[spielfrieks] 2005 Results

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

The voting for 2005 is over and participation continues to be high—57 people this time. There were some interesting shifts this time, although one game didn’t pick up quite as much support as I thought it would. Here’s the top 10, with the vote totals listed, along with the game’s original rank in parentheses, and n/a indicating that the game wasn’t originally nominated:



1. Caylus – 18 (1)

2. Shadows over Camelot – 12 (3)

3. Glory to Rome – 11 (n/a)

3. Indonesia – 11 (10)

3. Twilight Struggle – 11 (4)

6. Ticket to Ride: Europe – 9 (6)

6. Wits & Wagers – 9 (n/a)

8. Diamant – 8 (11)

8. Vegas Showdown – 8 (11)

10. Hacienda – 7 (8)



As with the original election, Caylus finished first by a wide margin. Originally, Twilight Struggle just missed the top 3, mostly, I suspect, due to there being so few copies out there at the time (I’d always felt it would have easily captured an award had the voting taken place only a few months later), and I thought that this time, it would make up that ground and maybe even challenge Caylus for the top spot. It did finish in the top 3, but just barely. Other notable shifts up include Indonesia (originally 10th) and Glory to Rome (not even nominated) tying TS for third. Some other n/a games also did very well this time: Wits & Wagers (6th), 1846 (11th), and Pickomino (15th).



There were also some major falls from grace, including four games that had been in the top 10, but didn’t do nearly as well this time. Louis XIV, originally an MCA winner in the second spot, could do no better than 11th in the current vote, tying Railways of the World (which originally finished 5th). Antike (originally 6th) and Elasund (originally 9th) also did much worse this time around.



I suspect the reasons for these different shifts vary by game. As a number of people have mentioned, Twilight Struggle is a game that remains very highly regarded, but which a lot of folks just don’t have the time to play. Consequently, it got left off of a lot of ballots. Glory to Rome was an indie game in 2005 and it took some time for it to get noticed by the majority of gamers. Indonesia, like many Splotters, had a small footprint originally, but it is now regarded as one of their best. Louis’ drop is a little more puzzling; it’s still liked, but clearly is not considered one of the leading games of the year, as it was back in 2005. This is also reflected by its standing on the Geek, where not only is its rating nothing special, but the number of voters is fairly small (only about 5000) when compared to its contemporaries. Interesting.



Three of the 33 nominated games got no votes: Il Principe, Poison, and Roma. You can check out how each game did, together with who voted for them, on the app.



So did you think the standings this time around were surprising? Let us know!

Larry

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

A lot of folks expressed love for this year, but my feelings are quite different. It's the only MCA election, either original or retrospective, where I seriously gave thought to listing fewer than 3 games. Of the whole crop, only Louis XIV, one of my favorites, is a game I'd suggest playing (I was pretty disappointed that it couldn't even break into the top 10 this time around). So a one game ballot might have made sense for me. In the end, I wound up also voting for Caylus and Indonesia, two games I admire tremendously, but which I struggle to play competently (particularly the Splotter title). Hacienda is the only other design that I considered voting for, but it's been a while since it got to the table. There are quite a few other games that got a good deal of play a dozen years ago, but all of those have pretty much dropped out of sight for me and my group. 2005 represents a bit of a black hole in the midst of some other very good years for me.


But I'd play Louis again in a heartbeat. As an aside, has anyone had the chance to try out the new version, Mafiozoo? I think the retheming is dreadful, but Dorn did make some changes and I'm curious about how those might have been received.


Larry

[Ravindra Prasad [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

I've been voting not for my favorites, nor the ones I play the most now,
but what I think were the best games of the year for we frieks. Or,
perhaps, my best guess at how I would have voted back then if I had the
experience with those games then that I have now. Voting for favorites
turns this into more of a Hall of Fame type of vote, and I thought we were
doing more of a Meeples Choice re-do/re-assess. So even though I haven't
played Shadows Over Camelot in several years, it got my vote because it was
just so cool, and it made (semi) coops fun for me! The other two of my
votes, though, went to games I play a fair bit. Online. Twilight Struggle
and Indonesia.

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
A lot of folks expressed love for this year, but my feelings are quite
different. It's the only MCA election, either original or retrospective,
where I seriously gave thought to listing fewer than 3 games. Of the whole
crop, only Louis XIV, one of my favorites, is a game I'd suggest playing (I
was pretty disappointed that it couldn't even break into the top 10 this
time around). So a one game ballot might have made sense for me. In the
end, I wound up also voting for Caylus and Indonesia, two games I admire
tremendously, but which I struggle to play competently (particularly the
Splotter title). Hacienda is the only other design that I considered
voting for, but it's been a while since it got to the table. There are
quite a few other games that got a good deal of play a dozen years ago, but
all of those have pretty much dropped out of sight for me and my group.
2005 represents a bit of a black hole in the midst of some other very good
years for me.
But I'd play Louis again in a heartbeat. As an aside, has anyone had the
chance to try out the new version, Mafiozoo? I think the retheming is
dreadful, but Dorn did make some changes and I'm curious about how those
might have been received.
Larry

[Jacob Lee [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

For many of these votes, I only have three games from each year that I've
kept. I'm pretty good at culling my collection, I guess (not so good at
limiting new acquisitions).

So from a different perspective, the only games I play from each year are
the best. :)

But if any of those games took as long to play as Twilight Struggle, for
example, I would not have kept them. They do more for me in 45 min than TS
does for me in three hours - which is why Terraforming Mars scored lower
for me to give a recent example.

Something I would like Larry or whoever is all involved to consider for the
future (far off future) is dictating the criteria we should use in voting.
I have no problem evaluating a game based on its design merits. But if
it's open to our interpretation we will have different results. I know I
would have voted differently following different criteria.

Jacob

Post by Ravindra Prasad ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
I've been voting not for my favorites, nor the ones I play the most now,
but what I think were the best games of the year for we frieks. Or,
perhaps, my best guess at how I would have voted back then if I had the
experience with those games then that I have now. Voting for favorites
turns this into more of a Hall of Fame type of vote, and I thought we were
doing more of a Meeples Choice re-do/re-assess. So even though I haven't
played Shadows Over Camelot in several years, it got my vote because it was
just so cool, and it made (semi) coops fun for me! The other two of my
votes, though, went to games I play a fair bit. Online. Twilight Struggle
and Indonesia.

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
A lot of folks expressed love for this year, but my feelings are quite
different. It's the only MCA election, either original or retrospective,
where I seriously gave thought to listing fewer than 3 games. Of the whole
crop, only Louis XIV, one of my favorites, is a game I'd suggest playing (I
was pretty disappointed that it couldn't even break into the top 10 this
time around). So a one game ballot might have made sense for me. In the
end, I wound up also voting for Caylus and Indonesia, two games I admire
tremendously, but which I struggle to play competently (particularly the
Splotter title). Hacienda is the only other design that I considered
voting for, but it's been a while since it got to the table. There are
quite a few other games that got a good deal of play a dozen years ago, but
all of those have pretty much dropped out of sight for me and my group.
2005 represents a bit of a black hole in the midst of some other very good
years for me.
But I'd play Louis again in a heartbeat. As an aside, has anyone had the
chance to try out the new version, Mafiozoo? I think the retheming is
dreadful, but Dorn did make some changes and I'm curious about how those
might have been received.
Larry

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Jacob, I think the group as a whole could decide on the criteria for the award, but it's not for me to decide. I just administer things. If people think this is worthwhile, I could set up a poll in the app and we could vote on what we want the goals of the MCA to be. However, if I do that, one of the options will be for everyone to decide on their own--in other words, no universal criteria at all. Just in case there are folks who prefer the open system we currently have.


So would you like to have clarity on what the criteria should be for the MCA's? Please respond if you'd like us to vote on this. Thanks!

Larry

[Jacob Lee [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Larry, no need to change anything now (or vote on change). I'm happy with
how things are, but if we are to evolve over time guidelines for voting
would be a place to start. It came up in the discussion a little while
back which got me thinking about it.

Jacob

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Jacob, I think the group as a whole could decide on the criteria for the
award, but it's not for me to decide. I just administer things. If people
think this is worthwhile, I could set up a poll in the app and we could
vote on what we want the goals of the MCA to be. However, if I do that,
one of the options will be for everyone to decide on their own--in other
words, no universal criteria at all. Just in case there are folks who
prefer the open system we currently have.
So would you like to have clarity on what the criteria should be for the
MCA's? Please respond if you'd like us to vote on this. Thanks!
Larry

[Clay Blankenship [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

I support the idea of voting on what the criteria should be. (This is
getting really meta.)

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Jacob, I think the group as a whole could decide on the criteria for the
award, but it's not for me to decide. I just administer things. If people
think this is worthwhile, I could set up a poll in the app and we could
vote on what we want the goals of the MCA to be. However, if I do that,
one of the options will be for everyone to decide on their own--in other
words, no universal criteria at all. Just in case there are folks who
prefer the open system we currently have.
So would you like to have clarity on what the criteria should be for the
MCA's? Please respond if you'd like us to vote on this. Thanks!
Larry

[Wei-Hwa Huang [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

I am against the idea of voting on what the criteria should be!

Clearly we have a disagreement here. Perhaps we should put it up for a
vote. I support the idea of voting on whether we should have a vote on
what the criteria should be.

Post by Clay Blankenship ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
I support the idea of voting on what the criteria should be. (This is
getting really meta.)

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Jacob, I think the group as a whole could decide on the criteria for the
award, but it's not for me to decide. I just administer things. If people
think this is worthwhile, I could set up a poll in the app and we could
vote on what we want the goals of the MCA to be. However, if I do that,
one of the options will be for everyone to decide on their own--in other
words, no universal criteria at all. Just in case there are folks who
prefer the open system we currently have.
So would you like to have clarity on what the criteria should be for the
MCA's? Please respond if you'd like us to vote on this. Thanks!
Larry

--
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." --Helen Keller

[Chris Lemon [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

First I need to know what the criteria is for such a vote.

From: ***@yahoogroups.com [mailto:***@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 4:05 PM
To: ***@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spielfrieks] 2005 Results


I am against the idea of voting on what the criteria should be!

Clearly we have a disagreement here. Perhaps we should put it up for a vote. I support the idea of voting on whether we should have a vote on what the criteria should be.


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Clay Blankenship ***@gmail.com<mailto:***@gmail.com> [spielfrieks] <***@yahoogroups.com<mailto:***@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

I support the idea of voting on what the criteria should be. (This is getting really meta.)

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:47 AM, ***@comcast.net<mailto:***@comcast.net> [spielfrieks] <***@yahoogroups.com<mailto:***@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:


Jacob, I think the group as a whole could decide on the criteria for the award, but it's not for me to decide. I just administer things. If people think this is worthwhile, I could set up a poll in the app and we could vote on what we want the goals of the MCA to be. However, if I do that, one of the options will be for everyone to decide on their own--in other words, no universal criteria at all. Just in case there are folks who prefer the open system we currently have.



So would you like to have clarity on what the criteria should be for the MCA's? Please respond if you'd like us to vote on this. Thanks!

Larry
--
Clay Blankenship ***@gmail.com<mailto:***@gmail.com>
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." --Helen Keller

[Ravindra Prasad [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Thirded!

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Clay Blankenship

Post by Clay Blankenship ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
I support the idea of voting on what the criteria should be. (This is
getting really meta.)

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Jacob, I think the group as a whole could decide on the criteria for the
award, but it's not for me to decide. I just administer things. If people
think this is worthwhile, I could set up a poll in the app and we could
vote on what we want the goals of the MCA to be. However, if I do that,
one of the options will be for everyone to decide on their own--in other
words, no universal criteria at all. Just in case there are folks who
prefer the open system we currently have.
So would you like to have clarity on what the criteria should be for the
MCA's? Please respond if you'd like us to vote on this. Thanks!
Larry

--
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." --Helen Keller