Eurogames a plague upon the land?

Over on BGG Steve Weeks posted the following comment in this thread :

I beg to differ. Many F:AT members disagree with Barnes quite often.

From talking with Barnes on my podcast I got the impression that he had no interest at all in fame. He just wanted to provide an alternative viewpoint. He sincerely believes, as I do that CCG and most Euros are bad for the Boardgaming hobby.

This could be just a throwaway comment at the end there, but I posted this question:

This I don't get. I can understand not liking some kinds of games, I'm pretty opinionated on my preferences. Still, I give other people enough credit to think they'll select games that they themselves enjoy.

I can see not liking the mechanisms, theme, components, play style, etc. of a game, but I've never thought there was a game that was bad for the hobby. There's games that I couldn't understand why they were so popular, even consider playing a second time, or understand how it was published in the first place. Even then I wouldn't call that game bad for the hobby.

What intrinsically about CCGs and Euros makes them bad for the hobby, and not just something you don't enjoy?

I've been thinking about it some more and Steve's original comment is making less and less sense to me. Considering the huge diversity of games available right now and the wide variety of publishers that seem to be surviving if not thriving, I can't see in any way how CCGs or Euros are "bad for the hobby". If Euros or CCGs were crowding out other games I could see the argument, but to me it looks like a real renaissance of all varieties of games is occurring. There have been numerous great fillers, wargames, party games, AT games and many others released within the past few years. They may not appeal to you and you may not have any use for the existence of CCGs or Euros, but other people are getting something out of them so I take more of a live and let live towards the games I don't want to play.

I doubt I'll ever get back into a CCG, but I can't say my time with them was entirely bad. I learned a great deal about what types of game mechanisms and styles I like from playing CCGs, so I don't regret the experience. The same applies to the more traditional wargames, which I'm also unlikely to revisit.

Given my own and many others experiences with Euros and CCGs, playing a given style doesn't seem to stop you from trying other games. Most people like a variety of games and their tastes change over time. So it comes back to the question, is there something intrinsic in the styles of Euros or CCGs that makes them poisonous for some reason I'm not seeing?

The original statement is from Barnes and I cited him when posted the thread.

For me most Euros lack theme to draw me into the game and are more of an accounting exercise similar to something you would do in a college economics classroom. I say these types of games are bad for the hobby because if our goal is to draw more into the hobby it is important not to bore them to death.

Nobody said that all Euros were bad.

But these games are simple and short, two things I don't neccassarily like, and Euros are always choosen over other games at game group.

Look, everybody knows Steve's penchant for hyperbole.

If you want to attract people to playing games, you should try and fit the game to their tastes and limited experience. Immediately dragging out a complex game they can't handle will ruin their day. First priority is fun. A boring game is bad whether it's AT or euro.

There's some great euros and AT to start out with (this is their first game, who cares about replayability?). After that, you need to be more careful to cater to their tastes, but then again, the only way to know what they like, is to try.

Steve's remark only applies to a situation where people know only of euros and would instead prefer AT (or something else), if they had only known about it. I think AT is firmly on the map in gaming right now (not so a year ago!) and if it keeps that way, Steve's nightmare scenario will be incidental rather than structural.

Jur wrote:

Steve's remark only applies to a situation where people know only of euros and would instead prefer AT (or something else), if they had only known about it. I think AT is firmly on the map in gaming right now (not so a year ago!) and if it keeps that way, Steve's nightmare scenario will be incidental rather than structural.

I disagree with this statement. I don't believe that AT is any further behind or ahead today as it was a year ago. I think why people think it was is that BGG has been wearing euro-rose colored glasses on since the beginning. You may see more AT'ers there today than last year(as well as more grognards), but those people aren't new to the hobby, they are new to BGG. The AT genre and it's followers probably outnumber the BGG euro crowd 10 to one. They just don't have presence on BGG, and didn't really have other venues to show presence. But because BGG has been labeled as the quintessential boardgaming website, it SEEMED as if boardgaming had a euro slant. It really doesn't.

As for Steve, well he's just a:

As someone pointed out, the granddaddy of the Euros was Settlers of Catan. It has everything that a modern Euro game does not - dice, direct interaction and confrontation with the other players and fun. The randomness of the setup insures that no two games are exactly alike. The dice make sure that the best laid plans don't always necessarily work (although they will mostly work). The supply mechanic makes sure that everyone is doing something. The trade gets some interaction. The robber gives a chance for confrontation. The settlement placement also sets up confrontation.

Most of the modern Euros don't have any of that.

the*mad*gamer wrote:

The original statement is from Barnes and I cited him when posted the thread.

For me most Euros lack theme to draw me into the game and are more of an accounting exercise similar to something you would do in a college economics classroom. I say these types of games are bad for the hobby because if our goal is to draw more into the hobby it is important not to bore them to death.

Except it's obvious that some people do enjoy what you consider an accounting excercise. Different games for different mindsets, eh? I can't see it being a bad thing to have games that appeal to those people, as long as it isn't the only type of game that is made.

I certainly wouldn't force a Euro on anyone, or any other type of game for that matter. Still, it's better to be exposed to a wide variety than only push an individual's or group's agenda.

It's just a matter of tastes really.

A similar incident happened on softdrink.com which despite of its name is dominated by cola drinkers. So when lemonade fans came there to discuss their favourite drinks, they were confronted by few vocal cola defenders claiming their drink to be better and also able to cure belly- and headache. Some months later a new drink called Africola* imported from Germany was greeted feverishly on the site, but many lemonade fans openly stated it tasted like liquid bullshit. Consequently cola fans feared they would never be able to drink the new cola in the USA again, and the early hype turned into a witchhunt. That was the time when lemomande fans finally started their own site.

Drink what you like. Enjoy your drinks.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afri-Cola

frunk wrote:.... Still, it's better to be exposed to a wide variety than only push an individual's or group's agenda.[/quote]

Yeah - great way to get newbies to stay at your AT club, bore them to death with bland themeless cube-pushing euros .... you'll never see them again.

Time to go back to all your beige accountant acquaintances on your spreadsheet site (to each their own) - your 15mins of 'head in the lions mouth to impress the geeks' has finished. But thanks for sharing :-o

Boring games, surely you jest....

I mean, who doesn't remember that elegant move in Puerto Rico where I picked the captain gaining maximum points and leaving everyone else with nothing else to ship? Oh wait....

The only really memorable hardcore Eurogame I remember is the one where someone got screwed out of something in Caylus, so for the rest the game, he made sure that he was always going first, had a piece in the Inn and always going out first. That made it very expensive for anyone else to do anything and made the game screech to a crawl. Fortunately, we kept Mr. Jack Ass moving along the way so the game didn't drag out forever.

However, I will also remember the 1 piece in Indonesia that managed to fend off the invading horde long enough for me to to turn in cards and turn around my precarious situation. Or I will always remember the guy we called "Last Battle Vlad" because he fought every battle in Axis and Allies like it was his last. Or even better, the lone Infantry Unit on Moscow that managed to hold off both the German and Japanese onslaught. (We were almost going to make a house rule for that unit in that he would always get a bonus on his defense rolls).

It seems of the Euros, only Catan and Thebes actually attempt to tell a story. I mean in Catan, it feels like you're a colonist trying to eek an existence off the land. And Thebes has the archeologist feel to it. However, games like Arkham Horror, Axis and Allies, Risk, etc. all tell a story of some sort.

frunk wrote:

I certainly wouldn't force a Euro on anyone, or any other type of game for that matter. Still, it's better to be exposed to a wide variety than only push an individual's or group's agenda.

My collection is AT heavy. Why? Because the majority of Euros have these strikes against them:

1) Little to no conflict.
2) Themes that bore the shit out of me.
3) Special Snowflake Syndrome aka "Let's make everything balanced!"
4) Luck is verboten or looked down upon.
5) Player Elimination is verboten.
6) Playtime equivalent of eating a candy bar as opposed to a full meal (read=short).

There are only a few Euros in my collection: Dragon's Gold and Lord of the Rings. The reason why those get any play is because of THEME, hardly because of anything else.

Because of the above mentioned strikes, I consider the Euro a redheaded stepchild in my gaming collection.

I'm exposed to a wide variety of games. I love Mah-Jong (got several friends quite addicted to it when I brought a set back from my trip to Hong Kong). I play Shogi. I play Hannafuda. I play JENGA with my four year old son. If you want to participate at a game's night in my group, you're going to have to accept that you will have to play AT. That's not forcing an agenda. That's just how it is.

frunk wrote:

Over on BGG Steve Weeks posted the following comment in this thread :

He just wanted to provide an alternative viewpoint. He sincerely believes, as I do that CCG and most Euros are bad for the Boardgaming hobby.

This could be just a throwaway comment at the end there, but I posted this question:

This I don't get. I can understand not liking some kinds of games, I'm pretty opinionated on my preferences. Still, I give other people enough credit to think they'll select games that they themselves enjoy.

I can see not liking the mechanisms, theme, components, play style, etc. of a game, but I've never thought there was a game that was bad for the hobby. There's games that I couldn't understand why they were so popular, even consider playing a second time, or understand how it was published in the first place. Even then I wouldn't call that game bad for the hobby.

What intrinsically about CCGs and Euros makes them bad for the hobby, and not just something you don't enjoy?

Thing is, genre's influence each other, and it seems that many publishers listen to the hivemind mentality of BGG.

Find me a modern game with player elimination. There arn't many out there these days, so If you like that mechanic bad luck, 'modern' game design says its bad.

Take a look at Warrior Knights (new version). The game ends rediculously early - why? Because 'people' don't ant long games anymore. Where did that thought come from, the eurogame crowd.

There are many examples of people not linking the new boardgame design axioms that have come from the euro design movement. These people would say Euros are bad for the hobby.

One of the things I like about the revised edition of Axis and Allies is that Germany can generally hang around longer. The game isn't generally dependant on the one or two correct moves from the old game. Not sure if that falls under the category of eliminating player elimination though.

Euro games are primarily defined by their game mechanics and playing time. Nowadays any one of those mechanics can be dropped into a more complex game to simplify parts of it; such as TI3 having role selection. Other games can have shorter playing times by switching to VP scoring or something; such as Risk taking an hour now. And AT already had historical settings like Samurai Swords, not to mention outright wargames having those. So Euro's really have nothing exclusive to them anymore except the math involved (and that's not bringing in the masses).
So even if Euro's are still published, their time has come and gone. They have strict design styles that caused them to stagnate so they all feel the same after a while even if they don't recycle old mechanics. AT games still have lots of room to grow in several areas because they allow for more creativity in their designs.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Thing is, genre's influence each other, and it seems that many publishers listen to the hivemind mentality of BGG.

Find me a modern game with player elimination. There arn't many out there these days, so If you like that mechanic bad luck, 'modern' game design says its bad.

Take a look at Warrior Knights (new version). The game ends rediculously early - why? Because 'people' don't ant long games anymore. Where did that thought come from, the eurogame crowd.

There are many examples of people not linking the new boardgame design axioms that have come from the euro design movement. These people would say Euros are bad for the hobby.

Those are reasonable complaints, but I wouldn't say that either "Euro idea" has completely overtaken the market. There are many recently published games that exceed the 4 hour mark. Player elimination has become much rarer, that's true. The only recent game I can think of with it is Red Dragon Inn. Titan is being republished though, and I can't imagine removing player elimination from that.

Even with those exceptions your general point is still valid. I'm not convinced either trend results from some hive mind at BGG though. Publishers have been driving toward greater accessibility, and length and player elimination are definitely two elements that reduce that.