Mik Svellov has set up a webpage so that you can vote for the Counter Hall of Fame. Here (copied from his page) are the nominees:
- Adel Verpflichtet
- Carabande
- Carcassonne
- Demarage
- Die Fürsten von Florenz
- Expedition
- Formule Dé
- Junta
- Kardinal & König
- La Cittá
- Löwenherz
- Mü
- 6 Nimmt
- Tadsch Mahal
- Tichu
- Tikal
- Titan
- Torres
- Ursuppe
- Vinci
Nice games all. Except Taj Mahal, which is fundamentally flawed (I will brook no arguements on that). [I also don't personally like Tikal or Torres, and have burned out on several other titles]. But are any of these games Hall of Fame worthy? Personally I'd like to see "None of the above". I've always admired the Baseball HOF for high standards (in theory, if not the actual balloting).
I personally think Titan belongs. I mean, I've played around 1,000 hours. [And it's not just me, Titan is one of the few board games to have a succesful convention dedicated to it.] It looks so out of place with all of the nominees (but not the prior inductees, I note).
So Titan gets my vote. And I'll order the rest of the games (it's an Instant Runoff system). But I wish "None of the Above" was a choice.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Hall of Fame
- Counter/Sumo Hall of Fame voting
1. What would constitute a Hall of Fame game? What are the criteria?
2. The fundamental flaw of Taj Mahal would be..? Rest assured that even I wouldn't dare to contradict you, if only because I'd be too busy hyperventilating into a paper bag.
I have to agree with you, Brian. When I look at their existing list and use their own phrase "modern classic" to evaluate the current nominees, nothing jumps out at me. There are some good games on the list for sure, but I don't know that any of them are necessarily a "classic". To me, the hall of fame game is more than merely a great game; it's an important game for historical reasons.
Titan could be considered historically important, but I don't find the gameplay to be very compelling today. Carcassonne might fit the bill even though I can't stand playing it. It rode the coat tails of Settlers and introduced a lot of people to Euro games. Formula De might also make the cut, since it's the prototypical racing game, but I feel like it would be forgiving some gameplay just to give a nod to the racing genre. I don't care for the game much.
Were it an option, I too would vote "none of the above". Halls of Fame should be the best of the best of the best, and (IMHO) none of the nominees fit the bill. It's an interesting discussion, though. (And at the end of the day, it's all opinions!) Thanks for the info.
The reason there is no “None of the Above” option is that it would be meaningless. For good or for bad, the election each year selects exactly two games. So if you send in a blank ballot, it doesn’t affect the voting one iota. You’re taking the right approach by ranking your top ten selections, since that can’t hurt your top picks (in the Preference Voting method, each voter winds up casting a vote for no more than one game) and maximizes the chance that your picks affects the final voting.
Stuart Dagger, the editor of Counter, runs the Hall of Fame vote. I’ve talked with him a couple of times about possibly making the procedure more like Baseball’s HoF. He’s managed to swat away each of my objections, so while I’d prefer it if we didn’t choose a constant number of games each year, I do think the current procedure is a sound one.
With regard to Alfred’s question about what constitutes a Hall of Fame game (yes, I know he was asking you for your opinion, but I thought I’d give the “official” line), the only thing we have to go on is what Mik listed on his site, which is quoted from the current edition of Counter: “The purpose of the Hall of Fame is to pick out those board and card games that merit the title ‘modern classic’. A look at the list of the games that are already members should give you an idea of what we are looking for.” That isn’t much to go on and I think that vagueness is deliberate. If you want to vote for games that you rate at least a 9, you can. If you think instead that historical importance should be more of an issue, you can vote that way as well. Over the years, I’ve used both criteria.
Finally, Jeff looks at the games which have already been elected and feels that that group includes more games “of historical importance” than the list of nominated games. While there are certainly quite a few historically important games already in the Hall, many are just good older games that got voted in. Would you say that any of these fine games were historically important: Airlines, Bluff, McMulti, Durch die Wuste, Medici, Ra, or Win Place &Show? Since the intent is to have this Hall of Fame grow steadily, there are fewer and fewer games that can be considered “historically important” nominated each year. Any voter who still thinks this should be a requirement for selection is free to use that to influence their voting, but it isn’t an explicit part of the stated purpose and has probably only ever been one of several criteria voters have used in the past.
I too shall refrain from commenting on Taj Mahal being fundamentally flawed, other than to say the comment is a head scratcher.
My take on the Hall of Fame is that it should represent games that define "modern classics" as well as games that have some historical impact. Have the games affected future game design in some way? Have the games generated significant sales and reached a wider audience as a result? What about games that seem to keep meriting reprints or new versions? Finally, I look at my personal thoughts on the game. Where does it rank in terms of table time? Have I consistantly felt the game approaches a "10" or worked its way up to that level without seeing any drop off in my opinion?
Looking at this year's list, I see four games that meet my requirements. None of them are new entries to the list.
For me Titan continues to be a grievous omission to the Hall. While it might seem to fail some of the requirements mentioned above, as a game, it remaines very fresh. Its detractors are unlikely to put the effort into playing Titan to gain a full appreciation for it.
Adel Verpflichet and Expedition both fit my requirements quite well seeing regular play time year in and year out and continously resurfacing in a new reprint. I also think that both have impacted future game design - Expedition more so than Adel.
Finally, Formula De makes my list this year. It might not be the best racing game, but it has a lengthy history of success - including a recent streamlined version. Oddly enough this isn't a game I really play.
There are a few other games that come close to garnering my support - Mu and 6 Nimmt being the closest, but the jury is still out on many of the most recent nominees. Kardinal &Konig is also likely to get my support in the coming years. The five year window doesn't feel like a long enough track record. Many of the games on the list are ones that I find extremely enjoyable, but don't quite get to the next level.
While I'm with you on Titan as a classic, I wonder. I mean, you've got a list that's exclusively 45-90min euro-style stuff ... except for Titan (oh, and Junta, but Junta's ... well, not HoF material). It seems to open the door to games like Dune or Hannibal that are both at least as good and not under consideration. I think for this reason I couldn't vote for it; it's too much of an outlier. Maybe that's overthinking it too much.
And given D&D is in the hall, couldn't they have found even one RPG that was worthy somewhere in there?
Suprised to see the omission of Knizia's Lord of the Rings. I don't know if it would beat Adel, but it would certainly be something to think about.
Anyway, I've played all of them but Demarage, and the only one that looks to me like a HoF game is Adel. I think probably half the list (at least) can be dispensed with out-of-hand.