Skip to Content
 

Reaching out to the Mainstream

25 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008

In another post we've begun a discussion of reaching out to the mainstream to try and capture the attention of people who might like to play German style board games if they tried them, but simply haven't thought to try them. Perhaps because their board game experience or perception is limited to Monopoly and Axis & Allies they are intimidated by the complexity of 'designer' games, are simply not interested, or don't even know they exist.

I'd like to discuss ways that we as designers can attempt to bridge the gap between the Designer Board Game and the Mainstream Gamer (or potential gamer). A lot is involved in getting a designer game into the hands of even the most willing of the Mainstream, and most of it is out of our control. But I believe there are some things that can be done on the game design end which can create a good candidate for a stepping stone to introduce the mainstream consumer to our hobby of choice.

In the other thread the discussion revolved around licensing movie rights vs using original artwork in a game. Perhaps that's one topic which can come to light here. Game art is not always something we can control, but sometimes designers do get input on that and often they have an opinion... so it's not outside the scope of this discussion.

What can we do as designers while creating a Designer game aimed at a Mainstream audience?

- Seth

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
My beef with Carcassone

I had some people over, not 'gamers,' just people. They actually came over after dinner for the express purpose of playing Taboo.

While waiting for someone else we actually played a little Karaoke Revolution. Then we played Taboo. It was fun.

Then one person left, and with 5 people remaining one said "Seth, you're the game guy, what games do you have?"

This sounded like a great opportunity, but looking in my game closet I was a little dissapointed...

Outside of Cranium (which I usually dislike), I didn't have anything I thought I could explain quickly or easily enough- I thought people would lose interest the moment I pulled any of these games out. We had 5 people, so Settlers was out (I don't have the expansion). Puerto Rico is WAY too complex to spring on people, maybe RoboRalley would have worked but the game I was really disappointed about was Carcassonne.

I stood there looking at Carcassonne thinking "You're supposed to be it. You're supposed to be the gateway game that is so easy to play and can introduce people to 'real' gaming," and yet I couldn't bring it out. It's easy enough to teach the mechanics, and it's easy enough to physically play the game, but in order to make any reasonable or meaningful decision in the game you HAVE to understand the scoring... and the scoring is a pain ni the ass to explain and understand.

That's my beef with Carcassonne. Everyone thinks it's so wonderful and such a good introductory game, but frankly I disagree. It's a decent game, don't get me wrong, but if THAT'S the introductory game then I'm not suprised more people don't try designer games.

What we need is something as simple and elegant as Carcassonne, but with scoring or victory conditions that are just as simple and elegant. That's what I'd like to see (and maybe that's what I'd like to design)- a game that I can feel comfortable pulling out at a moment's notice when regular people are just bored, that can be taught quickly and played easily, but with reasonable strategy. Interesting enough to get people's attention in the first place and quick enough to be over before that attention is lost.

This may be a pipe dream, but it's a step that needs to be taken if designer games are ever going to convert the masses.

- Seth

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Re: Reaching out to the Mainstream

sedjtroll wrote:
Perhaps because their board game experience or perception is limited to Monopoly and Axis & Allies they are intimidated by the complexity of 'designer' games,

I find it ironic that non-gamers have this view of designer games, because it's so very incorrect. Monopoly, despite the simplicity of its turn structure, is incredibly fiddly, and Axis requires a 30 minute lecture just to explain how to play the game. The whole point of German games is that they're so much simpler, but I think the problem is that they're simple with respect to mechanics, but not necessarily decisions. I think what scares people away may not be the complexity so much as the level of thinking involved; games that involve strategizing are viewed as being analogous to chess, and therefore requiring heavy thought, and therefore no fun.

Quote:

I'd like to discuss ways that we as designers can attempt to bridge the gap between the Designer Board Game and the Mainstream Gamer (or potential gamer).

I think this is certainly a worthy subject of discussion. Personally, though, I don't think I ever set out to design a game with this audience in mind. Maybe I will at some point. My strong feeling, though, is that the games are out there. A lack of suitable games isn't what's keeping people from trying German games; it's something beyond a design issue.

Quote:

In the other thread the discussion revolved around licensing movie rights vs using original artwork in a game. Perhaps that's one topic which can come to light here.

What I find interesting about my reaction to this aspect of the discussion is that I don't focus on the game itself as much as I think a designer should. For example, as you observed, wouldn't Knizia's LotR game be the same game with pictures of the LotR actors rather than illustrations, and therefore, just as good? For whatever reason, though, my answer is, "no". A crucial part of the satisfaction of gaming is the perceived quality of the components. The Knizia game is so beautiful it's like a work of art; changing the artwork to make it more "sellable" would be like telling a recording artist to change their music to make it more radio-friendly.

Yes, such things definitely do happen, but maybe that's part of the reason for my reaction. Believe me, I don't buy into the whole "games are art" thing, but speaking for myself, if I was (hypothetically, of course) accepted for publication but then showed the artwork and found it totally unacceptable, I'd back out of the deal. Better to have the thing never see the light of day than to have it tarnished. And I guess that for me, I see changing the visible appearance just to make it more sellable as in some way tarnishing the game. In some cases; if Joe's game (Scream Machine) got bought by Disney and the rides all became Disney attractions, that might not seem as bad to me; I guess it's a case-by-case basis. But to me, it's just the idea of pandering to the consumer that I don't like; as if the consumer is so dumb that he'll only buy a LotR game if it has pictures from the movie, regardless of the game in the box. Even if that turns out to be true, I would just refuse to operate that way, because I think it encourages what I see to be a wrong mindset.

That's not to say movie tie-in games are a bad thing; I love Star Wars Epic Duels, and have tossed around ideas for an Indiana Jones game. Games provide a way to immerse ourselves in another atmosphere, and why not into the atmosphere of a literary or cinematic work that we enjoy? Furthermore, I don't object to the idea of making games that have design elements that would appeal more to mainstream gamers; it's more the marketing that I object to, I guess. Not sure it's fully rational, just how I feel.

Quote:

That's my beef with Carcassonne. Everyone thinks it's so wonderful and such a good introductory game, but frankly I disagree. It's a decent game, don't get me wrong, but if THAT'S the introductory game then I'm not suprised more people don't try designer games.

But you didn't even give your dinner guests the chance to try to the game; how do you know they wouldn't have liked it, or that it would have been too tough for them?

That notwithstanding, I really feel that the problem with your "dinner guests" experience was simply with the games in your closet. That's not a dig at you, because only a rare few have one of those game closets that contains every game known to man. The point is more that there definitely are good "gateway" games out there, but it's hard to point to any one game as being the "it" gateway game; I think that it just depends on the people you're playing with; and for that reason, it's very hard to own exactly the right "gateway" game for every group of people that might assemble at your place. My brother in law and sister in law didn't like Acquire when we played, but loved Lord of the Rings. So, when we're going to play a game, we play that. Other family members have liked Carcassonne, others liked other games, etc; it's person-specific.

That said, the one "sure thing" game I've found is Apples to Apples. I've never failed to have fun playing the game, no matter who was involved. It's not exactly a "German" game, but it's the best compromise I've found.

That's not to say it's in any way a bad idea to work on design the "it" gateway game -- I think that's a fantastic idea. I do think, though, that there are two different issues here; one is the idea of the game's mechanics being accessible enough to be understood and enjoyed by non-gamers. The other is the "shelf" factor, where the game has something about it that makes people want to buy it. I don't think that for the latter, a movie or TV show tie in is the only way to pull that off. The bigger thing that is needed, I think, is a cultural shift to where playing games is viewed as a worthwhile way to spend leisure time. But obviously, that's harder to machinate... maybe someone should make a game about it!

-J

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Reaching out to the Mainstream

jwarrend wrote:
But you didn't even give your dinner guests the chance to try to the game; how do you know they wouldn't have liked it, or that it would have been too tough for them?

I don't think it would have been too tough for them, and they may well have liked it. The thing is that as I pulled it out I thought back on all the tims I've explained the game in the past and rememebred people's reactions to the scoring explanation. I thought that would turn them off and they wouldn't want to play it.

Quote:
there definitely are good "gateway" games out there, but it's hard to point to any one game as being the "it" gateway game

People tend to say that of Carcassonne.

Quote:
Lord of the Rings.

I also almost pulled out LotR, which may have been a good idea. And I had Mystery of the Abbey in another room and sorta forgot about it art the time- that might have been painless enough to explain.

Quote:
the one "sure thing" game I've found is Apples to Apples.

I agree here. I've bought 2 copies of Apples to Apples, but they were both gifts- one for a friend and one for my sister. I recently gifted my sister with Settlers as well... I'm hoping eventually when I go visit they'll suggest playing a board game (I've decided to quit bringing it up because I feel like I'm being annoying and turning them off to it when I ALWAYS say "lets play a board game" ad they always say no).

- Seth

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Ticket to Ride seems to strike a good balance between "simple rules explanation" and "semi-intricate scoring" - the two basic scoring methods are pretty obvious but interact in interesting ways, and I've found it good with new players.

As for whether you can design a game specifically as "entry-level" - I don't think so either.

fanaka66
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

I think Acquire is a great choice. Gameplay is simple. Play a tile, draw a tile, buy stock. The goal is intuitive. Make money. You can even compare it to Monopoly: you want to buy stocks that will go up in value the most. Newbies can use strategy (although it is often the wrong strategy, at least they are thinking about strategic moves).

I think the only drawback is the abstract look of the game. 'Those are hotels?' It might be better with the new version with the fancy plastic hotel shapes, I have the old Bookshelf version.

I recently taught the game to 2 newbies, and they loved it. There is nothing more satisfying than teaching a game to non-gamers and then being asked later to play the game.

One of the games I am working on is an attempt to capture a similar experience. Extremely simple rules, but with the opportunity to make intelligent strategic decisions.

RookieDesign
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: My beef with Carcassone

sedjtroll wrote:
What we need is something as simple and elegant as Carcassonne, but with scoring or victory conditions that are just as simple and elegant. That's what I'd like to see.

I know one that is like Carcassonne but much simpler scoring method. It is called "La Guerre des Moutons".

You must have the field with the biggest number of sheep of your color. The only problem is that the color you own is secret. You have wolves that eat sheep, and hunters that kill wolves. The tile are double sided so you have a bit of thinking to do.

To my knowledge its only done in French, but it's definitely worth the buy if you can read french.

Web site is :http://laguerredesmoutons.free.fr/

Translation on Boardgamegeek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewfile.php3?fileid=1485

I would also go with Acquire from Fanaka66 suggestion.

Good luck next time you have people around.

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

sedjtroll wrote:
Then one person left, and with 5 people remaining one said "Seth, you're the game guy, what games do you have?"

Ah yes, the heartbreak of decision making under pressure! I have been in similar situations where about a thousand things shoot through my mind as I'm looking over my selection of games. The one overriding fact is that I always want people to have fun, but that makes it nearly impossible to pull out the "it" game. As Bill Cosby once said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try and please everyone."

When pulling out a game to play, I tend to watch people's reactions as I go over the rules, as people get the game and as the game progresses. One thing that nearly always draws people into a game is familiarity. That's one of the reasons that Monopoly does so well to this day (and will probably always be one of the best selling games out there). I've seen people get nervous at all the pieces in LotR, yet there are easily as many if not more in Monopoly. People balk at the idea of spending 2-3 hours on a game, yet we have all played Monopoly sessions that stretch on seemingly interminably! The rules in many games seem confusing and fiddly, but Monopoly's rules are just as fiddly to the newcomer (and that doesn't include house rules variations--which often aren't revealed until half-way through the game).

The point is that Monopoly has become a part of the collective unconscious. It's like learning English. Yes, it's a very complicated and difficult language to learn and use, but when you grow up with it, the language becomes second nature. Does anyone still play Monopoly because it's fun (it can be, but usually only for the 2 players at the top) or entertaining? Mostly it is played because it is familiar.

That familiarity is one of the aspects driving the sales of so many movie tie-in games. The mechanics are irrelevant. Players will buy and play the game because the environment of the game is so familiar to them. Familiarity breeds comfort.

Much has been said of the artwork of LotR and how great it is that it is original artwork and yet how much better sales would be if they had licensed movie images. Actually the publishers cleverly used a middle of the road option to appeal to all sides equally. They hired the artist who did a lot of production design for the movies. That way the artwork is all stylized and original, but very familiar (even is the familiarity is subconscious) to anyone familiar with the movies. It's a very clever trick that works (at least it works for me).

The trick is to get people playing--anything! Yes, it should be as appealing to the non-gamer as possible, but different things appeal to different people. Who knows what will cause anyone to connect with a game.

When playing games (regardless of the group) I tend to watch what people are enjoying and what they are not enjoying. I then use that to tailor suggestions or future playing sessions to that player's interests. It doesn't always work and players are sometimes turned off by a particular game, but I always try to get them to realize that there is a HUGE variety of games out there. We as gamers need to get as many people as we can turned on to whatever game connects with them.

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

I had a similar experience this weekend. I had three friends over, and nothing to do. One was experienced in the board/role playing games the others experience was limited to party games.

I doug out Ticket to Ride, and Tongiaki. We played Tongiaki first, and they all loved it. Ticket to Ride really intimidated them when I brought out board though. Although I would say Ticket to Ride is actually easy to explain and catch the strategies.

Over all, it went well. I think two of them will come back an play more games (including the one who had previous experience with games). The other I don't think enjoyed it much (She didn't win, and I don't thik she likes loosing :( )

If I had my copy of Web of Power (lost... what a shame), I would have suggested that as well.

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

SimonWaltr wrote:
The other I don't think enjoyed it much (She didn't win, and I don't thik she likes loosing :( )

Good point! Unfortunately many people form their first opinion of a game based solely on whether or not they win.

Anonymous
geek lists w/"introductory games for non-gamers" a

But the audience is key. Especially since theme (as others have mentioned, movie tie-ins may go over well) can mean more then anything. But even that can work against you, since inevitably one in the group will say, "LoTR? All those elves and garbage?"

Card games feel "familiar" but can offer choices. I think that Bang! goes a good way in easing a player to make decisions (but it's what I would consider pretty 'light'). The rules are a smidge odd (I have to count the distance of the players next to me?), and the special cards need to have the explanations read from the rule book, but telling people they are in the Old West as a character and trying to kill each other "makes sense" to most people.

I think introducting certain mechanics to people in simple games can also help. Such as Dragon stones to get people to understand an auction mechanism (though monopoly has its own auctions), and a tile laying game as simple as "Water Works" (probably called something else in other countries outside of US). And if they find that to be interesting you can say, "Well this game incorporates X (which they liked) and Y (which they liked".

But as designers what can we do? I think we can design "gateway games". We can understand that not everyone shares the same tastes as ourselves. That pretty bits can mean a lot. That being inclusive is a good thing (game snobbery isn't good) and that all people like the fundamentals of games: interaction and fun.

I think I'll stop rambling now...

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

When I think about the games my friends play they are simple, with classic exceptions:
-Risk
-Monopoly
-Stratego
-Hearts
-Eukure
-Axis & Allies

I don't think simple is a requirement. Especially as I look at the list above. I think my friends lke reasonably complicated games. But the problem comes when games aren't simple to learn, or when players get "confused". ( I think this could be tied into the Learning/Teaching New Games thread we have going as well ).

Newbies need to know some basic strategy. They need to feel like they are not playing a grand master as welll... I mean thoughts like, 'why should I play a game if you are going to wipe the board with my pieces?' should be addressed. I've found that games I haven't played a lot tend to be less "threatening" than others to new players. The only issue I see is that when I am new to a game, I need to know the rules....

Think about what got you into gaming... Try to other that same experience to your friends... A gaming club I know about used to offer free pizza for the first 2 times a player came. The only problem is that they didn't make any money. ;)

Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

When talking about MainStream I think jjacy1 stated two important items, audience and familiarity.

The general public has always been blasted with the marketing power of the big guys. As a result Monoply, Risk, Jenga, Taboo!, Uno, Chutes and Ladders, Sorry! etc are what US (not sure about othe countries) citzens are drawn to, because of this marketing power. Take that, along with the fact that these style of games have been bashed into the mind set of many people for many years, you have a comfort level. The, "I like games like UNO", so Harry Poter UNO shoudl be fun, let me buy that....

I would also challange you all to think about this topic in a different way. Imagine the person you are targetting, has no idea about German Style games, and no friends/family that will ever introduce them to a German Style game.

How would you go about selling your "German Style" game to the general public?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Zzzzz wrote:
How would you go about selling your "German Style" game to the general public?

Good question. Note here that by 'selling' the game to the public we're (or I'm) not necessarily talking about selling the box at the store as much as selling the idea to the player- getting them to try it. Like if I have a non-gamer friend at my house, I might like to sell them on the idea of trying Hansa... not sell them the game Hansa. I think that's a distinct enough difference to mention, and what I'm getting at with this thread is more the former than the latter.

So how would I go about selling "German style" gaming? I dunno, which is why I started this thread. I'd probably emphasize the decision making and friendly competition which is what games are all about.

RookieDesign
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Repost from the Game publication tread:

I'm just will state some of my personal observation of the last few years.

For the last four years I subscribed to Game Developper magasine. This mag was oriented toward the computer game industry. (I know it's a board game forum but hear me anyway). The industry trend that you can see develop is quite simple. It's all about money. The gaming studio would prefer to develop sequel (Thief 3, Grand Thief Auto: Vice City, Diablo II, all sports game updated every year, just to mentioned few of them) or develop derived product. (Chicken run computer game, Harry Potter Quiddish game, Lord of the Rings). It's all about risk taking. Selling something that sell well in the past or take a chance for not much.

The same is true for the board game industry. Why invest 20k on designing a new product from a newcomer like people on this forum, when I can redraw the monopoly game (Vegas, Nasa, Harley Davidson style) and make tons of money. You can ride on the popularity of your older title.

Look at the Toy'R Us. What do you see on the shelves. I see only Hasbro games. It's brain washing. Why some mother would be interested to buy European game for his son. When all the people know is the same Monopoly game. Toy'R Us won't offer game if the sit on the shelves. What's the most likely to be sold. Monopoly (35$) or my game Homini Terra (55$ planned) ? It's a question of risk and money.

Why can't you find old Parker Brother game like Inventors with this nice dice roller with a bell? Where are all the nice game from Avalon Hill. It's simple reduce the offer of marginal product and this will increase your mainstream product.

It's not about how good a product is. It's about how much it can bring in your bank account. It's about providing a service to the public. It's about how much can I get from them.

It's a sad and dark view, but at least it's out of me.

Thanks for reading.
Take care.

Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

To clarify, I guess what I am saying is that the ideas that you would use to get someone to buy the game, could also be used to influence them to try the game.

There is also the problem of having a comfort level with respect to playing a new game. The general public like to play games that are "like" another game they have played. Thus Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon(other CCG,TCG) are played because the general public became comfortable with MTG.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Zzzzz wrote:
The general public like to play games that are "like" another game they have played. Thus Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon(other CCG,TCG) are played because the general public became comfortable with MTG.

If only that were true :-)
Kids played Pokémon* and Yu-Gi-Oh because they had bought in to the concept - which was all about collecting ("Gotta Catch 'Em All", remember.) Witness the relative failure of the (otherwise interesting) Beyblade CCG - that show wasn't about collecting in the same way.
The general public is about as comfortable with MTG as it is with D&D - they might recognise the name (although that's obviously more true with D&D) but they've got no idea what it refers to.

-- David

*my advice: buy up all the discounted Pokemon cards you can; in about twenty years time they're going to be worth a bomb when the current kids want to revisit their childhoods ;-)

Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Ok you got me Scurra,

I went the wrong way with that post, but I tried!

;)

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Scurra wrote:
The general public is about as comfortable with MTG as it is with D&D

In fact, perhaps because they share a Fantasy genre, those two games are often mistakenly associated with each other.

Despite being absolutely nothing alike, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Magic referred to as "D&D with cards" or something similar. I cringe every time I hear that because not only is it misinformation, but it really does nothing good for the reputation of Magic or Magic players.

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Reaching out to the Mainstream

And now for something completely different ...

Well, not completely different, but different anyway ... sort of ... (I realise I reallty like use these '...''s for stream of conciousness talking ...)

Back to the point.

I have noticed that alot of people talk about our idea of boardgames as being what we grew up with (e.g. snakes and ladders, Monopoly, etc.). I know the same goes for me, but growing up (not to say that I consider myself grown up at the age of 35 mind you) my parents played lots of games with my younger brother and I, including Monopoloy, 500, Pay Day, Mah-Jongg, chess, Scrabble and so on ... we also got different sorts of boardgames growing up in addition to MouseTrap and Cluedo ... I remember getting Feudal while in primary school (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/847) ... my brother got Magic Realm (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/22). The list goes on ...

And what exactly is my point? (Yes, I have been known to go off on tangents).

Maybe we need to make more interesting children's games, which will also attract the parent's eye. Easier said than done, but not impossible, particularly if we get consider the loving parent's key concerns

(1) educational
(2) something that offers some passing interest for the parent if they are playing
(3) something the kids can preferably play by themself and/or with other kids (particularly as they get older)

Then, I think of all the kids that might get to play games like 'Ticket to Ride' or 'Settlers' growing up (say 8 years and over), and then the games that they might want to buy as a result when as they get older ...

There's my 2 cents (or 5 cents as we don't have 2 cent coins anymore down in Oz ... but that's a tangent better left for another day ;) )

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

sedjtroll wrote:
Despite being absolutely nothing alike, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Magic referred to as "D&D with cards" or something similar. I cringe every time I hear that because not only is it misinformation, but it really does nothing good for the reputation of Magic or Magic players.

Wait a minute, I thought it did nothing good for the reputation of D&D or D&D players! ; )

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

GeminiWeb wrote:
Maybe we need to make more interesting children's games...

Good point, catch them while they're young!!

There are a lot of kids versions coming out (kids Settlers, kids LotR, etc.). This could be the beginning of a new generation of gamers. Maybe to get the parents interested, they should retool the kids versions to be simplified adult versions--sell the kids version with simpler mechanics etc. but with adult orientation, call them lite editions (Settlers lite, LotR lite). Anyone could play them and no one would be afraid of them with the simplified rules.

Does it water down the experience, yes. But it should whet their appetites for more. When they tire of the simpler versions, they go out and buy the full versions along with other great games.

If worse comes to worse, some may just buy the full versions by accident (thinking that it's the simpler version), try it and realize it's not as hard as they thought!! Growth through subversion!

Anonymous
Reaching out to the Mainstream

I think it does have a lot to do with marketing though. However I wonder if some games will start to change that. I mean I've seen more copies of settlers floating around lately than anything else (except at my house that is). I have friends playing it all over the place.

I wonder if it is anything like the music industry. In order to "break through" you need to hit critical mass. In order to get a 'critical mass' of people playing, you need to tour, evangelize, and basically sell it yourself. In a sense, record industries don't want new music, they want the same old stuff that will sell (probably due to a vastly uneducated consumer mindset [at least in the USA, not nesacarily people on this board either]).

So, I guess I am saying, promote the games you guys like... things like board game geek, conventions, and other things will help... Even if they have small audiences. Word of mouth is a powerful (albeit slow) sales technique.

My $0.02, thought I am not sure which currency it is...

OrlandoPat
Offline
Joined: 10/16/2008
Wish I'd jumped in on this thread earlier...

In my opinion, to answer the question of mainstreaming a game, you have to approach the game from the point of view of someone who is not comfortable playing.

If you're introducing someone to a new game, there are (I've found) three simple thoughts that flash through that person's head:
1) Will it be fun?
2) Do I have a chance to win?
3) Is this going to be embarassing?

I'll use Settlers as an example of what I'm talking about...

The first one can be answered by glitz, presentation, and theme. Settlers is a great example. It has an interesting, non-threatening look and has been getting a lot of good buzz.

The second one is tougher and goes directly to the learning curve. I think we can agree that the first time you play Settlers, you're going to lose. What's the incentive for a new player? All they see is "hey, look! I get to spend the next two hours losing a game!" You really have to work them to get them into it. It's even worse if you have a game with pages of rules and special exceptions. Then, the thought becomes "okay, now I get to spend the next two hours concentrating on learning a new thing - and then I'll lose".

The third one relates somewhat to the second, but goes (IMHO) to the heart of why people *don't* play games. No one wants to be embarrassed. Suggest a game of chess to someone that rarely plays, and they'll almost certainly say no. Why? Because losing makes them feel stupid. Settlers gets around this problem by masking the competitive nature of the game, and letting the dice give people something to hide behind.

As a designer of mainstream games, you have to realize that your goal is to design a game that is not only fun, but also non-threatening, easy to learn, and winnable by new players. In a sense, you're not just competing with other games - you're also competing with TV, movies, books, and every other type of less-interactive entertainment you can think of.

That's what I think, at any rate.

Trickydicky
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Hi!,

I'm new on this forum, in fact this is the first forum I've ever been on, on the web.

I grew up playing games with my brothers. In fact we are the ones who always seem to have the "new" games to introduce to all of our friends. So, I know how hard it is to get the nongamer to play a game that they consider more complex than UNO. But I also have freinds who are always excited every Christmas because they know I will be getting a whole slew of new games (these are friends who have either gone through or are going through the gamer conversion process).

The are a few big concerns I get from most of my friends whenever I talk about any board game:

1) Time to play
2) Difficulty to learn
3) The amount of thinking that is involved

The problem with addressing these issues is the game designer can almost just as easily alienate the "gamer" by making the game too simple, too short and as mentally challenging as watching "Joe Millionaire". For example I am not the biggest fan of Settlers of Catan because I feel the luck outweighs the strategy. For me and some of my other "gamer" friends that is a turn off. (don't get me wrong I would play Settler's of Catan over watching "Joe Millionaire" anyday. My point is it is a difficult balance and it has to be struck with a score of different individuals who like different things.

I know, I haven't really offered a lot of solutions to the proposed question. Sorry! That is because I'm new at this...and I don't have any (solutions that is), from the designer side of things, except if you want a lot of people to try it, MAKE IT CHEAP. There are a whole bunch of games I would love to try, but I can only afford one $40-$60 game every six months to a year. As a gamer, I am willing to go out on a limb and fork over that kind of cash for a game I've never even heard of because I like the designer, or publishing company. I can't imagine any "nongamer" when faced with the decision between a $15 dollar LIFE game and a $40 dollar game they have never played let alone hear of, is going to choose the unknown game. I think that if someone could get their hands on a $10-$15 game that introduces them to either the genre of games or a designer/company that designs games in the genre they might become repeat costumers. Otherwise, I agree with the comment on word of mouth. Until, they are converted "gamers" themselves I don't see most of the public going out on a limb and buying a game in a genre with which they are unfamiliar.

As "gamers" I think we can spread our "gamer" ideologies by allowing nongamers to get introduced slowly into our ranks. I know that one of the things my "nongamer" friends hate is that they feel like every time we get together to play one of my games they have to learn an entirely new game. Sometimes it is better to keep playing to same old game, unfortunately for me, it is usually Settlers, than trying to introduce new game after new game. Let them master one and then they might feel more comfortable venturing further into the genre.

Secondly, I know a lot of "nongamers" dislike German games because they feel stupid compared to "gamers". My brothers and I ease this transition by lending lots of advice, when asked, to new players, and not coming down on them with all the force of our superior "gamer" intellect (haha). This isn't always wanted, but is usually appreciated because most people don't like getting completely annihilated when they try something new. It makes them not want to come back to it again. When we play, a new player often comes out on top because they have 4-5 strategists easing them into their turns. This has been the technique for converting many a would-be "gamer" from among our friends.

Gotta run.

Trickydicky
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Reaching out to the Mainstream

Sheesh, that was long, sorry!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut