Return To: Board Index | General Discussion

Criticker board games

Any conversation related to games or gaming.
Jimmy Suede
Posts: 1
1578 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:20 am

Criticker board games

Postby Jimmy Suede » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:21 pm

I read through the other topics and was surprised that some people were calling for board games to be removed. What does it hurt? Is it that the video gamers don't want to be polluted by board games?

In any case, I was pretty excited to see it. Sure, it will probably never be as expansive or informative as boardgamegeek, but the opportunity to get tailored recommendations (just like in the movies section) is the attraction here, not to mention reading a bunch of mini-reviews is less intimidating than reading someone's boardgamegeek treatise. If anything, board games lend themselves more to these recommendations than video games, because people are probably more willing to try out a 15-year old board game than a 15-year old video game.

I agree that video games and board games could stand to be a little more separate. I'd like to see more board game genres, rather than have to wade through 50 video game genres, not to mention, as it stands, "board game" is just another platform. There's a bigger difference between board games and video games than between different platforms of video games.

It could be that the board game side of things may never catch on. I've been pretty disappointed by the lack of growth there. There are MANY popular board games that are yet lacking (I've added several, though), but here's hoping word will spread and it'll get lots more additions and lots more ratings.

livelove
Posts: 461
66 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: Criticker board games

Postby livelove » Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:59 pm

For what it's worth: I agree with everything just said.
I also think that video games and board games could be separated.

What I would love to see in criticker are 5 separate categories:
• films
• TV-series
• video games
• board games
• books

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 217
3054 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Criticker board games

Postby BadCosmonaut » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:34 pm

They need to be removed until they can be added back in and done properly. I made a huge post about it here if you want to reply to anything I wrote.

Velvet Crowe
Posts: 128
2123 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: Criticker board games

Postby Velvet Crowe » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:48 am

BadCosmonaut wrote:They need to be removed until they can be added back in and done properly. I made a huge post about it here if you want to reply to anything I wrote.


Having read your post, I don't really agree with you. The thing is with board games is that there is literally nothing that can be done on a table with a board game that can't be emulated through video games. There is a game called Tabletop Simulator that proves just that (although the system does struggle to deal with awkward shit like Connect Four and Mouse Trap, but those games aren't that great anyway). Even ignoring the existence of the latter, there are TONS of board games that have been recreated in video game format. Hell, you could literally go play Chess online with random people for free right now if you wanted to. It's actually preferable to play these games in such a way because they always get rid of the drudgery that comes with setting them up and playing them, while also adding flavor to them such as music or animations. Making a board game in video game format is so easy and puts so little on a game's performance that they often get featured as a mini-game within a lot of much larger video games.

On that note, you have to consider that video games have in some cases invented "board games." Stuff like Triple Triad in FFVIII or Gwent in The Witcher are both games that could be made into their own board game outside of the games they've debuted in, in fact they actually have. So considering this, what exactly makes these two board games a completely different thing from video games entirely, considering they were quite literally invented within a video game?

You talk about how factors separate video games and board games based on design, but the problem with that argument is that it creates a very narrow assumption as to what a video game is, and at times the distinctions you make are not that different from video games either. For example, you reference how the enjoyment out of a board game can be determined by how often people are willing to play it, but then... how does that make it different from, say, a fighting game? There are a lot of great fighters you could play that have virtually no competitive scene for it or it's very hard to find. It's why a lot of Virtua Fighter fans struggle to keep with the game they like.

On the other end, it also assumes that things like level design, perspective, or even music are even an element that matters in all video games, especially in regards to games that are designed to be board games to begin with. Take for example 100% Orange Juice which could potentially be played on a real board rather easily. What's the distinction here, exactly? Aside from the needless drudgery of playing it in real life?

There are also things like this that simulate popular games in the most simplistic way imaginable. This is, by all means, a video game, but how do you apply such criteria that you listed to critique something like this? It's fundamentally just chess, but made convenient through the technology of video games.

Personally, I think video games are ultimately not that different from board games because board games can very much be video games themselves. Your argument strikes me as not understanding that intricacy. What video games have done is actually make the process of playing board games much easier and efficient - now you don't have to do the math or setup of a board game when things like Tabletop Simulator or various other outlets that exist online make these things immaterial.

I don't really care one way or the other if video games are kept alongside with board games on this site, but I'm of the belief that they're not mutually exclusive. You can experience board games through video games in a very similar fashion, but you can't stimulate the experience of watching a film (for as much as game devs like to try and do this) through video games.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 217
3054 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Criticker board games

Postby BadCosmonaut » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:52 am

I'm not sure what difference it makes that all board games can be recreated as video games. My point was that because of those factors I listed, board games are designed and produced with those factors in mind, and because of that their design and production are different from video games in a way that is fundamental. The fact that board games can be created or recreated as video games is irrelevant to that point. If all video games could be perfectly recreated as board games, then you would have a point (and I would have agreed all along). But they can't be, so my overall point is accurate.

Also, my argument didn't assume that any of those factors are important to all video games. Of course they aren't. They were general points to support my overall conclusion. Anyone could find specific exceptions to my general points. It doesn't change my overall argument.

I could accuse you of not understanding (or even trying to understand...) "the intricacy" of what I wrote, but honestly it doesn't matter. They aren't going to change it. This is a decided debate. I linked it because you asked for the reasoning. In my opinion, it's not worth spending more time on. Feel free to reply, but someone else will have to continue this side of it for me if they want to.

Velvet Crowe
Posts: 128
2123 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: Criticker board games

Postby Velvet Crowe » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:41 am

You missed the point of my argument - in terms of format, what a board game is does not change when put into a video game, whereas trying to make a film out of a video game just doesn't function as well. The fact that video games have outright made playing board games more convenient and faster paced, while emulating its rules perfectly shows that a board game is not mutually exclusive to a video game. As shown in my chess example above, what makes that video game any different from actual chess? If you were to compare the chess game I posted to a board game version of chess, what really changes when you critique it? That's the point you're ignoring in my argument.

This would be different if applied to film vs video games. The Last of Us tries to be a "cinematic" experience, but it separates itself from film by having player investment that simply is not possible with film. This is an aspect of video games that make it impossible to be anything like actual film. On the other hand, when you compare board games and video games, that distinction doesn't exist which is why board games have become so easy to adapt to video games. It's very easy to recreate the experience of playing a board game through video games which makes it hard to really make board games distinct when they can easily be captured in a much more convenient medium.

I don't think your argument about adapting video games into board games is a relevant point, nor is your argument about the fact that these board games weren't designed to be video games. While yes, video games can't usually be adapted into a board game, in essence, that's irrelevant because both video games and board games can capture the same ideas and the same experiences, which is what ultimately matters. What we're discussing on this site is not the format but the quality of a specific game, ergo Chess is still Chess regardless of how you play it. It doesn't matter that board games aren't made to be video games either as they can easily be recreated by video games regardless. I'll concede you make a solid point that board games are designed with differing limitations in mind that don't exist with video games, but that's an irrelevant point if we're discussing the merits of how a game is designed. Ultimately, how good Chess is will not change if you play it on a board or on your computer. That's my main point.

The point I made with those criticisms is that you used those examples as the foundation as to why video games should be viewed separately from video games when a video game can be devoid of those things in the same sense a board game can be. You say that these are fundamental things that make video games different, which is to some degree true, but as I said you're narrowing the definition of what a video game is and some of your criteria was also applicable to gaming as well. You misconstrued my argument completely - my argument was that these factors don't even need to exist in a video game for it to still be a video game. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that point, but I'm of the belief you're narrowing the definition of what a video game is. Under your criteria, the chess game I linked above has absolutely none of those elements, yet it's a still a video game. How, then, would you critique it?

That said, this topic is very much about how board games should or should not be conflated with video games. You argue against such an inclusion and you made a reply despite it "not mattering." Then you drop out the second someone criticizes your argument? Come on dude, that just makes you look like a shithead. If there's some "intricacy" I do not understand, then please, tell me. I'd like to know.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 217
3054 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Criticker board games

Postby BadCosmonaut » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:48 am

I didn't drop out because you criticized my argument. What practical result do you think can come from this conversation? They aren't going to separate board games from video games. If they were considering it, I'd continue the discussion as it might actually impact their decision. They aren't, so what's the point? Also, it's rare where a worthwhile discussion happens after personal attacks/name calling.

Velvet Crowe
Posts: 128
2123 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: Criticker board games

Postby Velvet Crowe » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:09 am

BadCosmonaut wrote:I didn't drop out because you criticized my argument. What practical result do you think can come from this conversation? They aren't going to separate board games from video games. If they were considering it, I'd continue the discussion as it might actually impact their decision. They aren't, so what's the point? Also, it's rare where a worthwhile discussion happens after personal attacks/name calling.


I at no point attacked you personally. All I said, at most, is that you didn't understand a certain intricacy about video games which is made readily apparent by what you yourself said. But honestly, your insistence to dodge the argument and falsely claim foul against someone who contradicted you ought to merit some name calling. :roll:


Return to “General Discussion”