The discussion of the memory element in the El Grande chat has gotten me thinking about aspects like "trackable but hidden information". For myself, and for the majority of players I think, elements like shares in Acquire, the Castillo in El Grande, or how many of each color everyone has in Tigris are trackable "in theory" but not in practice.
However, there do seem to be some people who are capable of tracking these kinds of things. And it would seem that designers, were they designing their games for such players, would obviously see that their games were "flawed" when played with such players, yet almost every great designer -- Sackson, Knizia, Kramer, Schacht -- has used an element like this, or some other aspect that "breaks" the game when it is played a certain way or a certain player.
My personal conclusion is that these games are being designed by people who are more like "me", a fairly casual player, than the "hypothetical person who can and does memorize everything." And frankly, I'm not even remotely positive this is a bad thing. I really feel like German games are not meant to be played like Chess or Go. They are not, in my opinion, meant to be played with a heavy level of analysis. They present an interesting set of decisions that, in theory, should evoke a certain experience and should create a fun context for a social gathering, but it is the social context that is more important than the competitive context.
This may sound like I'm excusing sloppy design, but I'm not. What I'm trying to do, instead, is to "poo-poo" overanalyzers. A great example is what Joe said last night -- that the Castillo is a "bad" element because at any time, you can count how many cubes everyone has on the board and in their holdings, and deduce how many are left. But, I can tell you with absolute certainty, if someone insisted on counting all of everyone's cubes on every single turn, I would never play that game with that person again. Why? Because, someone who insists on availing himself of perfect information at the expense of bringing the game to a screeching halt just so he can make the "best" move is not necessarily breaking the game, but he's breaking the player experience that the game intends to provide. The reality is, I don't know if very many people can count into the Castillo, and if they can't, then the uncertainty is part of what makes the play experience fun.
Frankly, I think the "chatter" on the game groups has made me somewhat lose interest in discussing games very much on those groups. I feel like people just analyze these things in WAAAAY too much detail, and as a result have in some sense lost the ability to just have a good time playing games. It's as if everyone is just looking to pounce on every single flaw that a game might have, no matter how hypothetical it might be.
That said, I think it's quite valid to analyze these games from a design standpoint and try to learn how to make our own games better. And I do think it's good as designers to minimize trouble points whenever possible. But, if there's a memory element that makes the game fun for 99% of the people who will play, I must honestly say that I don't care about that very vocal 1% who will whine about that aspect.
And, I do agree with Joe that it's good to have the game be playable with public information. But I think Rene's philosophy, of having a little randomness and a little hidden information is a great balance between keeping AP down yet also preventing an outright benefit to memorizing.
With El Grande, I haven't played enough to have a definitive opinion, but with other "hidden but trackable info" games, for me, I don't/can't track the info, and I enjoy the experience of trying to play based on "impression". And I feel, based on the fact that these are excellent designers who nevertheless included these elements in their games, that this is really the spirit in which these games are intended to be played.
Perhaps there's an issue whereby the people who gravitate to gaming, at least in the US, tend to be very analytical types, which is great in a way but also perhaps leads to a level of thinking about these games that goes beyond the spirit in which they're meant to be enjoyed.
As always, I could be way off...
-Jeff
I dunno.
I dare to disagree.
I have never played El Grande or Tigirs and it has been so long since I played Acquire that I don't even remember us playing with hidden shares...
But one thing that I do have a LOT of experience playing is Settlers... which does have a sort of memory aspect to tracking what resources people have. Now, granted, you pretty much only need think a few turns deep to track what people have in their hands... it actually SPEEDS the game up. If I need brick, and I can remember that a 3, 5 or 9 hasn't been rolled in a while and the last person to get brick used it on that turn, I know that NO ONE has it and I'm not going to waste time asking to trade for it, or playing a Knight/Soldier in attempt to take it.
Now, with that said, I consider myself to be a damn good Settlers player. It is quite likely the only game I win consistently.... hell, it might even be the only game I win. Why? Because I have played the game SOO much, even if I didn't spend time analyzing it, it would have just sunk in... it would have become what it is now... instinct. I play the game on instincts that were developed through trial and error/analysis.
BUT... I do lose. I can maximize my potential to win... but I CAN'T win all the time... these are games with a factor NO ONE can control, randomness. I can theorize and count on statistics all day long, but we've ALL played those games of Settlers where you're on the 6 and 8... but 4's get rolled all game long....
...and I think the designers COUNT on this. I think they built their games with tracking in mind... thus they have not made the tracking aspect of the game so immense that the game screeches to a halt while someone counts himself to sleep. The trick is to make a game that you can have FUN playing without even trying, as well as play competitively with analysis.
Take Puerto Rico for instance. My family doesn't like to play that game. Why? Because there's too much to think about. You can't just blindly pick stuff and still stay in the game... but they love Settlers... because they don't HAVE to think if they don't want too...
But, that's just my opinion...
Tyler