Tigris & Euphrates is a tile placement game with an innovative scoring system. Each player must score points in four different colours (red, green, black and blue). Tiles and leaders are placed adjacent to each other to form kingdoms. The winning player is the one who has the highest score in their lowest scoring colour. The idea is that players must get a balanced score.
Broadly, points are earnt in one of two ways: firstly when a tile of a given colour is laid adjacent to a kingdom which contains a leader of the same colour, and secondly, when a player wins a conflict between kingdoms. A conflict starts when a player takes an action that results in two leaders of the same colour being in the same kingdom. An external conflict (where two kingdoms are linked) is fought in the colour of the clashing leaders and an internal conflict (where a leader is added to a kingdom already containing a leader of the same colour) is fought in red. In an external conflict the loser must remove his leader and any tiles of the same colour, whilst the winner gets points equal to the number of pieces removed from the board. In an internal conflict the winner gains a single red point, the loser removes the offending leader (but no tiles).
And that's basically it. There are some other qualifications to the rules and additional actions that can be taken, but I think I've covered the main thrust of the game. In fact that's one of the things that's so great about this game - a set of simple rules produce a rich and varied game. There is plenty of scope for different strategies: isolationist mega kingdom building, parasitic feeding off other people's kingdoms, or ultra-aggresive conflict hungry play. I don't think any style is necessarily correct - each is appropriate in a particular situation. Judging when and how to switch between styles is part of the fun and skill of the game.
You'll notice that I haven't mentioned the theme of the game at all... and I don't intend to! Personally I think I would enjoy the game just as much if the theme were completely scrapped. It is an abstract game at heart, and if you're looking for a game that sees its mechanics tie in neatly with its theme then perhaps T&E is not for you.
The game works well with 2, 3 or 4 players but feels different each time. A 2 player game is a little more cat and mouse, patiently waiting for the other to show his hand (in the metaphorical sense). A 3 player game can result in a bit of ganging up on the leader, which makes it my least favourite version. But 4 players is the most fun for me as there's always plenty going on. I have also played it with 5 players (after making an additional set of leaders) and found that it worked just fine.
I think that T&E is a wonderfully interactive game. You always have to be mindful of what your other players are doing, even if you are playing an isolationist strategy. Even in a game without many conflicts the interaction is strong as players will be looking to bolster their kingdoms in a particular colour so as to discourage players from attacking.
I also like the way that the game can change very quickly, and sometimes in a way you did not predict. Often after a particularly large battle the board can shift significantly leaving a player in a very strong position when he was not previously. In fact the ability to close the gap on opponents who have raced into a big lead is a big plus in this game for me. With good play, it's quite possible for a player who has been quietly building up a strong board position to sneak up and catch a player who has been building up cheap points, but neglecting to build robust kingdoms.
I also like the learning curve. After the initial first few plays it becomes obvious that there are certain strategies and tricks that you can use to improve your game. But it takes a lot of play and experience of different styles and game situations before you can truly understand some of the more subtle strategies (something I haven't come close to achieving). I think that it's a game that rewards repeated play. It's the game that I've played most often, yet I haven't come close to getting bored with it.
For me this is one of the very best games out there. Go buy it. More importantly: go play it!
I don't think T&E is an abstract game. I think the theme is apparent in the way the game works, maybe in a subtle way, but it is there. This is one game where the mechanics, although very streamlined, are there to support the theme, and you can picture what is happening through the generations as kingdoms expand, join and are destroyed while leaders come and go.
Anyway, I agree it is a great game and one I wish I'd get to play more often...
My understanding of an abstract game is one that cannot be called a simulation - it's not just about theme - but whether or not it simulates something else.
A lot of games are simulations - especially war games, and there are plenty of non-simulating games - such as Poker, or nine-men's Morris, or Ingenious or Zendo.
Theme alone doesn't make a game non-abstract - eg Hive is a themed game, which is not a simulation, so it's abstract.
On the other hand, Chess is a simulation ( in a particularly stylised or symbolic manner ) of a battle between two matched armies. But most people call Chess 'Abstract'.
If you say that Chess is abstract, then I would agree that T&E is also abstract, even though T&E is themed - it could be played just as well ( and meaningfully ) with another theme, or no theme at all.. So, although it is a very symbolic simulation, it is not so wrong to say that it is so symbolic/abstruse as to really be an abstract game that is themed.
I definitely think T&E is abstract. I play a lot online on BGG and rarely feel immersed in the theme. Nevertheless that doesn't take away anything from my enjoyment of the game. It is without doubt the best game I've played to date.
My understanding of an abstract game is one that cannot be called a simulation - it's not just about theme - but whether or not it simulates something else.
If that were accurate, no game would be anything but an abstract. Actually, all simulations are, to some extent, abstractions of reality.
Quote:
Theme alone doesn't make a game non-abstract - eg Hive is a themed game, which is not a simulation, so it's abstract.
True. But if the mechanics are derived and constructed as a way to abstract reality, like happens in all simulations, then the game is no longer an abstract.
Quote:
On the other hand, Chess is a simulation ( in a particularly stylised or symbolic manner ) of a battle between two matched armies. But most people call Chess 'Abstract'.
And they would be right, according to your definition of abstract. If you think Chess, in any way, simulates a battle, you never experienced battle and probably never had military training.
Quote:
... even though T&E is themed - it could be played just as well ( and meaningfully ) with another theme, or no theme at all..
Like Chess or any other game, for that matter. If not, try to give an example of a game that could not be played without it's theme...
I don't think T&E is an abstract game. I think the theme is apparent in the way the game works, maybe in a subtle way, but it is there. This is one game where the mechanics, although very streamlined, are there to support the theme, and you can picture what is happening through the generations as kingdoms expand, join and are destroyed while leaders come and go.
So, unless I am wrong, I think you got the wrong end of my stick. We appear to agree with each other.
What I was saying is that there is no-one who thinks that Chess is not abstract, so Tigris & Euphrates is abstract. I guess my convoluted, abstruse logic sort of got lost in the interpretation
My point was that actually any abstract game which can be interpreted as a simulation - e.g. chess - is abstract if it can sustain losing it's theme, which chess can - so even if it is interpreted as a simulation (give over, there are elephants, soldiers, queens, knights - the lot - even Tide of Iron is more like an elaborate chess game than it is the cruel, unrelenting reality of war.) - chess is substantially an abstract game. There are plenty of games which cannot sustain losing their themes.
Mallgur wrote:
... give an example of a game that could not be played without it's theme...
Interesting challenge - but far too easy. Try Case Blue - though it could possibly be played by a non-human (an AI), or Tide of Iron. Or for that matter, try any military game that involves real warships, real subs, real infantry, real tanks, real aircraft and 50,000 real players. They cannot be played without their theme.
But more close to home, I wouldn't WANT to play The Settlers of Catan, Agricola or Genoa outside of their theme, even if it is 'possible', so for me, I would not call them abstract games - whereas not much is lost if one played an unthemed T&E, much that I love the Babylonian theme.
The closer to reality a game becomes, the more dependant upon it's theme it is. Abstract games have to be so abstract from what it is that it simulates (if anything) that you can (1) play it without the theme and (2) it loses nothing (in terms of rules and strategies...
I wouldn't WANT to play Settlers of Catan, Agricola or Traders of Genoa outside of their theme, even if it is 'possible', so for me, I would not call them abstract games
And I wouldn't want to play T&E outside of its theme either. The theme of T&E, to some of us, is actually quite central to the game, without which the game would lose much more than "nothing." T&E is no more abstract than Settlers of Catan is.
I wouldn't WANT to play Settlers of Catan, Agricola or Traders of Genoa outside of their theme, even if it is 'possible', so for me, I would not call them abstract games
And I wouldn't want to play T&E outside of its theme either. The theme of T&E, to some of us, is actually quite central to the game, without which the game would lose much more than "nothing." T&E is no more abstract than Settlers of Catan is.
And neither would I! I love the T&E theme - I love themed games over unthemed abstracts. Ingenious just sits there gathering shelf dust - because it doesn't have a theme; Hive is an exception - because it travels so well - but most of the games we play are themed games.
But there is no doubt in my mind that the theme in T&E is overlaying an abstract game. Just because I love the theme doesn't mean that it isn't abstract... (comment to self - I must use less abstruse logic in my posts)
Last edited on 2008-09-02 04:02:17 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
... give an example of a game that could not be played without it's theme...
Interesting challenge - but far too easy. Try Case Blue - though it could possibly be played by a non-human (an AI), or Tide of Iron. Or for that matter, try any military game that involves real warships, real subs, real infantry, real tanks, real aircraft and 50,000 real players. They cannot be played without their theme.
Hmmm... Maybe I am misunderstanding your logic once more but if a game can be played by an AI doesn't that demonstrate that it's theme is irrelevant to the act of playing it? Tide of Iron could easily be adapted to be played in any warfare scenario... you could theme it around a battle in the Star Wars universe, for example. And if you can change the theme of a game, then you can certainly ignore it completely.
Quote:
But more close to home, I wouldn't WANT to play The Settlers of Catan, Agricola or Genoa outside of their theme, even if it is 'possible', so for me, I would not call them abstract games - whereas not much is lost if one played an unthemed T&E, much that I love the Babylonian theme.
So whether a game is themed or not depends on the emotional connection one might derive from the playing experience. That's one way to look at it, granted. But I prefer to evaluate the way a theme is related to the mechanics on how much I, not being involved with the development of the game, am able to deduce the chain of thought that led from the theme to the mechanic depicting it. And that is pretty easy to do in T&E. I honestly believe that the designer of T&E started the process by considering how he might depict the evolution of different kingdoms, the powers involved in them and the conflicts that resulted from that evolution, in the region between those two rivers.
So, my take on this is that if a designer starts by thinking of the theme and them develops mechanics to abstract the various actions/events/whatever involved in the theme he is working on, then the game is themed (T&E). If, on the other hand, the designer thinks of a mechanic first and then adapts the components and other things in order to create a theme for the game, then the game is an abstract with a pasted on theme (Hive).
Take Reiner Knizia's other tile-laying game, Samurai, as an example. This is similar to T&E and buying it on the premise it's all about Samurai during the Sengoku Jidai period might lead to you to being disappointed. Essentially it's a tile-laying abstract game which has taken flavour and the setting from Medieval Japan; no more, no less. T&E has done exactly the same with the region encompassed by the two rivers. Compare this to Agricola, for example, where you really do get immersed in the medieval farming setting, and you'll see the difference.
Take Reiner Knizia's other tile-laying game, Samurai, as an example. This is similar to T&E and buying it on the premise it's all about Samurai during the Sengoku Jidai period might lead to you to being disappointed.
I actually own it and am not disappointed at all. But I know that is not the point...
Quote:
Essentially it's a tile-laying abstract game which has taken flavour and the setting from Medieval Japan; no more, no less.
I agree. Hence my take on how you are able to backtrack the reasoning behind the mechanics. In Samurai it is not something that you are easily able to do. The most one might consider is that the forces you are laying down are armies putting towns under siege or something, but then again you have tiles that are specific for the 3 castes (I hope this is the correct word...). So... yes, I'd say the theme in Samurai was pasted on.
Quote:
T&E has done exactly the same with the region encompassed by the two rivers.
We disagree here. The different colours of tiles represent different areas of influence where your leaders exert their power. The fact that the king (black) takes points from any power area and that agricultural (blue) tiles are confined to the rivers makes perfect sense theme-wise. There is a very interesting picture here on the geek that puts the game board over the satellite view of the Tigris and Euphrates area, meaning that even the drawing of the rivers and map layout is derived from the theme and not the opposite (and I am aware of the alternative map on the Pegasus edition, but that does not disprove the back tracing of abstraction)...There are other examples, but there is no need to point them all out here.
Quote:
Compare this to Agricola, for example, where you really do get immersed in the medieval farming setting, and you'll see the difference.
Hmmm... Well, I played Agricola twice now. I don't really think one gets so immersed in the theme, but that is another matter... If I were to follow the reasoning of the OP for Agricola, I might say it too was an abstract. I don't see it as too hard to re-theme Agricola in, say, and industrial theme...
He started out by reading about the period, and derived the game mechanisms from that.
Of course, well, as far as I'm concerned, how a game is designed is not an indication of whether or not it is abstract. I can pretty easily imagine the same game with an unmarked board (coluor differentiating 'river' spaces of course) unmarked pieces, and even a different vocabulary for conflict.
My current position is that IF a game can be played with blank (or solely functional) pieces - as found in eg. Ingenious then the game is abstract. That would mean that even Carcassonne is probably abstract too, but I do not see how war games such as Tide of Iron could be played as anything other than war games ( I reject the notion that because a theme can be transferred to eg. Star Wars theme, it remains abstract - I do not believe that Tide of Iron would work for humans in a purely abstract sense - we need some theme - at least the idea of battle - to hold onto what is going on. ) I believe that there are plenty of games that require a theme to be played - not just war games. The Settlers of Catan is possibly a good example
I am aware that my definition of 'abstract' is most probably far more broad than that of others. Especially as I do not think that abstract == unthemed, rather that if it is POSSIBLE to play a game unthemed, then it is abstract, whereas being able to transfer the theme ( eg Ra and Razzia! ) does not necessarily indicate that the game is abstract. ( though i would say that Ra happens to be abstract in this case (
I believe that it is POSSIBLE to play T&E with formal, untthemed pieces, with no reference to leaders, kingdoms, or conflict - and it would still be fun to play - therefore, according to my definition, T&E is an abstract game.
I am not attempting to persuade anyone to adopt my own convictions here. If anything, just pointing out that there are different views regarding the meaning of words like 'abstract'.
Last edited on 2008-09-03 06:47:01 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Of course, well, as far as I'm concerned, how a game is designed is not an indication of whether or not it is abstract. I can pretty easily imagine the same game with an unmarked board (coluor differentiating 'river' spaces of course) unmarked pieces, and even a different vocabulary for conflict.
My current position is that IF a game can be played with blank (or solely functional) pieces - as found in eg. Ingenious then the game is abstract. That would mean that even Carcassonne is probably abstract too, but I do not see how war games such as Tide of Iron could be played as anything other than war games ( I reject the notion that because a theme can be transferred to eg. Star Wars theme, it remains abstract - I do not believe that Tide of Iron would work for humans in a purely abstract sense - we need some theme - at least the idea of battle - to hold onto what is going on. ) I believe that there are plenty of games that require a theme to be played - not just war games. The Settlers of Catan is possibly a good example
I am aware that my definition of 'abstract' is most probably far more broad than that of others. Especially as I do not think that abstract == unthemed, rather that if it is POSSIBLE to play a game unthemed, then it is abstract, whereas being able to transfer the theme ( eg Ra and Razzia! ) does not necessarily indicate that the game is abstract. ( though i would say that Ra happens to be abstract in this case (
I believe that it is POSSIBLE to play T&E with formal, untthemed pieces, with no reference to leaders, kingdoms, or conflict - and it would still be fun to play - therefore, according to my definition, T&E is an abstract game.
I am not attempting to persuade anyone to adopt my own convictions here. If anything, just pointing out that there are different views regarding the meaning of words like 'abstract'.
Of course, well, as far as I'm concerned, how a game is designed is not an indication of whether or not it is abstract.
That's one way to look at it. One I do not agree with, but ok.
Quote:
I can pretty easily imagine the same game with an unmarked board (coluor differentiating 'river' spaces of course) unmarked pieces, and even a different vocabulary for conflict.
And I can do that for any other game. The fact that these games would then not be as interesting for me because of that lack of connection to a theme does not change that.
Quote:
That would mean that even Carcassonne is probably abstract too, but I do not see how war games such as Tide of Iron could be played as anything other than war games
T&E is, in a sense, a war game (I think there is even a review defending this point of view). It thrives on conflict and conflict is nearly inevitable. It could not be played as a trading game, for instance. Tide of Iron could not be played except as a combat game. That does not mean it's mechanics would not be functional in exactly the same manner as they are if they were deprived of the WW2 theme. If you are able to look at Chess as a form of combat simulation then you should be able to do the same if Tide of Iron were to be stripped of it's theme.
Quote:
( I reject the notion that because a theme can be transferred to eg. Star Wars theme, it remains abstract - I do not believe that Tide of Iron would work for humans in a purely abstract sense - we need some theme - at least the idea of battle - to hold onto what is going on. )
I never said it was an abstract. What I said was that you definition of abstract allows for these extreme examples. If you are able to change the theme of a game at will, then you can as easily remove it completely. Like I said before, it would make the game less enjoyable and therefore probably unplayable for us. But it still would fit your definition of abstract.
Quote:
I am aware that my definition of 'abstract' is most probably far more broad than that of others.
That's all I said. It is so broad as to be able to classify any game as abstract. Whether you personally are able to imagine such an application or not does not change that fact.
Quote:
Especially as I do not think that abstract == unthemed, rather that if it is POSSIBLE to play a game unthemed, then it is abstract, whereas being able to transfer the theme ( eg Ra and Razzia! ) does not necessarily indicate that the game is abstract. ( though i would say that Ra happens to be abstract in this case
And Razzia is not? I would venture that they both are themed abstracts. The mechanics clearly preceded the theme.
Quote:
I believe that it is POSSIBLE to play T&E with formal, untthemed pieces, with no reference to leaders, kingdoms, or conflict - and it would still be fun to play - therefore, according to my definition, T&E is an abstract game.
So now a game is abstract depending on how fun it can be if played with non themed pieces? Well fun is a rather subjective term and that would make your definition of abstract also subjective. I don't enjoy Chess. I respect it, but I don't really enjoy it. I don't enjoy Caylus either, but respect it too. And whether or not you theme these games is completely irrelevant to that. But Chess is an abstract, and Caylus is not. Even if it is possible (and it is) to play Caylus with non themed pieces.
Quote:
I am not attempting to persuade anyone to adopt my own convictions here. If anything, just pointing out that there are different views regarding the meaning of words like 'abstract'.
I don't think any of us are. But that your definition of abstract is way too loose, I'm afraid it is...
Then again, the most important thing is we both enjoy T&E. I suck at it by the way... Care for a game here at BGG? Geekmail me and we'll play.
I think there's a difference between being able to play a game after removing all references to the theme and that game being as enjoyable.
I would not enjoy T&E without the theme in the same way because I can plainly see from playing the game that the mechanics (although heavily abstracted) have been derived from the theme. The dynamics of the game can be related to the way civilizations interact over the centuries, and that makes the game much more fun for me. So, to me T&E is a heavily abstracted themed game.
I'm curious, when you remove the theme, what do you call the internal and external conflicts? They do have a very nice explanation within the theme, and even with no references to it, they are both quite aggressive moves, so they would feel like an attack anyway...
The thing is, some rules stop making sense when you remove the theme. For example, a game that closely models some aspect of reality stops making sense if you remove the theme context from its rules, as you then have no idea what was trying to be modeled in the first place, and why it was done in one way and not another. Even if it works as just a game, all the decisions would seem arbitrary. The theme helps make sense of the rules because they were designed to model it.
T&E was designed like this and even though you could strip it of theme, all its mechanics would stop making sense. Why can my green disk get the joker cube (treasure)? Why can my black disc give me points in any colour and the others not? Why can blue tiles only be placed on blue squares and the others anywere? etc... playable? mabybe, sensible? no way...
Maybe it's a category issue. If we use terms like 'Abstract', we each have to make some sort of choice about what it means.
If we say that 'abstract' is synonymous with 'unthemed' that makes things simple... but then what about Chess - is it abstract? - It has Knights and Bishops.. sounds themed to me... How about Hive? or Torres? If Blokus is abstract, how about Cathedral - ie does pitched roofs and a backstory make something themed enough to make it not abstract? and certainly games Kahuna is not abstract. Through the Desert - 'Go with camels' - would not be abstract, though Go is . Regardless, here - in this case Tigris & Euphrates is not abstract...
Or it could mean that the board and pieces are plain and solely functional, regardless of the backstory - so this time Blokus is abstract, and Cathedral is not and sometimes Chess is abstract, sometimes not (such as when one has a beautiful board with elephants and knights and bishops...), nor is Through the Desert though Go is. There are plenty of plain pieced games which have a backstory also.. Of course, Tigris & Euphrates is not abstract here.
Or it could be that the game doesn't represent some simulation, regardless of how far from reality it has begun.. (of course in one sense all simulations ARE abstractions - but that's another definition, and not necessarily about games) so then Chess (in my book) is not abstract, but Backgammon or Bridge or Liar's Dice are, once again Through the Desert isn't though Go is.. Of course, Tigris & Euphrates is not abstract here.
Or it means that the game is not dependent on a theme in order to play it - games such as Chess or Kahuna (much that I love the theme), and likewise Tigris & Euphrates - in my opinion! - but then this depends upon what is meant by 'dependent on a theme' - and what I meant by this is that the game becomes meaningless or hard to follow (in other words 'fun' - playable) without a theme. I think that according to this definition, Hive is abstract, Kahuna is abstract. This time both once again Through the Desert and Go are abstract, and likewise Tigris & Euphrates is abstract. This is my preferred definition of 'abstract'.
So maybe my idea of what makes something abstract is pretty broad.. But it's just one way of slicing the cake.. the BGG Category http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browser.php?itemtype=game&sortb... doesn't appear to make much sense against any of the definitions I've given above...
Last edited on 2008-09-03 12:10:01 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Or it means that the game is not dependent on a theme in order to play it - games such as Chess or Kahuna (much that I love the theme), and likewise Tigris & Euphrates - in my opinion! - but then this depends upon what is meant by 'dependent on a theme' - and what I meant by this is that the game becomes meaningless or hard to follow (in other words 'fun' - playable) without a theme. I think that according to this definition, Hive is abstract, Kahuna is abstract. This time both once again Through the Desert and Go are abstract, and likewise Tigris & Euphrates is abstract. This is my preferred definition of 'abstract'.
But if this applied correctly to T&E then you'd be able to respond to the issues raised by maka...
Also, another important thing to consider is a difference between "setting" and "theme". A game can have any setting that is unrelated to the mechanics, but that doesn't turn it into a themed game. For example, if I replace Go pieces with small army men and paint the board in a wilderness motif, does that make Go a WWII themed game? Of course not.
That's exactly why I think Through the Desert is really an abstract game (what is usually called "pasted on theme"). There is a total disconnection between it's supposed theme (setting in this case) and the mechanics themselves.
Many Euros have settings so they can include nice thematic components and be more friendly looking, that's all. But in T&E many rules stop making sense if you remove the theme. There is a logical connection between the mechanics (as abstract as they are) and the theme.
My current position is that IF a game can be played with blank (or solely functional) pieces - as found in eg. Ingenious then the game is abstract.
By that definition, then everything is abstract.
How do you define "can be played with blank pieces"? Anybody can say that about any game, even Tide of Iron.
In this particular case, you say that it is "POSSIBLE to play T&E with formal, untthemed pieces." I say it is not possible, or at least no more possible than it is in Settlers of Catan. Of course that is my opinion. You think differently.
So we are back to where we started. It's almost like circular logic: a game is abstract if it can be played with blank pieces, and a game can be played with blank pieces if it is abstract. We are just going from one judgement call to another.
You think T&E is abstract because it can be played with blank pieces, and you think it can be played with blank pieces why? Because you think it is abstract.
I don't think T&E is abstract because it cannot be played with blank pieces, and I think it cannot be played with blank pieces why? Because I do not think it is abstract.
So you are basically just saying, T&E is an abstract, because it feels like an abstract to me, which is fine. I am just pointing out that the condition "can be played with blank pieces" doesn't really contribute anything to defining abstracts.
Last edited on 2008-09-03 18:02:47 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
If we really want to have a formal, clear cut definition of "abstract," it can be something like this:
1. perfect information 2. spatial element 3* 2 player
Of course, none of those says anything about abstraction of theme. And I don't want to include anything about theme or abstraction of, because it's something subjective whether the theme is central to the gameplay or not. I mean, you can add a theme to Chess and Go (in fact Chess already does have a theme, sort of), two games that are widely accepted as abstracts, but the gameplay doesn't change in the least. You can strip away the theme in Tide of Iron, but that wouldn't make it an abstract strategy game (or maybe it would, but a piss poor one).
Abstracts are usually used to refer to games such as Othello, Go, etc. And somewhere along the line, some guy decided to name them abstracts because hey, none of them has any theme! But in reality, what makes these games similar to each other, is not something quite as inane as that.
2player Now this is optional, but the reason I put this here is that in a game of Settlers of Catan, Nature can be viewed as a player: he decides the number on the dice rolls. He may play randomly, and has no winning condition to speak of, but so can a real human opponent. So if we want to reject 2 player games where Nature plays a part, such as Backgammon, it'd be more comprehensive to reject 3 player games in general, whether the third player is Nature or otherwise.
spatial element the sole element self-explanatory. Of course, if you want to count the game of nim as abstract, then you can't really implement this condition. I am not sure if Oware has a spatial element either. But apart from these exceptions, all abstracts have a decidedly spatial element to them.
perfect information no hidden hands of cards, simultaneous action selection, etc.
T&E has a spatial element, but it is not the sole element, is not 2 player, and is not perfect information. By that definition, we can say clearly, without resorting to judgement calls, that T&E is not an abstract.
Ingenious is not an abstract, because it has hidden information.
Imperial and Antike are not abstract, because the spatial element are not the sole element (there is also the resources/bonds and rondel to consider).
Blokus is not an abstract, because it is 4 players. Now this one I actually consider it to be an abstract, so the 2-player restriction can be relaxed I suppose.
If we really want to have a formal, clear cut definition of "abstract," it can be something like this:
1. perfect information 2. spatial element 3* 2 player
Of course, none of those says anything about abstraction of theme. And I don't want to include anything about theme or abstraction of, because it's something subjective whether the theme is central to the gameplay or not. I mean, you can add a theme to Chess and Go (in fact Chess already does have a theme, sort of), two games that are widely accepted as abstracts, but the gameplay doesn't change in the least. You can strip away the theme in Tide of Iron, but that wouldn't make it an abstract strategy game (or maybe it would, but a piss poor one).
Abstracts are usually used to refer to games such as Othello, Go, etc. And somewhere along the line, some guy decided to name them abstracts because hey, none of them has any theme! But in reality, what makes these games similar to each other, is not something quite as inane as that.
2player Now this is optional, but the reason I put this here is that in a game of Settlers of Catan, Nature can be viewed as a player: he decides the number on the dice rolls. He may play randomly, and has no winning condition to speak of, but so can a real human opponent. So if we want to reject 2 player games where Nature plays a part, such as Backgammon, it'd be more comprehensive to reject 3 player games in general, whether the third player is Nature or otherwise.
spatial element the sole element self-explanatory. Of course, if you want to count the game of nim as abstract, then you can't really implement this condition. I am not sure if Oware has a spatial element either. But apart from these exceptions, all abstracts have a decidedly spatial element to them.
perfect information no hidden hands of cards, simultaneous action selection, etc.
T&E has a spatial element, but it is not the sole element, is not 2 player, and is not perfect information. By that definition, we can say clearly, without resorting to judgement calls, that T&E is not an abstract.
Ingenious is not an abstract, because it has hidden information.
Imperial and Antike are not abstract, because the spatial element are not the sole element (there is also the resources/bonds and rondel to consider).
Blokus is not an abstract, because it is 4 players. Now this one I actually consider it to be an abstract, so the 2-player restriction can be relaxed I suppose.
Such a definition to me seems quite arbitrary. I don't see any value in limiting the term Abstract to perfect information, non random, 2 player games. There is a very accurate name for those games: Combinatorial Games. the term Abstract is too broad to refer to such a concrete set of games...
In another thread there's an interesting discussion about this but with the term "Abstract Strategy Game" (which some people see as different from just Abstract games). It is quite clear there is not a consensus of what games are ASG, but most people agree that AG are basically games with no theme or games where the theme is not necessary to play the game (no connection between mechanics and theme).
Posted Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:03 pm
and a 
!
If we say that 'abstract' is synonymous with 'unthemed' that makes things simple...