The One Hundred will start discussions and generate controversy, as all these lists invariably do. Far be it from me to refrain. As nice as the compilers of the list are, I think it has serious problems. It's bad enough they drank they Kool-aid; now they're spiking it!
So this is a public service announcement. I'm not sure if the 100 lists influential games, because one of the voters indicates that the chief criterion is "games you play." I'm going with that.
Let's start with the methodology. From the post —
I began by asking a select group of hardcore gamers (mostly Eurogamers) to send me a list of their fifteen favorite games, listed in order. 65 gamers replied.
If you ask a lot of gamers, I'm sure that they'll probably each have maybe 5-10 of the same games. Puerto Rico, Settlers, Ticket to Ride, Carcassone, etc. etc etc. The rest of the votes will be all over the place. So the top places get lots of votes, the middle ones get a fair number, and then the tail end you have single votes or two votes. I mean, there are only 975 games listed. If you assume that each of the big five get 40 votes each (2/3rds of the list) and that say ten games get 20 votes each (1/3rd), that leaves ~675 votes for 85 games. I wouldn't be surprised if the final few games only show up on 3-4 lists.
Given that the goal was to produce "The One Hundred", it would have been far better for people to list say, 25 games. Or Fifty. Then one or two advocates wouldn't be enough to unbalance it. Everyone would vote for their "Great 5 or 10" and then fill out the other slots nicely. I suspect that the list improves once we get into the top fifty or so. But there are some howlers so far -- McMulti? (At #97) OK, I'll grant that it influenced Settlers; How many rip offs has Monopoly influenced? Shantraj influenced chess. That may make it influential, but not fun. I got McMulti because of the hype (a decade ago) played it a handful of times over the years, and sold it. I would have never considered this in the top 100 games I've played. I just checked, my rating is a 5, aka 40th to 60th percentile. Not bad, not good. Around 350th in my rank of games rated. Out of 700).
I also give Mamma Mia (#96) a five, but I do prefer it to McMulti. At least the order was right!
But by far the worst appearce belongs to Capitol at #95. I played this game once, and won with a final of something like 47-46-46 (or maybe 47-47-46) and felt nary a sliver of tension. I've been bored with games with a runaway leader. Let's use the words of one of the voters (Frank Hamrick, whom I've gamed with in NC and is a nice guy):
Capitol almost didn't make it because it never gets played! This ... is one of my absolute all-time favorites that seldom gets played.
He's right there. I can't recall seeing this played since it came out. [This must be a local thing, since the voters on the Geek like Capitol much more than I do. But they still only place it at #165].
To be fair, the bulk of the the other games are inoffensive, but still damn few that I'd place in the Top 100. (I suspect I'd give Backgammon a nod, or be tempted to. I did go through that phase where I played a thousand games against a strong AI to try and improve). [I rate it a 7, which means it's in my top 123].
Ah well, gotta run. More bombs later!
Update: If I had voted, I would have tossed a vote at Shadowfist. Presumably I'd be the only voter to do so, so it would (rightfully) be left of the list. But if each voter picked one game they love that nobody else does, then there are even less votes to go around. And if a fewpeople like the same 'outlier', then it's in.
The more I think about it, the more I think that each person needed to get more votes, and probably not even fifty. Twenty-five would mean that if each person picks about seven "locks" (for the top 20 or so), then they still have a lot of slots (18) to sort out the rest of the hundred. But right now, even if they only pick four locks, they still only have 11 slots for the rest. [And if they picked seven ...]
I'm tempted to let people send me their Top 25. But I'm busy & lazy, so I'll wait for temptation to pass.
Update: I missed Samurai and Chinatown, which seem well place in the 80-100 range (Samurai is the only game on the list with a higher BGG placement). The GIPF games are also fine, I don't play them often, but I see the appeal.
Correction: Oops. Battle Cry matches rank exactly; Dune and Dvonn are also higher on the BGG Top 100 than The Hundred. And I have insulted more games in the comments.
Given that the list is what it is, and ultimately means nothing, how can you call my methodology flawed?
I picked fifteen as the number of games for folks to submit for one simple reason: People tended to howl when I asked them for their top ten. I was told fifteen was still painful, but not as gut-wrenchingly so. Plus, I asked people to rank these games in order from fave to least-fave. I doubt I would have gotten nearly as many responses had I asked for them to do that for twenty-five games.
Your complaints about my methodology (I'm not a math guy) may be inherently reasonable, but your main issue about games being on the list seemed to be that you personally just didn't like those games. My methodology may be flawed, but your dislike of Capital or McMulti is not proof of that.
Really, Mark and I are just two guys having a little fun here. Relax, and join us.
Snoop
I suspect the next time we do this, we'll have more gamers submitting lists, if only because of the buzz you and Mark are generating (several folks have already said they'd participate next time). Hopefully, with a larger group picking 20 games apiece, we'll have more meaningful results for ALL 100 games. I think assigning 10 to 29 points for games ranked from 20th to 1st would work well. In the meantime, I (and a bunch of other gamers) are enjoying the hell out of what you two are cranking out. We're all looking forward to the rest of the list!
I actively dislike several games in the Hundred, but mainly I think that the vast majority of the lower rated ones (so far, and I'll expect that to continue for a while) don't deserve to be there. [Even the ones I like are borderline].
Let's put it this way, if life hands you lemons, you make lemonade. If life hands you cherries, you make cherry juice. You made lemonade from cherries. I've thought about ways to make a semi-practical simulation to show this, but again, lazy. I think the logic stands nicely.
There's no major harm in publishing it, it's just a list. The geek's ratings are just a list, too. I wouldn't go so far as to say it means nothing, though. Gamers who aren't old hand and not terribly new (2nd wave) are on the look-out for sleepers or older games they may have missed. Lists like yours that (and the near-mythical 'useful geeklist') provide fodder for purchases. If the results are meaningful, it's positive. If you are imagining data in noise, it's negative. [The comments do help this]. Despite your clearly couching this as a fun project, when reading your methodology post I was struck by how you carefully adjusted the points (which was nicely done, bu the way). But then I noticed what was in my post. I don't think that my point will be intuitively obvious to many people, and that may lead to some people hunting down games, overbidding, and buyers remorse, which I'm sure you didn't intend. The comments read like a 'Whose who' of game reviewers, noted personalities, etc. It's a very compelling effect.
Unless you promised some sort of statistical non-release, you could provide insight by releasing the # of voters and total points for each game. [For my purposes, the # of voters for every 5th game would probably suffice]. Am I right in that the last games have ~3 voters? Is it less? More?
And I am having fun! I'm insulting games I dislike! I wish more people did that. It's very Catholic. Love the gamer, hate the game. [Just wait till Taj Mahal shows up in the hundred! Hah!]
15 Games from twice that many gamers probably wouldn't be enough, assuming that everyone really does vote for their favorites. The top 10 or 20 will get a huge number of votes, and then the weird spurts will throw up some flukes.
Twenty votes would help and like I said, I think twenty five would be enough.
I literally have never seen it played beyond the 2001 Gathering (although I imagine it must have been around in 2002 and later, there) and I live near one of the people who loves it, promoted it, and never saw him play it. By Frank's own comment, he shouldn't have voted for it because he doesn't get to play it (and presumably hes offering to put it on the table). It's just one of those weird "One strong voter and a few follow ons" blips that I was talking about, and the one that offended me most.
I was shocked to see BGG rate it so highly. I'd never noticed it was so highly ranked, often played, etc. Who knew? It's just another Taj Mahal. Only less so.
And I picked on Capitol because I hate it. I would have picked on more games, but I was pressed for time. I think Age of Renn. is an odd inclusion (although six years ago I would put it in my Top 100). [Marty's trying to organize a game on the Austin mailing list as I type this!] I can't comment on Africa, having never played, but given the disparity between it's BGG rank, I'm raising an eyebrow. It seems to be much more popular with the voters than RGB, which leads me to believe it's noise, not data. I'll have to try it. Mamma Mia strikes me as misplaced. Domaine is good, not great. Vinci ditto. These are all games that got initial plays and then dropped off for me. I don't think Royal Turf quite makes the cut, but I'm not horribly offended by it (6, like Domaine, in my book). Res Publice I played once and liked, and I'd like to get a copy, as long as I don't pay much. I suspect it doesn't belong. Never played Dune. I really dislike Code 777, but I was enthralled for a few plays. [I tend to dislike deduction games]. The voters may like them (we'll see if any others make the list, I think Black Vienna is a much better entry in the genre].
By my ratings, Battle Cry is borderline, but I haven't played it in 2-3 years. Big box is part of the problem. (Only played Memoir a few times, too). Homas Tour was one of my first purchases, and I remember it fondly. Sold my copy. Rated a 7 (borderline). I'd rather play Bridge than spades, and never would have put it in my Top 15, but it's not horrible.
It'll be interesting to compare the One Hundred with the BGG One Hundred and/or the old rec.games.board One Hundred, so no judgment yet before the list is complete.
Not at all, Brian. My main beef with you is that you're probably right. And I hate that.
And you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
(I don't really think that, but I thought it was an excellent retort, nonetheless.)
I think all the games on the list are worth recommending. Certainly someone can't gripe if they purchase game #84 expecting it to be a Top 10 game.
I have no problem releasing the data. And yes, you're right. I f***ing hate that.
Except. While I agree that the inclusion of Africa in Stephen's study probably has as much to do with me being a fan as anything, one of the most interesting looks into BGG I've done is comparing BGG rank to times played rank. Africa is among the 300 most _played_ games on BGG, in spite of (1) it's rating, and (2) the fact that I don't list games played - and so my 50+ plays of the game don't show up.
Another one that fits the same mold - I love it, BGG doesn't, and the games played statistics belie the ranking.
I agree w/ you regarding Black Vienna vs. Code 777, though I'm reasonably fond of both - but not enamoured with either.
Joe (who didn't remember if he might have voted until he saw himself quoted)
P.S. FWIW, now assuming I did vote, I did not try to list the objective best games, but my favorites - which are well out of synch with most, and include such items as Africa and Res Publica.