I picked up about 6 games at Origins, and readers qualistarian and Fu Leng picked up even more on their own. (And we got a few more that we couldn’t resist after, not to mention demoing them at the FLGS…) I’ve finally had the chance to play all or most of them–many weeks later–and I don’t want to bore everyone (including myself) with a full review of each. So, get ready to drink from the firehose:

Lost Cities: It’s required to say “I hate this game!” at least once per game, or you lose 10 points. Despite this, I love it. Verdict: 3+++

Hive: Incredible depth for such simple rules. There’s a lot going on and a lot to learn. The lack of luck makes it feel “heavier”; since nothing totally unexpected is going to happen, everything can be planned, and a failure to win is a failure of planning, right? Verdict: 2++

Coloretto: Fast. Lots of decisions. Easy rules. Deeper than it looks. Engaging. Highly recommended. Verdict: 4 (my only 4 other than Ra)

Twilight Struggle: Awesome and with surprisingly easy rules. Dripping in an exciting theme. Who would have thought that I could find the domino effect so engaging. Fly in the ointment? The three-hour playtime and the fact that it’s two-player only. Jury is still out.

Santiago: Solid game with a fascinating bribery/persuasion mechanic. There’s no other game except Settlers I can think of where you’re engaged in such tense, albeit nonviolent, negotiations with the other players. Verdict: 3+

Princes of Florence: We put off playing this game for a long time; it looks painfully dry and slow-moving. Looks are deceiving. The theme works well and the game is fast-paced and exciting for everyone. There are definitely multiple paths to victory and no other game so well emphasizes the idea that “there just isn’t enough time to do everything you want.” Verdict: 3++

Colosseum: I played this before I played Princes of Florence and thought it was OK–probably a 2+. Halfway through my first Princes game I said “I am never playing Colosseum again.” I have no idea how this got printed in a world that includes Princes of Florence, because Colosseum feels like a pale imitation. Verdict: 1++

Ingenious: Light, but with lots of opportunity for strategy, and fast-playing. Also very pleasing to look at and play with the pieces. The box is certainly much heavier than the game. Verdict: 3++

Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation: It only looks like Stratego. There are a lot of fascinating little nuances and although I’m usually really horrible at bluffing games, I seem to do OK. The theme, complete with unbalanced forces, works very well. Verdict: 3+++

Thebes: The internationalization and minor rewrite of Jenseits von Theben. I have never before seen the theme (archaeology) of a Euro work so well with the game. First, you run around Europe learning about ancient civilizations, then you try to make it to said civilizations before your rivals do and get all the best artifacts for themselves. There’s a tense, exciting balance between learning enough to make good use of your digging time, and getting there before all the good stuff is gone. There’s a lot of luck, probably comparable to the amount in Settlers, which is OK with me but I can see people being frustrated. Verdict: 3+

Caylus Magna Carta: Variously nicknamed “Caylus Lite”, “Caylus Jr.”, “Baby Caylus”, or “My First Caylus” even though 1) it’s certainly not a “light” or children’s game and 2) we’ve never played the original. Despite this, it’s definitely a lot of fun, with lots of decisions to make. Verdict: 3

Shogun: It’s a wargame! No, wait! It’s a Euro! The mechanics look cool but the playtime looks daunting. I’ve only played half a game so far. Verdict: Jury is still out. My guess is that it will end up with a high 2 but I might be surprised.

No Thanks!: Fun. Light. Hard to say no. My particular favorite part is how far you push your luck passing around a huge card that’s a big hit for everyone else but safe for you. I prefer Coloretto but might suggest this to keep people from getting sick of it! Verdict: 3

Zooloretto: Definitely looks and plays like a bulked-up Coloretto. Unfortunately, one of the neatest parts of the game–the tension of making stacks that are good for only you–is much diluted, since additional extra animals of a kind don’t hurt, and having too many animals of the kind you are collecting can hurt you. Not a bad game, but nowhere near the front of my list. Verdict: 2+

For those who may care:

1. I am abandoning my policy of no non-boardgaming content. Following the example of the great Raymond Chen, I’ll maintain a ratio of at least 50% ontopic and probably better.
2. Rule 0 may see some PG-13 material. It will remain safe for work.

I posted a short, negative review of Himalaya over at BoardGameGeek. It’s here. I really dislike this game. The programmed movement is frustrating, the way scoring opportunities arrive is unpredictable, and the scoring/winner determination is too boring and baroque to be worth messing with.

I may be posting future negative reviews over at BGG–they don’t get enough of them there–and continuing to post positive or more broadly thought-provoking reviews here.

So, apologies to reader qualistarian, who I know had high hopes for the game; my rating is 1+.

I love this new rating system because it frees me from having to decide how good a game is, which is a subjective judgment anyway, and lets me focus on how much it makes me want to play it, which much more concrete and useful at the same time. For instance, I can rate Ra 4 and Go only 2+ without having to worry about slighting such a deep, subtle, elegant, and history-steeped game. If these ratings were “poor”/”awful” to “great” and I had to rate Ra an A+ and Go a C, I wouldn’t feel right doing that.

In related news, after my second play, Coliseum gets a 2+. Frustrations: It’s not very apparent how how well you do in the early rounds helps your final score; you can’t do very well unless you sit down near the beginning and think about your complete 5-turn plan; and relatedly, there’s a lot of potential for analysis paralysis, not only regarding your score but also other players’ scores and when it’s safe and unsafe to trade with them.

Three gunfighters, named A, B, and C, are having a rather contrived gunfight. Here are the rules:

• The fighters shoot in turn: first A, then B, then C, then (if more than one is still alive) back to A, and so on.
• On a turn, a fighter gets to shoot only once, at one opponent.
• A hits the target 1/3 of the time. B hits 2/3 of the time. C always hits.
• Fighters are allowed to shoot at the ground or otherwise intentionally not hit any target.
• If all fighters intentionally miss in a row, the last one to do so is eliminated. *

What is A’s best strategy?

Extra credit: Generalize for different accuracies.

*This rule is not usually given as a part of this riddle, but it is necessary to avoid degeneracy while working out the solution, and (as you will see if you try to generalize) is particularly important if all of the fighters have accuracy over 50%. I chose it arbitrarily; it could be replaced with any rule that keeps everyone from intentionally missing forever.

I was led to believe that freezing grapes would result in a fun and cool snack for August.

I was deceived.

If the thought of eating wet, cold cardboard with a slight grape-y flavor appeals to you, by all means, freeze yourself some grapes. Otherwise, stick with the basic plan: freeze water, refrigerate grapes.

I get about 15-20 hits a day from Google. Usually about half of them are for two-handed Euchre and the rest are for riddles; the most popular of these are the pirate riddle, the burning rope riddle, and general riddles.

Recently I was surprised to see a Google referral from a search on “henry kissinger newsweek 11/8/04″. This was pretty surprising because, well, Henry Kissinger isn’t usually the kind of thing I write about. Turns out the search lands here. You’ll have to look deeply in the comments–even WordPress’s built-in search doesn’t find this.

Upon consideration of the rating scheme I proposed in my last article, it seems that using decimals to express an intermediate opinion suggests a lot more granularity than I actually feel. What is the difference between a 2.6 and a 2.7, anyway?

I had previously considered using plus/minus scoring (possibly using letters instead of numbers, a la letter grades for class) but dismissed this as excessively loaded with connotations I don’t want. What does “average” or “good” mean, anyway? I want for these new ratings to mean something quite specific about how much a game makes me want to play it.

I think zero-to-three pluses gives enough lets me express the distinctions I want to make clear, without forcing me to think really hard about whether a certain game really deserves a .7 or a .8. In addition, it makes the important thresholds more clear (Will I willingly play the game? Will I suggest the game myself) instead of mimicking a 50-point scale.

In response to DrObviousSo’s question about Winner’s Circle: Aside from games that can be played with 2 or more-than-2 players, this game is the one I was thinking of when I mentioned that a rating is specific to a certain number of players. For six players, I give it a 1+. For four, I give it a 3. In the larger game, it feels like I have frustratingly little control over what’s happening. In the four-player game, there is much more control over the horses (you get to make at least one meaningful decision every round!) and because of this, more interesting decisions to make in the betting as well.

I present to you this scale which I shall use to rate games until someone convinces me to use something better, or I tire of it. It is not dissimilar to a 5-point or 10-point rating scale, but this should explain what the different ratings mean to me.

Axioms: These ratings pertain to a hypothetical game which I have definitely played until the novelty wears off (probably 3-5 plays) and which I have played once in the previous month, so there is little or no “geez, I sure miss X” factor.

In addition, a rating may be specific to a particular number of players. For instance, I might say (if I were very confused or , perhaps, heavily bribed) that Monopoly is a fine game for 4 players (rating 3) but pretty unpleasant with 5 or 6 (rating 1+)

4: How did we get a month without playing this? I’m chomping at the bit to play it again.

3: I would suggest playing this game again.

2: I wouldn’t suggest playing this game again, but if someone else did, I would not be opposed.

1: I would be opposed to playing this game again in the absence of bribery, cajolery, or the presence of a girl I was interested in.

0: I played this a month ago? I would not play this game in any circumstances.

In addition, intermediate attitudes can be expressed in terms of zero to three pluses after the number. For instance, 2+++ is a game I would be close to suggesting myself, were it not for some flaw in the game or the presence of a similar game I like more; a flat 2 I would agree to without argument, but if it were much worse I wouldn’t, and under bad circumstances I might beg off as tired/need to go home/etc.

And to rattle off some games that have been on my mind:

4 Ra, Coloretto

3+++ Puerto Rico

3++ Poker, Bridge, Settlers of Catan, Hey! That’s My Fish!

3 Power Grid, Goa, Bohnanza, Epic Duels

2++ Carcassone, Shadows over Camelot, Ticket to Ride

2 Tigris & Euphrates

1 Bang!, Risk

0++ Monopoly

A while ago, I posted that Ra would have been better if it had used cards instead of tiles.

Well, at Origins, I got to play my Favoritest Game on a picnic table outside, listening to some music (a hilarious cover band at a biker bar, oddly enough).  It was breezy and this definitely wouldn’t have been possible with cards, but the tiles were just fine. So I take it back: sturdy components can be worth both the extra expense and the extra bulk.