates in Puerto Rico).
Anyway, when I dismissed Maharaja, I didn't know exactly why. I knew it had a runaway leader (or perhaps fallaway loser) problem, but I like other games that suffer from that (Ursuppe). So I figured reviewing the game might give me insight. After a few false starts, I stumbled on the reasons I gave. After editing (and modifying them), I think I've captured what was gnawing at me. I don't think I'm locked in, but when answering Chris' comments, I certainly felt the "Defend your position" urge. I think I'm onto something. No surprise there, I'm invested.
Anyway, no real point. I still think I'm right, but let the reader beware.
Sadly, I'm not writing about politics. Then I could be psychologically invested, and get a few hundred thousand dollars from the government. Fiscal investment is nice, too.
Addenda:
I noticed an offhand comment about investment in my Amun-Re review. (Another game I disliked and couldn't immediately explain why). I think it's safe to say that I dislike games that combine analysis with simultaneous decision making that involve evaluating other people's positions. Or at least I find the games disconcerting (I use the word "jarring" in my review).
Yup, I requested the Maharaja review. I ask only because I like your reviews. I now own the game and love it. Four of us played tonight and I had total control right from the start. Nobody saw my strategy and I rarely lacked gold. And then I noticed in the 8th round that I no longer had the lead. I lost on the double tie break. So no runaway leader problem in this game. No game is immune to a runaway leader problem in certain conditions.
Also, I should mention that I play with a house rule: centre palace is worth 2 points, not 3. And character #7 provides one free house to your stash from the quarry.
Keep the reviews coming!