Well, no surprises on the final two (although I got the order wrong). Let's wrap this up, Springer-style!
For those keeping score, I've played 93 to 96 of the games I'm not sure about Gipf, Dvonn and For Sale. I think I've played Gipf and For Sale, but it's lost in the haze of time. I definitely haven't played Roads & Boats, Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage, Dune and Africa. I own 63 of the games, so that gives me a conservative Geek Score of 156. Call it 158. And if I'm allowed to count games I owned and then sold, you could add another 11 points. [I count all of the public domain games as owned, since I have at least one strategy book on each of them except Spades (I have a strategy book for Hearts, though).
Despite my worries, the list wasn't horrible, although there are some inclusions to my taste and the odd exclusions that didn't get in [I created a Geeklist. Add your own entries!]
In any case, I'll vote next time, as long as everyone's clear that I'm mainly into the complaining. Good times. Good times...
The Magic discussion is interesting, and I'll concede that I wouldn't have voted for either game, but I'm just surprised that there weren't 3 people (or so) who did. And, contra Lou, I would have voted for a CCG. One of the big differences between Shadowfist and Magic is that 'Fist is primarily multiplayer, which gives it a depth of play beyond magic (and weakens the deckbuilding and card acquisition elements). [I also think that Netrunner was the most interesting 2 player game, Larry.] It's also interesting to note the distribution of 1st place votes. I'm pleased that DBM got a first place vote ... at least one miniatures gamer voted! [I've never played DBM].
Update: Check out Tom Lehmann's Top 15, in the comments.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Hi Brian (and others),
This is Tom Lehmann. My top 15 list is below. But, a couple of comments first:
I haven't included any of my own games since they feel like an apple/oranges comparison with other games (I'm usually playing them "for work" (playtesting, popularizing, teaching per request, etc.); and it's hard to be objective about them).
This has weird effects on my list, since some games I would strongly consider (Outpost, San Juan, Jack the Ripper, and 1830, for example) have been superceded by prototypes of my own (some of which you've played! ;-) and I simply don't play the original games any more.
One of my criteria is that I actively play a game. So, yeah, there are games (Diplomacy, Acquire, McMulti, Civilization, EastFront (my wargame drug of choice) and L5R (my CCG drug of choice)) that I've spent much time exploring and enjoying. But, not anymore...
I play a lot of games with non-gamers, so accessibility is important, as is repeated play, strategic depth, and the number of tough decisions per unit of time. This leads to lots of apple/orange comparisons, especially between long, complex, strategically deep games and light, accessible ones.
To build this list, I found I had to first build three separate lists for light, medium, and heavy games; rank my top games in each; and then compile my overall list, working my way down, cross-checking in order to trade off these factors. Here's the result:
1. Puerto Rico
2. Lost Cities
3. St. Petersburg
4. Can't Stop
5. Princes of Florence
6. RA
7. 1841 (long, complex, but best depth for an 18xx game, IMO)
8. TransAmerica
9. Blokus
10. Euphrat & Tigris
11. Power Grid
12. 6 Nimmdt!
13. Take it Easy
14. Carcassonne
15. Ave Caesar
I've played all of these within the last year; many of them quite a few times (E&T the fewest).
Half this list are games that I can teach in under 5 minutes, several in under 3 minutes. That gives you some idea of how important accessibility is to me. A long game has to have a lot of depth and a lot of tough decisions before I'll rank it highly.
Goa, Attika, New England, and Settlers could have easily made it onto the tail end of this list... For me the tail end is fuzzy, depending more on whom I'm playing games with than on the games per se. I'm just not sure that Goa, Attika, and New England will have staying power and I rarely play Settlers.
TransAmerica not making the 100 list was a surprise for me. That Take it Easy or 1841 didn't, wasn't.
St. Pete may not have the depth of Princes of Florence or E&T, but I find it very accessible with some tough tactical decisions, if fewer strategic ones. That's why I rank it so high.
Looking at the auction games, Princes versus RA is an example where strategic depth wins out over elegance and accessibility. PowerGrid has decent depth and some really tough decisions but not so many per unit of time.
Lost Cities shines in accessibilty, repeated play (I'm pretty sure I've played several hundred games, maybe a thousand by now) and, still, lots of tough decisions per unit time, as well as the need to adapt my play to my opponent's play style. Can't Stop is very similar, with a few less tough decisions, in my experience.
I did my top 15 while waiting for a very long install to take place on another computer. After going home, I looked to see if there was a game that I might have forgotten that wasn't already in the top 100. One came to mind, namely Air Baron, which I would probably insert at #14 on my list. Its fails a bit on the decisions/time and accessibility criteria, but has held up surprisingly well on depth and replay. I'm still playing it.