sedjtroll

Seth Jaffee · @sedjtroll

15th Dec 2015 from TwitLonger

Read some comments on "1" ratings for Pandemic Legacy. Feeling dumber for it.


It should come as no surprise, but people are dumb. I used to have a phrase I thought was amusing: "110% of the people you meet are really, really dumb." - amusing you see because 110% of the people you meet is more than the number of people you can possibly ever meet... oh never mind. I think a better amusing phrase, one that probably exists on some t-shirt somewhere (and if it doesn't, then it should) might be "People are dumb. People on the internet doubly so."

Someone mentioned that a deluge of "1" ratings showed up today on boardgamegeek for a game that just come out in October and has quickly ascended the ratings and the top of all the charts. That game is Pandemic Legacy, a mashup of the very popular cooperative game Pandemic by Matt Leacock, and the wildly innovative Risk Legacy by Rob Daviau.

Now let me be frank. I've played Pandemic, and while it's a very successful (and as I said, very popular) game, it is a "Solitaire By Committee" type of experience which is not everybody's cup of tea. Many players prefer to complain about "quarterbacking" or an "alpha player problem" rather than contribute to the committee meeting about making the best plan to succeed in the game.

That said, the legacy format for a game is very interesting - the idea that decisions you make in one game will have a lasting effect on later games, and the idea that you literally leave a lasting effect on the game world, are very exciting and novel when most games exist in a bubble. I never tried Risk Legacy, but I I wasn't too surprised to hear rave reviews of the legacy aspect, even if not the game as a whole (though most of the reviews I remember of Risk legacy were positive). What I find VERY interesting about this new entry into the legacy lineup is that several different notable reviewers - well known for playing literally hundreds of games a year - have all gone on record to say that Pandemic Legacy is THE best gaming experience they've had in the last 10 years.

Even if you don't agree with any of those particular reviewers, that's some high praise! So I look forward to playing Pandemic Legacy - I'm going to try it with my family next month.

So why are people flocking to boardgamegeek to rate this novel new experience a "1" without even having played it? Why indeed. Rating craziness on boardgamegeek isn't really a new thing - whenever a new game makes a move at the top spot, fervent supporters of the status quo sometimes go on a vendetta against the new hotness, spearheading a drive for "1" ratings to try and "balance out the obviously illegitimate "10" ratings" that have caused a new game to rise in rank.

In the case of Pandemic Legacy, people are enjoying the crap out of it - as evidenced by all the "10" ratings, accompanied by lengthy comments explaining all the things they enjoyed about the game. Apparently though, that still counts as illegitimate, as evidenced by comments such as that of Jacob Williams: "This is a temporary rating until the game is has been out 6 months. It's is complete utter lunacy that a game can reach this high this fast. It's showing a serious flaw in BGG ranking system."

Does Jacob not realize that arbitrarily adding a "1" rating (without even playing a game) is de facto abuse of the rating system, and is by definition a better example of a flaw in the system than people en mass enjoying a new game?

Most of the negative comments seem to be based on the one-and-done aspect of the legacy format - the idea that once you finish playing the game, you can't really play again because of the permanent changes that have been made. For example, Jake Grenier said "I think the idea of a disposable game is stupid and especially not for $60 or more."

Looking at Jake's played games (the one's he's logged on BGG anyway, where he posted this rating and comment), his 2 highest rated games are at 9.5: Catan and Castles of Burgundy. He has logged 20 and 17 plays of each, respectively.

Andrew Bellavie said "What a terrible idea. Rating to reflect the unsustainable design of the game. "use once and throw away" is the motto of consumer culture that has permeated into society. Part of the board gaming community that I love is trading games. This game can never be traded by design. Just say no to this garbage."

While Mr. Bellavie has a point about being unable to trade the game afterwards, he's only logged at most 5 plays of his very favorite game Agricola (rated 10), and even fewer plays of his other games rated just as highly.

Pandemic Legacy lasts between 12 and 24 games, depending on how many times you lose. I think people (such as Mr. Grenier and Mr. Bellavie) who complain about the disposable nature of legacy-style games in principle are only considering games as possessions, and ignoring the game experience. Perhaps these are the same people who complain that games like Race for the Galaxy cost too much because "it's just a deck of cards and some tokens" - ignoring the work, expertise, and effort that went into putting the information on those cards necessary to make it a game.

I wonder if the same people who decry legacy games as a terrible idea will be spending this Friday at the movie theater watching The Force Awakens with the rest of us. And if so, do you think they'd even notice the irony of the situation?

Maybe the biggest example of a lack of understanding is this comment by Jonathan Weidow (again on a "1" rating): "Brings Pandemic to a new level and I would have rated it 8 IF Z-Man had chosen to not make any progress permanent." Of course, not making the progress permanent would then NOT bring Pandemic to a new level!

Similar comments have been made about another new game called T.I.M.E. Stories - a game you can only really play once, and then you'll know all the answers or info. While you can trade or gift that game after playing, you only get to play it once for the $60 or whatever it costs. Additional stories come as expansions for an additional $30 or so. I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find similar comments and artificial "1" ratings on that game - and they'd be equally ridiculous there.

Reply · Report Post