[spielfrieks] Voting for 2000 Retrospective is Open!

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Okay, we're tempting fate and revisiting Y2K! Our re-evaluation of the 2000 election includes 30 nominated games. Go to http://meepleschoice.win/ http://meepleschoice.win/ and pick your three favorite titles. I'll shut things down next Monday and announce the new results. Thanks again to everyone for participating!


Larry

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

I agree with Marianna; limiting my vote to only three selections for this election will be tough. Princes of Florence is one of my all-time favorites, so that's a slam dunk. But that leaves 3 great games of near equal quality slugging it out for the remaining 2 votes. Taj Mahal, Traumfabrik, and Babel--one of you must be voted off the island! Oh, the humanity!


Larry

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

Wow, that was a pretty solid year. More so than 2001 IMO.

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Okay, we're tempting fate and revisiting Y2K! Our re-evaluation of the
2000 election includes 30 nominated games. Go to
*http://meepleschoice.win/* <http://meepleschoice.win/> and pick your
three favorite titles. I'll shut things down next Monday and announce the
new results. Thanks again to everyone for participating!
Larry

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

In my reflection of these games I realize that I like Battle Line a lot,
but I cannot vote for it because I'm not playing it the way it was
intended. I've only played it 3-player. I only got it many years ago
because of someone's variant that allows for three players. It's one of my
favourite quick three player games. But I don't know if it's entirely
legit to vote for a game when I only play by a variant of its rules.

If someone said I love Princes of Florence, but we play by changing . . .

It would be like you're playing a different game, I think. I don't know.
Maybe I have to think about it more.

Jacob

Post by Clay Blankenship ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
Wow, that was a pretty solid year. More so than 2001 IMO.

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Okay, we're tempting fate and revisiting Y2K! Our re-evaluation of the
2000 election includes 30 nominated games. Go to
*http://meepleschoice.win/* <http://meepleschoice.win/> and pick your
three favorite titles. I'll shut things down next Monday and announce the
new results. Thanks again to everyone for participating!
Larry

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

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

Post by Jacob Lee ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
If someone said I love Princes of Florence, but we play by changing . . .

... to the official variants that Wolfgang Kramer posted in 2003, but from
a mistranslation where we didn't realize that he was proposing six
different variants and instead we played with all of them.

(shudder)

Post by Jacob Lee ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
..

[Mark Jackson [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Yikes. There are 10 games on that list that I would consider voting for...
and 6 that made picking just three agonizing.

That was a very good year.

Post by Wei-Hwa Huang ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]

Post by Jacob Lee ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
If someone said I love Princes of Florence, but we play by changing . . .

... to the official variants that Wolfgang Kramer posted in 2003, but from
a mistranslation where we didn't realize that he was proposing six
different variants and instead we played with all of them.
(shudder)

Post by Jacob Lee ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
..

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verbing nouns may weird language, but nouning verbs is a language destroy.

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Jacob, I always rate games according to their optimal conditions, which can include house rules. For example, I always play Babel with a variant suggested by Greg Aleknevicus and would rate the game lower with the rules in with the rules in the box. So if you want to list Battle Line based on it being a 3 player game, I'd say, go for it. But you have to decide how you feel about this yourself.

Larry

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but why is Acquire on this list. Didn't that come out in the late 70s?

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Yeah, I mentioned this in my opening memo. Acquire, which actually debuted in 1964, was apparently included because of a new version which was published by Avalon Hill in 1999. I don't know why the group at the time decided to include it--I wasn't part of Spielfrieks at the time. Only 4 people chose it this time around, so I assume that most of us consider it a 60's design and decided to leave it off our ballots.


Larry

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

Or maybe the other games are just better 😀

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Yeah, I mentioned this in my opening memo. Acquire, which actually
debuted in 1964, was apparently included because of a new version which was
published by Avalon Hill in 1999. I don't know why the group at the time
decided to include it--I wasn't part of Spielfrieks at the time. Only 4
people chose it this time around, so I assume that most of us consider it a
60's design and decided to leave it off our ballots.
Larry