franklincobb wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:
Appears to vastly overestimate ancient and very old games. It is appropriate to place a cap on games at a certain age, since the score for a game that is ten or twenty years old likely has as much credibility for one that is 1000 years old.
Sag.
I was just going to add that doing comparisons with things that have on one scale a decade or two and lumping them in with things that are measured in centuries (or more!) is nearly useless. Chess and Go would have to have absolutely horrid overall rankings to even begin to make up the difference.
Months ago, I thought BGG could gain some visibility by offering laurels for games from _past_ years rather than focusing on releases in the last year that other gaming awards (Spiel de Jahr, Games 100, etc.) were already covering. While current prizes would influence what games would be played in the following year, it seems that after awhile players would have chance to sample all games from a particular and maybe have a difference of opinion about which is really the better game and why.
Basically, have categories, like, Best 2-Player Abstract from (5 years ago) (10 years ago) (20 years ago) (50 years ago). Money-paying supporters of BGG would be doing the voting and it might be possible that, over the years, a game that people overlooked at the 5 or 10-year mark could be rediscovered on the 20th.
It has its problems: gamers might find it hard to find a gem from 1957, for example, to play to generate an informed opinion. But I think there's a way that gamers could look at games and offer kudos for worthy designs without "the cult of the new" influencing the decision-making.
Last edited on 2007-12-12 16:56:42 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Posted Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:43 pm
Bleh.
