I watched a video this weekend that made me seriously question one of my core beliefs about creation, design, and publishing.
During my 10 years at Stonemaier Games, I’ve watched the game industry grow exponentially. The result of this influx of creators is amazing–I’ve had the pleasure of playing, discussing, and learning from well over 600 games during that time, and there are thousands more that have brought joy to people.
The influx of new games has also made me acutely aware that more isn’t inherently better. So I’ve advocated that (a) designers create prolifically but submit selectively and that (b) publishers focus on a few new products that they believe are truly special instead of casting a wide net each year.
However, after watching a thought-provoking video from Gaming with Edo, I realize that there’s a lot more nuance to this topic. Mostly, I realized that my philosophy–as summarized above–is full of assumptions and judgments. While I still think there’s some validity to it, I think the philosophy only matters when I’m talking about myself as a designer and publisher, not others–who am I to judge or tell others what they should do?
The video is at least partially a response to another video in which a reviewer and a designer discuss “mediocre” games (and the process of elevating them before putting them out in the world), with the original headline telling designers/publishers to stop making “mediocre” games. My resulting thoughts are all over the place, so here they are in no particular order.
- Who are any of us to judge what “mediocre” is? Any form of entertainment is highly subjective. None of us are authorities on what is good or bad, fun or unfun, amazing or mediocre. We’re all just people with different perspectives. Yes, there are metrics, but even they often contradict each other (like BoardGameGeek ratings compared to sales figures).
- The one area where I think we can somewhat accurately identify mediocre work is our own work. I’ve designed plenty of mediocre games that are functional but not fun, and those are the games I haven’t attempted to publish. Of course, the games I was excited enough to publish are highly subjective in the public eye, but out of respect for Stonemaier customers’ wallets, I try to serve as my own gatekeeper and only release games of mine that I think have the greatest chance of bringing joy to a lot of people.
- I think there’s a huge amount of value in creating for creation’s sake. I’ve learned so much from “failed” game design attempts. I’m working on a game right now that I’ve designed from scratch nearly 8 times now–even though each version is completely different, I’m learning each time. I’ve also paused design on that game to spend a few hours or a day working on a completely new project, just to see where it takes me. If we’re only ever focusing on the one project that we think will be our finest work, we may miss out on all the other cool things our brains are capable of.
- This comes back to the concept of what to actually submit to publishers (if that’s the route you’re pursuing as a designer, opposed to self-publishing). That is, if you’ve designed 10 games, is the best strategy to submit all 10 to publishers and let them decide which game is worth publishing, or is there value in self-selecting what you think are the 3 best games and focusing on them? The answer is up to you. The one perspective I can add as a publisher is that I value a designer’s ability to edit and cut. Surely playtesters have responded better to some of those 10 games than others–are you able to listen to them?
- The next level up is which games–and how many different games–publishers actually decide to make each year. I really don’t think there are many publishers who still release dozens of games each year, but if they do, who am I to judge that strategy? If their customers support that many games, isn’t that the market saying yes?
- At the same time, as publishers, do we not have a certain level of responsibility in regards to overconsumption and the environment? No matter how eco-friendly a game is, there’s still an environmental cost to producing anything. Again, the market can decide, but “the market” also makes irrational, damaging decisions all the time. If you print 20,000 units of a game that only 1,000 people want, the market has indeed decided…but it’s too late for the environmental cost of those 19,000 excess units.
- “Gatekeeping” isn’t inherently a bad word. We’re all gatekeepers about what we say, do, and create. But this isn’t our decision to make for others–I never want to take the joy away from someone else’s creation or their creative process.
While making notes for this post over the weekend, I thought a lot about my game Rolling Realms. I designed Rolling Realms (which scales infinitely and remotely) at the beginning of the pandemic as a way for people to connect with each other during self-isolation. I didn’t plan to publish it, but I realized around the 10th iteration of it that I was having a lot of fun with it, and I thought it would bring more joy to people in proper printed form instead of a single sheet of paper.
However, I knew Rolling Realms was never going to be a smash hit. It’s not the type of game that races up the charts at BoardGameGeek. It’s not the type of game that will top the sales charts on ICv2. I can’t even say it’s my finest work–it doesn’t have the depth, progression, or decision spaces of Scythe, Viticulture, Charterstone, Tapestry, or Red Rising.
Yet in the 9 months that have followed its release, Rolling Realms has become one of my most-played games. In fact, this week marks the 30th liveplay of the published version (starting on Friday afternoon in the Rolling Realms Facebook group), and hundreds of people still play along with me later on YouTube. It’s brought me exponentially more joy than I ever imagined, and it seems like it’s had a positive impact on other people too.
Also, because of how we printed Rolling Realms, it ended up becoming something I didn’t imagine at all when it was a single piece of paper. Rolling Realms uses dry-erase “realm” cards, each one a simple minigame based on one of our games. A round is a random combination of 3 realms. As a result, it’s really easy to add new realms…and not just realms based on Stonemaier games. What started with a Terra Mystica promo realm has blossomed into friendships with dozens of other publishers, and we’ll offer the resulting promo realms over the next year and beyond (this photo shows many of those promo packs).
I think what I’m getting at is that by opening myself to what’s okay to create and publish has been fruitful and fulfilling for me, and I’m disappointed in my previously overgeneralized and judgmental philosophy. I’m sorry for that stance, and I hope you create to your heart’s desire.
What do you think about this topic?
***
Also read: Create Something Meaningful to You in 2022
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!
56 Comments on “Your Best Work, Mediocrity, and Creating for Creation’s Sake”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
I completely agree with the statement of this article, in the sense that we designers are blind to the effects of our games outside ourselves. Playtesting I feel destroys or creates the legitimacy of a game in a way where our personal plays or minds will never do, especially blind playtests. People always have guilty pleasures, such as lowly rated games, which they personally adore, if the game reaches the heart of any one person, your game as a piece of art has become valuable.
I believe that board games, like most interactive media, are a work of art that is bound by the time they live in.
As the nature of a society moves, so too moves the value of the board game. As it happens, right now society is excessive and overcrowded, and so are our games.
But in many ways it’s better than when society was simplistic and primitive. Mancala is not a bad game by any stretch, but while it shows ancient man could still exercise his noggin, the modern man has created some beautiful and challenging stuff!
What an interesting topic – I was left wondering that when/f I become a designer, would I find an inverse relationship between design satisfaction and market sales. Which would I prefer – satisfy my creative desires or deliver what the market wants. Based on that binary choice, I can see I won’t make an income:)
I’ve never commented here but I just wanted to say that I love this post and it really struck a cord with me as someone who loves to create. I’m glad you brought up Rolling Realms – one thing I love about it is how much fan content has come from it and the door it’s opened for people to try their hand at game design and have fun with it. It’s a blast designing and trying new realm ideas!
Super excited for the upcoming realms y’all are publishing!
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks for making your first comment, Ben, and you’re welcome back in the future! :) I’m glad you’ve had fun with all the fan content within the Rolling Realms world, and I’m really looking forward to showcasing how some of those realms inspired official promos.
So, this may seem a bit counterintuitive, but let me see if I can thread this out:
Selectivity can improve inclusivity.
I don’t necessarily think it’s the best approach to try to make games that appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Rather, what I’d like to see is a much broader and more diverse variety of creators getting the opportunity to create and publish unique games that may only appeal to limited or niche audiences, but in the aggregate increase the amount of true choice we have as players.
Personally, I love walking into a giant FLGS stuffed floor to ceiling with different titles, because it makes me think that somewhere in there is a hidden gem that may just press all the right buttons that I’m looking for. My tastes run very niche, and I’m often uninterested in a lot of the most popular games, but when I find a title that hits, it becomes that much more meaningful because I know I chose it for my own reasons and not because I feel the market or the ‘community’ was compelling me to try something.
On the other hand, walking into an FLGS with limited selection that only seems to be the current most popular titles can leave me a bit deflated. I feel like my options have been pre-selected and pre-curated based on larger market-driven factors, and I’m missing out on something that better connects to my interests.
The more we can encourage and foster smaller creators to bring their games to completion—even if those games don’t necessarily have mass market appeal—then the more choices there will be and the more individuals who aren’t ‘gamers’ will potentially find something that connects with them.
Now, regarding “mediocrity”:
I think anyone intending to make a salable product has a responsibility to try to make the best, most professional and most polished product they can, and that’s still possible even within severe constraints.
It’s about respect for the person who is exchanging their money and their time for the product you’ve created, and not taking that transaction for granted. All creators owe it to themselves and their audience to continually ask “is this the best I can do” at various points in the process. And be honest. Many times the answer is “yes”, and that’s fine. Keep running with it. But I think being a strong creator requires being able to honestly self-criticize and recognize you could—and should—try harder and push just a little bit beyond “it’s fine.”
“I don’t necessarily think it’s the best approach to try to make games that appeal to as wide an audience as possible.”
I agree 100%! I have an article titled something like, “Your Target Audience Isn’t Everyone.”
I also really like what you wrote here about what creators owe to both themselves and their audience.
Amazing game and I can’t wait to get my hands on the expansion packs!!! This was a great read!
Thanks Janet! :)
This is an interesting thing to think about. For myself it is hard to quite figure out where I stand since I do have some emotional baggage related to the issue. For instance I have felt as an art student back in college years ago and reinforced since by society that it is a crowded, loud and competitive world, and the public in general only has room for the contributions of the exceptional, the most physically / emotionally / mentally fit, the most driven, ambitious, and talented, while the rest of us that are mediocre should just fade into obscurity. Add that to the fact that my demographic is already over represented in most fields and mediums, the world is generally better off without my creative contributions. I also do not have that thick skin creatives need, I feel awful even when just my tastes are criticized.
Needless to say I am no longer in an art related field and do very little and very mediocre creative work. And yet I dream of creating and sharing something, a book, a game, something to bring inspiration and joy to others like creative works have to me… I can’t offer something perfect but it also needs to be something I’m not embarrassed by, which of course rules out anything imperfect!
This is bigger than board games. I am not sure how that plays into the industry… most designers I imagine have already dealt with this kind of insecurity and baggage in a way more healthy than mine by the time the designs are close to publishable. But I do wonder about the psychological impact on others of wanting to contribute something to an industry that already has “too much.” I don’t suppose you see much of this as a publisher?
Thank you for sharing this, and I can absolutely relate to what you’re saying. I have imposter syndrome all the time–who am I to design something, publish something, write something, etc? And I definitely feel what you express at the end (“the psychological impact on others of wanting to contribute something to an industry that already has “too much.””). In some ways, it pushes me to try to be better, but it can also be deflating at times. I look at my shelf and see so many good games, and I question if people really want another game (even a great one).
Love you thoughts here. I want to clarify, though, that the original video was with 1 reviewer and 1 designer/publisher, not 2 reviewers. The designer’s/publisher’s actual point was keep iterating on mediocre until it’s great. The thumbnail was misleading and has since been changed to reflect the overall goal of the video, which was give tips to designers.
Thanks for clarifying, Allen! It’s unfortunate that the reviewer led with a clickbait title, but I’m glad they updated it.
Hi Jamey, I’m interested to know how you as a publisher filter out games and decide which ones are worth taking a look at more closely? I’m guessing you are inundated with requests from game designers. Or from the other perspective, what advice do you have for game designers who want to approach publishers for the first time?
Thanks Tim! I have a few articles and videos that dive deep into this topic:
https://stonemaiergames.com/how-to-pitch-and-not-pitch-your-game-to-stonemaier-games/
https://stonemaiergames.com/4-steps-to-pitch-your-game-to-a-tabletop-publisher/
Many thanks Jamey! And enjoying your book btw, very engaging read and of course full of great advice.
Defining what a mediocre game is is not easy. The whole thing is subjective.
Years ago I heard Orson Scott Card the author give a talk. At one point he talked about going back and rereading some books he loved as a kid. Sometimes he found the writing style was awful, and as an adult it wasn’t the same level of enjoyment. He mused it could be as kids so long as the story fires the imagination then we will forgive (aka not notice) the writings rough edges.
So from a board game point of view, the more experienced we get playing games the less forgiving we are when the polish isn’t done enough.
Fiction readers are easier to quantify than gamers (I have seen so many lists trying it). There are three basic types of readers, people who read for Plot; Character; or Style. For example: for me to enjoy a book there needs to be good characterisation; whereas my partner needs the plot to be good (though annoying style will make him leave a book).
So from a board game point of view we all have needs that have to be meet for a game to be considered fun. One persons mediocre game is another persons fun evening.
Its really about knowing the audience the game is aimed towards.
I’m glad you brought that up, Louise. Related to that, Edo makes an interesting point in his video that not all beloved games were beloved upon first release. I often think of Sushi Go, which had a few hundred backers on IndieGogo; it’s now a hugely successful game.
Another example is Tic Tac Toe.
Its a little game that is easily solved, once solved it becomes boring and mediocre.
Yet as a kid I was happy to keep playing against people until I had that lightbulb moment.
It’s the lightbulb moment that is the point of the game. The piece of learning development it provides all kids who play.
Reading through the comments here also reminded me of a story that always stuck with me from Magic – I think Mark Rosewater.
When a new set comes out, probably 20-40% of those cards find a good home in decks and the rest are considered ‘trash’ by experienced players. Some cards might look fun (say a big dragon) but are overcosted, inefficient, or just inherently weaker. So why do these cards even get printed? They’re there to teach newer players about the game through experiencing why these cards might not be as good as they seem. Yes this huge dragon card *is* powerful, but once a new player realises by game 4-5 that it just sits in their hand and never gets played they realise that maybe bigger isn’t always better and tempo is an important game concept.
I loved the idea of mediocre cards as a teaching concept, allowing people to discover the hows and whys of a games function by simply playing and evaluating through regular gameplay. Perhaps there is a parallel there with gateway games often derided by experienced players
You know what a big fan I am of Rolling Realms, and I think perhaps its most unique (and definitely not mediocre) part is how it is in fact providing a framework for creating other mini games within it. It could have just been a cute little fan-service roll-and-write, but allowing the promos to connect fans of Stonemaier Games with fans of other games and vice-versa is frankly amazing for everyone involved. To me it’s a small box that represents something absolutely massive. (Also a design principle of mine, ha)
Thanks Ben! It’s been incredible to see the number of fan-created realms.
Thanks for the humility to recognize it’s good to encourage others’ creative pursuits. A few rejoinders (which I touched on during the Beans and Dice interview a couple weeks ago)…
1. Publishers are deluged with submissions, far beyond their ability to publish everything, let alone sell it all. So judicious designers can do a favor for publishers by being selective about what they submit and to whom.
2. Some unpublished designers have potential but get no visibility, while published designers have no trouble getting their work seen. So experienced designers can do a favor for less experienced designers by mentoring, by making introductions, and by co-designing.
3. Our industry is blessed with an astonishing wealth of creativity that many people in the world have yet to experience. The market’s growth is what makes it possible for all of us to design more games, publish more games, sell more games, and give the gift of more new experiences to more people. So all of us do everyone a favor when we bring new people into the hobby–by hosting game nights, by giving gateway games as gifts to friends, by teaching people to play, by going in with friends to buy communal copies of games, by joining community card groups and introducing them to new games, by helping strangers learn games via Tabletopia/TTS/BGA, by helping to promote sales and special events at the FLGS, by volunteering to supervise game clubs at churches and at K12 schools, by supporting reviewers financially through Patreon, by buying prints of great game art and hanging it in our cubicles, by giving games at white elephant gift exchanges, by organizing game night at the company Friday happy hour, etc etc etc. We do these things as gamers first, and only secondly as designers/publishers.
In short, we all make the world a better place by remembering that we’re not in this industry just for ourselves. We’re in it because we enthusiastically LOVE to game, and we passionately thirst to give that experience to others.
I love the host of examples you gave about how we can all be more inclusive and welcoming in the gaming community!
Thanks, Jamey. And I appreciate how you amplify what is positive and constructive in your blog and videos.
I do like the consideration for the environment, but I think gatekeeping can block people out from failing at a point that is educational rather than simply demoralizing. It could also potentially deprive ourselves of great games in the future. Asking publishers to never print “mediocre” games is an absurd request on many levels. Subjectivity aside it will create a pretty bland market – as soon as you try to quantify what “mediocre” is, publishers and creators will only adhere to proven formulas. Thats not unique to board games.
I am currently developing a game. I have broken it down, re-worked it, edited, re-worked again, scrapped, rebuilt, playtested, edited, tested, broken down, built back up and on and on… Despite my thoroughness, I am not kidding myself into thinking its going to be accepted as a masterpiece when I finally get it made. Realistically it will probably be perceived as “ok” – not for lack of effort, but for lack of experience. I plan to take the inevitable harsh lessons that will come from the process and put that into the 2nd game I create. I fear if absolutely no one gives a shot to a mediocre game, I, as well as many other creators in similar circumstances, will be left treading water.
Luke: Just to make sure, did my post convey in any way that I’m “Asking publishers to never print “mediocre” games”. That certainly was not my intention, and I don’t see that in the post–are you referencing something else?
Oh not at all! Maybe I misspoke. It was more of a general addition to the conversation, just expanding with my own thoughts on this particular line:
“The video is at least partially a response to another video in which two reviewers discuss “mediocre” games and tell designers/publishers to stop making such subpar games”
I dont know specifically which video they would be referencing, but Ive seen a lot of similar sentiments in blogs and youtube videos; folks that dont seem to recognize the value in risk and interesting failures.
Ah yes, thanks for clarifying. That video’s link is in the description of Edo’s video.
I suspect he was referencing the original video about “the world doesn’t need your mediocre game” and he was refuting that premise.
This definitely resonates. As someone who felt he had to “finish” a game before pursuing a new design, I have realized that’s not how I work. I much prefer to make a “batch” of prototypes using simple rules and components and see if anything sticks. I try and get the game to a place where I can write everything down and have an end state, but really the design process is what brings me joy. Even more, collaborating and designing with others has brought me the most excitement and curiosity. Realizing that has helped me rejoin the space and understand what I want out of designing.
Excellent article. I appreciate your attention to the environmental component as well, especially when considering how many games end up being unplayed or unsold.
Trevor: I’m glad you’ve found the best method for your creative process, and I hope you’re having fun with it! :)
This is a very interesting article. I don’t think that anybody can really defend that there should not be liberty for everybody to create and publish their work. Of course, it would be fantastic if authors only published what they believe is a good product.
It is not hard to find interviews where famous people (actors, writers, musicians, producers, etc.) recognize that a certain product wasn’t really a good one, but it was needed in order to keep the checks rolling. That is disappointing, but at the same time, understandable.
But, how come the market didn’t crush and burn those subpar products? Here is where publishers and producers get the blame: marketing and brand recognition. It’s clear that some brands can sell a whole lot of a mediocre product while some fantastic ideas get forgotten simply because they do not have the exposure and marketing power.
So, while everybody should be free to create and publish, I hope that powerful people in each industry keep trying to reach excellency with each and every new product, because, sadly, the market is not a perfect filter and the fact that 10 million people watched a bad movie on prime time is not a valid reason for that movie to exist. Those 10 million people would have watched anything, and maybe enjoyed more a better movie.
I have been starig at that pile of promos so hard my eyes hurt. Here are my guesses:
From Top:
1. A feast for odin
2. Hadrians Wall
4. Cascadia
6. Barenpark
7. Architects of the West Kingdom
8. Isle of Skye
16. Ark Nova
Then I’m guessing Quacks, Clank, Carcassonne, Viticulture World, Wingspan Asia, Great Western Trail, Wayfarers, and Terraforming Mars are in there.
Really excited to see if I have any right.
Also great post, we all need more creativity in our lives. Let’s cultivate and encourage that wherever we can.
It’ll be a while before you know the answer to those guesses, but I welcome the speculation and excitement. :)
I recently watched a video entitled something like “The world doesn’t need your mediocre game” and it’s been on my mind since. For me, my fear isn’t that someone else thinks it’s mediocre, or even dislikes it. (Well, obviously I want some people to love it). But if I feel like it’s falling short, that’s different. The idea of identifying mediocre in our own work really resonates with me. If I feel like something’s off, I definitely want to fix it before it gets published. I’m my own worse critic, which is both a blessing and a curse for a perfectionist.
Indeed, I think that was the inspiration for Edo’s video. I appreciate your willingness to dive deep into your own work to fix and enhance it as much as possible!
Any concept of “good” “bad” or “mediocre” is implicitly a judgmental way to look at a game/book/show/movie/song (IMHO). The way that I’ve started to evaluate works of creation is to think about how many people will appreciate this work. On the smallest scale, there are games that appeal to exactly one person (presumably the person who created it). And there is nothing right or wrong about that. One the other end of the spectrum (re: board games), you have Monopoly, Chess, a deck of playing cards, etc.) that are enjoyed by hundreds of millions if not billions of people. The games that are enjoyed by billions of people are not qualitatively “better” or “worse” than a game that appeals to only 1 person. It’s just falls differently on the spectrum.
Those are obviously extremes, but the point remains. And the number of people who enjoy a game says nothing about the intensity of enjoyment experienced by those who play a game. A game enjoyed by 10,000 people may be considered a phenomenal game – the greatest ever created for those 10,000 people – and no one else. Is that a commercially viable product? How about a game that will be moderately enjoyed by 1,000,000 people, but only 10,000 will be motivated enough to actually buy the game to add to their collection? Is that game more commercially viable, even though the likely market of sales is roughly the same?
All this to say that, whatever our subjective notions of “good” or “bad” may be, in the end, we can’t know in advance how many people will enjoy a particular game until they play it. But I think these kinds of discussions can easily fall into the trap you mention of deciding from a place of judgment of what games “should” be published for other people to enjoy.
From a business perspective, we can certainly draw inferences about the likely market for a game based on play tester feedback – as we should! Or how many people pledge during a crowdfunding campaign. There are several sources of data that publishers can look at, but none of them are going to be perfect indicators by any means. But what I hope is that publishers will think about games simply in terms of “how many people are likely to enjoy this game, and can we make money selling to that likely audience” and stop worrying about whether a game is “good enough” to be published.
Thanks for your thoughts, Michael! I like the idea of focusing outwardly on who (and how many) people will enjoy the game and if the game is viable for that audience.
The down side is that trying to evaluate who is (and how many are) likely to enjoy a game seems to be more art than science. My recollection is (and please forgive me if I am mistaken here) that neither your nor Elizabeth Hargrave had any notion of how popular Wingspan would become. I’m not sure anyone could have predicted how popular it would go on to become.
Absolutely. We have high hopes for any game, but it’s always a big guess up front (no matter how many distributors you talk to or even if you run a Kickstarter, you don’t know what the full demand is, even for the first print run). We printed 10,000 units in that first print run, which seemed like a lot at the time…and then we went on to make a total of 300,000 units that first year after we realized how many people wanted it. If I could do it again, I definitely would have made more up front, but I’ll never bemoan a publisher for the first print run being to small–they can always make more.
Sturgeon’s law (or Sturgeon’s revelation) is an adage stating “ninety percent of everything is crap” coined by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon.
But reading this makes me wonder who is the best judge of what is, or is not, “crap.” Said differently, one person’s crap is someone else’s best-seller.
I have been watching a lot of Liege of Games videos. He likes to qualify that there are games he likes or are a better fit to his game group. There are games that do great on crowd sourcing or in the market. But no one likes every game. That’s why there are so many different games and we all don’t all own a copy of Go or Kemet and nothing else.
For what it’s worth, I was really excited to get my hands on Rolling Realms, and I’ve been introducing it to friends and family ever since and pretty much everyone I’ve played with has just loved it and immediately wants to go buy it. It feels like a slow-burn classic.
Thank you so much for sharing it! I’m glad you’ve enjoyed it. :)
This reminds me of that hateful poem “So You Want To Be A Writer” by Charles Bukowski where he tells people they’re not allowed to write.
Way to crush the creative spirit, Chuck!
Agreed with everything here. I do think every game needs to be designed. I don’t think every game needs to be published in a physical form. If it is art for art sake, the creation, not the monetization is important.
Thanks for the great post and link to Edo’s awesome video!
Thanks Gavan! I think you sum it up perfectly here: “I do think every game needs to be designed. I don’t think every game needs to be published in a physical form.”
I appreciate your deeper thoughts as we should all do this on things when our initial mindset is challenged. I think that publishers simply are trying to do what their customer’s actions are saying is important to them.
I am not a publisher, but I am in business and here is the behavior that I noticed can coincide with sales:
1. Customers tend to buy quite a few games and have larger collections
2. Customers tend to not play the game much or even at all (shelf of shame/opportunity)
3. Customers are attracted to nice art and nice components
4. Great games and those of lessor popularity seem to get the same treatment.
5. If media creators like a game, it tends to sell more
6. When a game goes out of print/in between print runs: demand usually rises
So I can understand a publisher’s desire to get a game, do a single smaller print run and hope to mimic the perceived customer demand…especially when many people might only play it once or not at all.
I think it’s this ‘rush’ that is causing the problems. When there isn’t time to flesh out an idea, it’s going to result in short cuts. And if many publishers are trying to ‘beat the curve’ and release 10 or more of these games a year: that’s a lot of half baked ideas. Games, like all art, need time to grow and be explored.
The pandemic and ultimately the recession helped end this sooner than later…for the same reason people are now in an uproar about minis and blinged out content. We don’t have the money to just back games blindly. Some people are still in that honeymoon phase where they want to experience ALL the board gaming goodness and are naturally frustrated.
I think this can be repaired with 2nd editions of these games that aren’t at their full potential. However, my fear is that if sales are just lackluster on certain titles: that is great ideas that COULD have made for great games, but get forgotten.
So I think there needs to be some kind of ‘shift’ that does offer the best of both worlds: many great games coming out. That is going to be different for every publisher…but to say “Who am I to say if a game is good”…while I agree with the sentiment….you ARE one of the gatekeepers to what comes to market. While I don’t think you need to bash a game…I do hope you will continue to talk about games you like.
Ray: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You share some interesting theories here. It’s hard for me to say if a game is half-baked or not…there isn’t a hard science to when a game is ready for production. It’s highly subjective, even for those designers/publishers who pursue and are receptive to a vast array of playtester feedback.
As for your last sentence (“I do hope you will continue to talk about games you like.”) I do want to clarify that I talk about all games I play on my YouTube channel whether or not I like them, as I’m looking at them from the perspective of a game designer (not a reviewer). I just want to be sure you don’t interpret my positivity as an endorsement–there are many games I play that I’m happy with just one play even though I learned something from one or several of their mechanisms.
Understood…I apologize, I’m talking more about your ‘top X’ games in certain genres but that makes sense if your philosophy covers that as well :)
You’re absolutely right! I do indeed share my favorite games on those top 10 lists. :)
I think we all recognize we could do better as an industry. I think the publishing of mediocre content is one of the worst things for the environment, and is the greatest area of possible improvement for our industry. Encouraging publishers to do their best is a good idea. Though we should be careful at judge what another best looks like. It would be like encouraging in any other industry from wasteful practices. I think a good game, in this case, is a game that even if I don’t like it, I can easily find someone else who would. That way it won’t be wasted. For example there are some of your games that haven’t worked well for me, but I haven’t had a problem finding others that it would work well for. I think this is in part because of the extra effort you spend to make sure everything you produce is at a high caliber. Unfortunately that has not been the case with all other games I have purchased.
Judging others is a tricky thing. On one hand, we should avoid it, especially for the purpose of putting people down or hurting others or putting ourselves on a superior footing. Other the other hand, as a consumer I have the power to judge to do good by identifying those that have a high standards and supporting them.
Seth: That’s a really interesting point about how a game might not connect with you, but if the overall quality of the game is high enough, you can’t probably find someone else for whom the game might be a great fit (and give it to them).
That’s your best post to date!
I’ve thought about this as lot as well. I plan on doing an episode on my PC about it once it’s running. To show that this is not unique to board games…the beer industry has been dealing with this for a while now. It started small with some really good craft beer places around the country, but then blew up to what it is today. You can also see some “gatekeeping” in fandom that is beer.
Here is my thought process, even if publishers and designers were going to publish 1-2 games a year, that were top quality, and would be the best game possible, I still would not be able to play every game that came out, even if I wanted too. So let people and companies publish what they want to publish. Who am I to judge, as you say.
There is not enough time for us to worry about things we might not enjoy. Enjoy what you enjoy, and let others do the same :)
I agree, I think this applies to any form of creation. And that’s such a great point about how the number of games is impossible to keep up with (and how that isn’t necessarily a bad thing at all).