Comments for ColumbiaGames.info http://columbiagames.info Information about Columbia Games Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:00:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 Comment on HarnCon 2008 by Jae http://columbiagames.info/?p=89#comment-9 Jae Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:07:49 +0000 http://columbiagames.info/harncon-2008#comment-9 Does anyone know when the next Harncon will be in the UK? Jae Does anyone know when the next Harncon will be in the UK?

Jae

]]> Comment on HarnCon 2008 by 3 » 7/11/2008 Dicey Business Harn: Columbia’s Electronic Newsletter http://columbiagames.info/?p=89#comment-8 3 » 7/11/2008 Dicey Business Harn: Columbia’s Electronic Newsletter Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:40:10 +0000 http://columbiagames.info/harncon-2008#comment-8 [...] http://columbiagames.info/harncon-2008 [...] [...] http://columbiagames.info/harncon-2008 [...]

]]> Comment on Boardgamegeek User Ratings by Stewart Winter http://columbiagames.info/?p=82#comment-6 Stewart Winter Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:12:05 +0000 http://columbiagames.info/?p=95#comment-6 It's a bit unreasonable to be too hard on bgg. A broad appeal for a game is a good thing, not a bad thing. bgg is a mass system and therefore has ratings that reflect the view of the masses. While I have several Columbia games and will considering buying others, I will likely never own Eastfront because I will never find anyone to play against. Bgg ratings are pretty reflective of the choices my family and friends would make for games, not necessarily my personal preferences. I tend to base my buying decisions on the comments and reviews that I read. As an example, Chris Farrell's thoughtful reviews have sold me on more games than the bgg ratings ever will. I look at the service that bgg provides and think that anyone would be hard pressed to do better given the size and scope it has grown to and I would be surprised to find that the bgg ratings are having any material impact on Columbia games. I'm sure if you continue to produce great games and provide great service and let your positive reputation and positive reviews be your best marketing that the bgg ratings will be a marginal issue for your business (here's hoping). Lastly, I would suggest that encouraging your readers/customers to add thoughtful comments and reviews to the bgg database will do more for your business than a few extra ratings. Best Wishes ... Stewart It’s a bit unreasonable to be too hard on bgg. A broad appeal for a game is a good thing, not a bad thing. bgg is a mass system and therefore has ratings that reflect the view of the masses. While I have several Columbia games and will considering buying others, I will likely never own Eastfront because I will never find anyone to play against. Bgg ratings are pretty reflective of the choices my family and friends would make for games, not necessarily my personal preferences.

I tend to base my buying decisions on the comments and reviews that I read. As an example, Chris Farrell’s thoughtful reviews have sold me on more games than the bgg ratings ever will.

I look at the service that bgg provides and think that anyone would be hard pressed to do better given the size and scope it has grown to and I would be surprised to find that the bgg ratings are having any material impact on Columbia games. I’m sure if you continue to produce great games and provide great service and let your positive reputation and positive reviews be your best marketing that the bgg ratings will be a marginal issue for your business (here’s hoping).

Lastly, I would suggest that encouraging your readers/customers to add thoughtful comments and reviews to the bgg database will do more for your business than a few extra ratings.

Best Wishes … Stewart

]]> Comment on Boardgamegeek User Ratings by Chris Farrell http://columbiagames.info/?p=82#comment-5 Chris Farrell Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:42:27 +0000 http://columbiagames.info/?p=95#comment-5 The good thing about low ratings is that are a sign that the game has credibility. If a game has no low ratings at all, this is a red flag and a big warning that it's appeal is extremely narrow, and nobody outside the hard-core fan base is even trying to play it. The designer or someone can mobilize the fan-base, but if nobody else is playing it, you won't see low ratings. That's why comments are so important, whether you are rating a game low or high. If you give a game a low rating, and either no or an incoherent comment, people can discount it. If you give a game a low or high rating and a comment that says why, people can figure out what to do with it. For example, I love Ted Alspach's comment on Hammer, even though he rates it a 3.66 - although how he evaluates games to two decimal places, I'm not sure. In general most of the people who give Hammer a low rating <i>and also left a decent comment</i> seem fair and might be helpful to a prospective buyer, given that tastes vary. The good thing about low ratings is that are a sign that the game has credibility. If a game has no low ratings at all, this is a red flag and a big warning that it’s appeal is extremely narrow, and nobody outside the hard-core fan base is even trying to play it. The designer or someone can mobilize the fan-base, but if nobody else is playing it, you won’t see low ratings.

That’s why comments are so important, whether you are rating a game low or high. If you give a game a low rating, and either no or an incoherent comment, people can discount it. If you give a game a low or high rating and a comment that says why, people can figure out what to do with it. For example, I love Ted Alspach’s comment on Hammer, even though he rates it a 3.66 - although how he evaluates games to two decimal places, I’m not sure. In general most of the people who give Hammer a low rating and also left a decent comment seem fair and might be helpful to a prospective buyer, given that tastes vary.

]]> Comment on Boardgamegeek User Ratings by Jim Krohn http://columbiagames.info/?p=82#comment-4 Jim Krohn Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:09:49 +0000 http://columbiagames.info/?p=95#comment-4 Well said, Chris. On that subject, an example of something else that bothers me is that 13 people rated HOTS (my all time favorite game) as a 3 or lower. I would suggest dropping the top and bottom 5% of the ratings when figuring out the average rating for a game. I think that would help eliminate one area of abuse. The suggestion to drop the dummy ratings once a game has over a certain number of votes is a good one. Chris, you also pointed out something else that is important - you have to rate EastFront and EastFront 2 separately. Well said, Chris. On that subject, an example of something else that bothers me is that 13 people rated HOTS (my all time favorite game) as a 3 or lower. I would suggest dropping the top and bottom 5% of the ratings when figuring out the average rating for a game. I think that would help eliminate one area of abuse.

The suggestion to drop the dummy ratings once a game has over a certain number of votes is a good one.

Chris, you also pointed out something else that is important - you have to rate EastFront and EastFront 2 separately.

]]> Comment on Boardgamegeek User Ratings by Chris Farrell http://columbiagames.info/?p=82#comment-3 Chris Farrell Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:31:45 +0000 http://columbiagames.info/?p=95#comment-3 The BGG rating situation is tough. It's really messed up currently, and widely "abused", or at least not taken seriously (well, widely enough to cause problems). The current ranking of many top games, both "euros" and "wargames", is simply not credible from virtually any angle. I can't pretend to know enough to enumerate all the causes, but I've become convinced a lot of the blame lies with the user-base rather than the system. Anyway, if you're looking for a statistical fix, the problem is that you have to find some sort of sweet spot. Too many niche wargames have only their fans come over and rate it a 10, so the top wargames list has a lot of complicated games in the top 10 played by only a few people who love them - This Hallowed Ground, Whistling Death, Iron Tide, The Burning Blue - and so is not very illustrative for people shopping for games. Another category of top-rated games are things like Napoleon's Triumph, a sequel game in which the previous game has weeded out all the people who aren't going to like it - possibly why EastFront II is #1 but EastFront is #43. Even EastFront (I)'s rating of 8 with 353 votes is pretty good by BGG standards (its overall ranking of 105, even with the dummy votes, is quite respectable) but many small-niche wargames have grossly inflated ratings. It's a really tough problem, and lots of clever people have tried to harness the wisdom of crowds online without much success. I think comments are much more helpful to prospective buyers than ratings. I think if folks would not only rate the games, but tell others in the comment section why they like them, this is the most helpful thing they can do. In my opinion, Columbia's games are very good so if most of the people who own and play the games went over to BGG and rated them honestly, and put in a helpful comment, the situation might take care of itself, to the extent that it can given the current BGG environment. A lot of people I know ignore ratings, simply because they are so useless, and go direct to the comments. Unfortunately, BGG is going through a bit of a credibility crisis itself in the eyes of many gamers I know, so people who just like to play games may not find the environment attractive. The BGG rating situation is tough. It’s really messed up currently, and widely “abused”, or at least not taken seriously (well, widely enough to cause problems). The current ranking of many top games, both “euros” and “wargames”, is simply not credible from virtually any angle. I can’t pretend to know enough to enumerate all the causes, but I’ve become convinced a lot of the blame lies with the user-base rather than the system.

Anyway, if you’re looking for a statistical fix, the problem is that you have to find some sort of sweet spot. Too many niche wargames have only their fans come over and rate it a 10, so the top wargames list has a lot of complicated games in the top 10 played by only a few people who love them - This Hallowed Ground, Whistling Death, Iron Tide, The Burning Blue - and so is not very illustrative for people shopping for games. Another category of top-rated games are things like Napoleon’s Triumph, a sequel game in which the previous game has weeded out all the people who aren’t going to like it - possibly why EastFront II is #1 but EastFront is #43. Even EastFront (I)’s rating of 8 with 353 votes is pretty good by BGG standards (its overall ranking of 105, even with the dummy votes, is quite respectable) but many small-niche wargames have grossly inflated ratings. It’s a really tough problem, and lots of clever people have tried to harness the wisdom of crowds online without much success.

I think comments are much more helpful to prospective buyers than ratings. I think if folks would not only rate the games, but tell others in the comment section why they like them, this is the most helpful thing they can do. In my opinion, Columbia’s games are very good so if most of the people who own and play the games went over to BGG and rated them honestly, and put in a helpful comment, the situation might take care of itself, to the extent that it can given the current BGG environment. A lot of people I know ignore ratings, simply because they are so useless, and go direct to the comments.

Unfortunately, BGG is going through a bit of a credibility crisis itself in the eyes of many gamers I know, so people who just like to play games may not find the environment attractive.

]]>