Which keeps the game from being any FUN at all... I'd rather have teeth pulled.

The decisions are not as unforgiving as some profess in AoS; I consistently make mistakes and consistently win against competent players. This tells me it is probably the players who are unforgiving in most cases, if unforgiving is truly an attribute here.

I have been very careful to allow new players info on key strategies and tactics when teaching this game; just one or two dos and don'ts to ensure they are fully aware of what will happen.

I agree... I will even suggest playing AoS with certain groups of people... but I doubt that I'll ever have as much 'fun' playing AoS as I do when playing other lighter games.


Not so, mon ami. I don't dislike AoS... I have even added some play aids here at the 'Geek. It's just that in my opinion there are many better train games out there. I will play AoS under the right circumstances and with the proper group of players. But, because of its length and weight, it rarely even gets mentioned at our Club.

My 5 rating is exactly what it says according to the 'Geek rating system. I find the game "Average, slightly boring... take it or leave it." Most of the time, when there are other games to choose from... I "leave it."

Sounds like to me I'll stick with RT.

IMHO a "Significant Impact of Decisions" is not enough. Its the amount of effort put into the study of that impact that makes heaviness. Thats why heaviness is so subjective (each of us studies what is happening in a game by different amounts). I should also mention that amount we study a game varies over time and the number of playings of a game. As Fawkes said far below if he studies a game enough it gets lighter (requires less study of impact in the game). So a game goes through a personal heaviness cycle for each of us (and heaviness on the site reflects a site average)

Inter-connectedness...

You could talk in general about the size of decision trees worth contemplating at each turn? When the decision trees are large the players need to employ a combination of (a) heuristics to trim the width of the tree and (b) outright truncating how far down the tree they can handle.

I would agree that each player's individual decision tree has a big impact on this, but that doesn't convey the relationship between all the player's collective decisions -- which I think is an important part of this particular characteristic...

A decision tree may also fall under characteristic #3 Numerous Available Options/Actions. There's certainly some overlap (or perhaps synergy) between some of these attributes...

Yes this is why I have a natural leaning to using the complexity of the decision tree as (part of) a measure of heaviness... it encapsulates several of these elements.

Thinking about it more, I see what you mean about connectedness between opponents actions adding a sense of heaviness. A complex decision tree that is parallel solitaire might not feel as heavy as a complex decision tree which includes my turns and your turns in my assessment.

But, in the dim recesses of my recall from years ago, multi-puzzle type games fet as heavy to me as similarly information-complex interactive games.

But I'm going to ponder on this whole idea for a while, I can tell.

Does Hansa fall into this bucket as well? Although it's probably not considered a heavy game (just got it for Christmas and I'm itching to play) but it seems that the thought processes for doing well certainly have to include what goods will be available in what markets, and where the ship will be for the following player once your turn is completed.

Matt - I certainly think it does! As do other games with a very strong player order impact, such as Puerto Rico. If you play Hansa strictly looking at your own movement and your own market potential, the player to your left will have a distinct advantage.

Puerto Rico was the first game taht came to mind on this attribute. What role you take as a decision can instantly change other people's strategies as well as your follow-on decisions as well.

I see this as a lot (i.e. hundreds) of small decisions. When I played Tikal, I spent the whole game thinking I'll do that and that and that, but I will NOT move that guy, and I'll hope that he does that which I can respond to with that. Few of the decisions were high impact, but their cumulative effect decided who won the game.

Interesting... the reason I don't enjoy Through the Desert much is that there are too many decisions, yet that feels much lighter than many other games that I love, like Power Grid and E&T. For me the decision set has to be manageable.

TtD is lighter than Torres for two reasons:

Only two actions per turn, with easy to measure results: It's pretty easy to see where your camels can and can't get.

Moves are final: When a camel occupies one space, the space is occupied forever. This makes the board very easy to read, and halves the complexity of the game. You don't have to worry about your move giving a player more options than they already had, like you would in Torres.

Like all of Jason's lists, I am quite enjoying this read, although I have yet to truly agree that any of the games shown are actually 'heavy'. Age of Steam is the closest to a heavy game shown or mentioned, but myself and my group would still consider it a medium-weight game. I guess I can't actually speak to GOA yet, much to my chagrin.

Having said all that, I agree that these elements are what help to create a heavy game. Especially the unforgiving factor and the relationship of consequences.

And I caught a glimpse of the next game on this list. That is my kind of heavy.

Physics 101 says mass or heaviness is related to the product of depth x breadth. So too is it true for games. What your talking about here is strategic breadth (just as below under depth you talk about strategic depth). Lots of tough choices that take real thought to make.

This is a game where all the fluff can distract you from your true goal: To get ten victory points. I don't think I've ever played a game where War Suns have been built. There's lots of things to get excited over, but IMO, a six hour game isn't one of them...

The base game is a bit flawed, imo, but if you can find a good set of variants this game will be good for you.

Heavy? No. This has pretty complicated rules but you'll learn them in a couple of games pretty perfectly.

However, rules can be very complicated and that's the case especially when they're written poorly.

In games I've played, there has been much more focus on taking the Initiative card followed by Imperial (that's the one that gives you 2vp plus the objective, right?), which greatly takes the focus away from the tech tree. I think it's a game where if others are playing the imperial strategy, you have to as well, to keep up on VPs and to deny them to others. If you went on a purely militaristic strategy, I see winning difficult if others are getting VPs from Imperial + public objectives, and you're busy climbing the tech tree (although there are lots of public objectives that pertain to technology, and your secret objective may be a military one). I think of a game where I chose the last role and Imperial was still available... everyone else is getting excited about building things, and leaving 20% (plus 10% more if the public objective is attainable) of the victory condition sitting on the table... I like TI3, but I'm not a fan of making a long game even longer.

I guess this does go to show the heaviness of this game. It's not overly complex, but the immensity of choice can be distracting - and lead to many possible victory scenarios.

I difinitely want to try this game, but I know my group wouldn't go for the length of it.So, I play the lighter version.Nexus Ops.

I'm agree with Mikko's comment that immense does not necessarily lead to complex or heavy. It becomes a bit of a tough call. War in Europe is a classic case, a true monster game, 9 maps and 3600 counters. Takes days (literally) to play. However, if you have played other wargames it is quite a straightforward and easy game to play. It is big though in terms of size, scope and commitment required to play.

This entry, combined with your "false positive" entry below could stimulate a discuss of "first cause".

In a question: Is a game considered heavy because it is a simulation or because the desire to simulate well yields complexity? The simpler statement is that games are considered heavy because they are complex. The complexity is the cause that is closer to the effect in question - and it's cause could be many things, one of which is the designers attempt to simulate.

My vote is for the latter. The more accurate the simulation the more complex the translation of real-world forces into the mechanics of the game. This translation increases the need for a highly talented writer to explain the everyday minutiae that our brains process with minimal effort. You can feel and process physical force, you can feel the fear of a sniper in the woods, you can feel the dropping morale in your platoon in your most basic emotional processing.

In my opinion, processing the words that describe how to behave in the face of the most basic emotional responses by moving bits and modifying rules is what increases the complexity.

I agree - we could make a game that is precisely as complicated as ASL but has no visible simulation elements (as in, we could make everything abstract). This game would be impossible to learn, mind you, opposed to merely extremely challenging.

The heaviness due to simulation is really, I think, just another way of describing heaviness due to a complex decision tree. I can't think of a game where my actions can have as many different outcomes as ASL, which is partially why it is so interesting. That one has numerous, reasonable, potential actions at any given time yet the game remains eminently playable is a function of its excellent design.

Couldn't this be seen as just the sum of the other items, ie a combination of immensity, number of options, etc.?

I work out the idea of fubar awol: this game is a hybrid of Risk and Scotland Yard with some added heavyness.

That sums it up quite well. Can a game be heavy simply because of lack of development?

Jason (and apologies if this answered with another entry below) do you mean learning the game system, i.e. the mechanics, rules or other components of the game, or do you mean learning how you may play the game?

To me the latter is more relevant, i.e. there are multiple paths towards victory, often interconnects and usually dependent on the actions of other players. It may take many plays to expirement or even see what some of those paths are.

Also the game may play differently under different situations, even though the same rule set is in play. For example I would argue that Tigris & Euphrate plays very differently two player to four player. The rules haven't changed but the dynamic of the game is very different.

I did detail in the item listing that this goes beyond merely understanding the rules -- but being able to formulate strategies, appreciate nuances, plan ahead and recognize plans by your opponent. For heavier games, this can be a substantial investment of time and effort.

Doing taxes on April 14th is more fun than this game.

I think you answered your own question -- Idaho!!

If you're ever in the real Midwest (specifically St. Louis) stop on by and we'll sit down for a game!

After the huge experience gained from a single game I would say that this game isn't particularly heavy. It's probably on the heavier side but that's the side I like to play. I don't think there's much mind in playing games in which you don't need to think.

In my opinion the point that you can actually "see into the future" is more like relaxing because you don't need to ready yourself for every possible thing that might happen.

And yes, it's superb.

Excellent game, and definitely a different kind of "heavy" than Age of Steam. In this game you can make a mistake and recover, in AoS you're SoL. I like this one, although by the end you are definitely ready for it to be done. There's gotta be a fewer elections variant out there, I'm sure you could play a shorter game of this if you wanted. Great game.

Because they know it needs no defending

Actually this is another case similar to my War in Europe comment above. After a play or two I would imagine most people would not call this complex. There is stuff going on through the whole game that is always of interest to you, constant decisions to be made, but the flow of the game is quick and quite simple.

I think I disagree with the idea that the calculations involved in a "perfect information" game are necessarily more rewarded or more complex (or "heavier") than the calculations involved in a somewhat probabilistic game. Dealing with probabilistic circumstances can add many more interactions calculations and (therefore) planning ahead branches to the thinking that could be applied.

Perhaps the total quantitity of units of (relevant) information is more applicable to "heaviness" than whether the information is probabilistic?

Ok granted I guess when most people are faced with something that clearly involves a chance element they tend to get lazy... which is why they lose more often in these games than the few people who take the probability element more seriously. So the player attitude around probabilistic games tends to be less engrossed in optimisation from the information in front of them, but personally I believe that's more cultural than an inherent lightness of probabilistic games.

Not all games that have perfect information are heavy, but they usually have a really good mechanic to them so the don't have to rely on random things like a hand unkown cards or die roll to complete the game. Ricochet Robots is deceptively simple, but heavy mentally.

This concept is almost as well illustrated by looking at the opposite end of the spectrum. With lightweights such as Pirates Cove or TtR you have very little information. I always look at my oponents' eyes to see where they are looking on the board, not very scientific!

While theoretically correct but already critised above I want to point out that even there is perfect information on the boardgame/map it is still imponderable what your opponents will choose as next option (in a game where there are plenty of viable options to choose depending on your tactics).
Therefore you don't need random events (dice/card) to make your heart beat faster.

Perfect information does lend depth to a game. Without perfect information the ability for long term planing is reduced. Chess being a good example, perfect information allows all permutations to be calculated and the best decision to be made given you know all possible outcomes.

Since go, and my favorite, Chess, both share most of the features that you ascribe as being "heavy," I think this deep vs heavy thing is a false dichotomy.

I guess chess or go are light if you just dick around, but heavy-heavy-heavy if you are competing in tournaments. (steeper learning curve)

I don't think it was presented as a dichotomy, merely that they are different. A game can be both heavy and deep, one or the other or neither. Indeed, many heavy games simpy lack depth because their complexities deal with something tactical rather than strategic.

William,

I DO play ASL and play go as well. Although I'm not a strong go player (5k as a high watermark) nor a strong ASL player, I feel I play both fairly well.

I spent a year learning the rules to ASL. I spent the 2nd year learning the basic strategies to ASL. I have been playing for 10+ years and now spend time playing for fun.

I spent about 2 years trying to learn go and of course spent about 10 minutes learning the rules and the rest of the 2 years learning the strategies. Now I play for fun.

I can play both games now without resorting to looking up rules, (and for ASL barely any charts). I can play both games at a moderate level.

Now, heavy vs deep? They are both deep games, one deeper than the other. Also ASL requires a lot of probability analysis vs known information. The two games also differ in the area of learning the rules. But you are right that once you play enough, the rules are not a hindrance for either game.

I am also of the opinion that other games are quite deep but do not get played enough to plumb the depths. I once made a geek list asking how many playings of games it takes to become a good player. The answers varied but they were all much lower than my own opinion. It seems that people play a game 5 times and think they have it solved. Sure, they may have it solved against the people they play all the time, but I doubt they would do as well against people who have played the game 50 times against 20+ different opponents.

So how deep is the game they are playing? Most never know because they never plumb the depths.

In go komi recently changed. That seems like a significant event. And some ASL players think they can play a scenario one time and know how balanced it is. (hint: they can't).

Most games are deeper than anyone really needs them to be. Go and chess are examples where lots of effort is required to even feel like you've made it through the first layer. Other games are newer and are drowned out by so many other similar games and don't get the number of playings required to understand their depth. So, how deep is a game? Most likely deeper than you'll ever go unless you study it intensely for hundreds of hours, and in some cases, a hundred years.

So, to conclude, I feel that the depth of a game has nothing to do with how heavy it is. A game is heavy if it requires more effort to play than a person is willing to give. So it's subjective.

For my wife anything more than hearts is considered a heavy game. I've never met a game I consider too heavy. Some are heavier than others of course.

Considering that for the dedicated player this is (almost ?) a lifestyle rather than a game, I´d argue this is about as heavy as it gets.

The problem you´ll always face with Go (or Chess) when trying to assess its "heaviness" is that it gets to feel as heavy as the player allows it to. I´ve played a lot of Blitz games, which feel very light - I´ve also studied pro-games, and you can spend a day or a week on a game and still feel like an ignorant under the burden of this game´s yaw.

However, anyone who thinks this game is light has not even started to glimpse what it can be about.

Maybe the difference between deep and heavy is the emotional investment you place in a game. You can recognize a game as deep without swimming in it. But if you get drawn into the various tactical patterns and strategic motifs, it's like learning a new language or a new world (sort of.) Steep learning curve? Yes indeed. Immensity? You betcha. Numerous options? Sure. Significant impact of decisions? Certainly, although the effect may be either immediate or more subtle. Inter-connectedness of decisions? I would say that is the most important and rewarding discovery of all, and the most difficult to obtain. The ability to "play the whole board" is what devotees strive to achieve. But to an outsider, the notion that some abstract with a one-page ruleset would have all these attributes is probably laughable.

The Complexity causes the steep learning curve... The complexity is not overcome, it still exists.

I might agree that complexity is too broad a term to be useful in this discussion. Perhaps the right discussion regarding complexity is to break it down into different types, which seems to be what you have done without acknowledgment: Rules Complexity, Complexity of the Decisions to be made, Complexity of the interactions between the players, etc.

However, the answer "It's complex" is still a good one, even though a further discussion of the type of complexity may be called for...

I agree with this false synonym.

Doing my taxes is complex, but it doesn't create decisionmaking ambiguity/"heaviness".

When I think of complexity I think of Rules Complexity. That is what the old SPI and Avalon Hill 1-10 scales were measured and they rated the games that were hard to learn by it. So in addition to deep strategy, broad strategy, there is complex rules as a component of heaviness.

Actually, you should get more than your $0.02 back if your shill generates a sale.

That's flavoUr to you.

I don't think I'd call Herr Dr's addition to the list a "shill," i.e. "One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle."

Your smiley helped to moderate the image though.

I might also mention that the Herr Dr did not rate his own game. So, "enthusiast" certainly but "shill" no.

Shill! Shill! Shilly shill!

"Shill" is one of those words that, if you say it in your head often enough, starts to sound really stupid.

I think Kevin was joking...Not to put any words in anyone's mouth, of course.

"Stephen Hope is the most fair-minded commentator on BGG."--Derk

I have NOT been drinking...And even if I **HAVE** been, I would still choose to play ToC.

$0.02 is the hourly wage for a game designer...that's gross pay, not net

I guess I am a somewhat shameless shill

Speed chess?

I don't agree with this... I've sat through a 9 hour game of Advanced Civ where I was virtually eliminated after 3 hours -- and had to slog through 6 more hours as the possible victors duked it out.

I think Age of Steam, Twilight Imperium and several other long games can be brutally unforgiving, and create untenable situations early on -- some times to the point where a mutual agreement to start over or crown a winner midgame is preferable to playing out a foregone conclusion.

Ditto Jason...insert any one of a dozen games of Risk...though there, at least it's much more likely you will be eliminated instead of just straggling on, as in Civ.

The last time I played Through The Desert.

and there's the rub, particularly with Civilization. I've played quite a few other Civ like games, most of which are good, but none are the same gameplay experience as a seven player session of Civilization.

Nice call about Through the Desert Jonathan!

Agreed some games are longer than they should be, Nautilus springs to mind and that comes in at a tad under two hours, but some games are long becuase that's the sort of game they are.

I don't remember any of the Civilization games I have played where anyone has been seriously out of contention until the last three or four turns, now admittedly that could still be an hour or two out of the game, but it is still end game