"Do people hate games just because they are popular?" Topic

The other day I happened to be reading through two games that ended up having a lot of similarities: "Bolt Action" and "Contemptible little armies".

Both seem pretty good from my first reading and I might try to get both on the table in the not-so-near future.

What do they have in common?

Both have fairly short weapon ranges.

Both have high movement rates in relation to weapons range.

Both uses "buckets of dice" with firing by figure.

Both use "roll to hit, roll to kill" (What I'd call Warhammer dice)

Both use a points system to build armies.

Both have a ground scale that's probably nonsense.

Both are very up front that they consider the game more important than the simulation.

BUT

On TMP and parts of the blog-sphere, Bolt Action is often looked down upon a bit and treated as "Warhammer ww2" while Contemptible little armies is typically viewed very positively.

And it made me wonder:
If a small company had published Bolt Action, and a big behemoth (by wargaming standards) had published Contemptible would the word of mouth be reversed?

The cool kids like to stick it to the man….

If popularity comes from dumbing down and imitation then it is easily conflated together but I seriously doubt snobbery about a game is a result of its popularity.

Hmm. Mick, I'd assume at least some snobbery is exactly the result of popularity. How can you be cool if you wear the same clothes/drive the same car/play the same game as the hoi polloi? This is what keeps microbreweries going.

But it's also true a more obscure game will likely be mostly known to the people who play it and like it, while a very well-known game will be known to lots of people who got dragooned into playing be cause other people were, or who can't get away from it in the club or hobby shop.

If you want to have a product despised, see that a flawed one is commercially successful. I doubt very much that the Yugo was a worse vehicle than a Renault LeCar. I don't see how it could have been. But no one went around telling Renault jokes because only a handful of us got stuck while the Yugos, for a while, were everywhere.

Popular games and my thoughts:

WH40K: Price for components are too expensive. This alone turns me off. Seems like a fun fantasy game with good components and books.

FOW: I just don't like the feel of games played with these rules. I don't have a problem with the mechanics of the rules. Gameplay has no historical feel to me. Great miniatures and the books are well written and presented. I own many of the miniatures and use different rule systems.

MTG card game: I was done with that a long time ago. I'm not into any game where I constantly need to keep feeding money into the game just to remain competitive. Coworkers into the game are buying every expansion as soon as it comes out. I let them buy it an I play with their cards.

Yes

Dear Weasel

NIH.

Yes, helps my low self esteem.

I have noticed that "popularity" usually brings in a certain type of gamers that likes tournaments and that is when the hate starts to come in.

When games reach that level that they need to adjust play for tournament style instead of just playing "for fun" or as a scenario. They start adding point values and special rules and win conditions and then people start meta gaming and making "unbeatable" lists or the "as many tanks as I can fit on the table" armies…

that just isn't fun for a lot of people.

It's so crowded, nobody goes there.

Oh yea.

-Will

I don't dislike(*) games because they are popular, the usual formula that makes a game popular is what I don't like and probably never will.

(*) – hate is to strong a term.

NIH ?

Good call on the meta-game, that's a very good point.

There's a whole level of a game being "solved" which can make it a lot less fun.
I guess for people who aren't connected to a club or forum scene, that'd get missed out on.

There are different things at work here.

Disliking a product just because of the company that made it is prejudice.
Disliking a product just because it is popular is snobbery.
Disliking a product because of a dislike of a feature or property that happens to make it popular is neither snobbery nor prejudice, but discernment.

Popular games tend to draw in players who might not have a deep interest in/knowledge of the period in question which annoys those who do have that knowledge when they use the letter of the rules to field ahistorical forces because they're killer armies and not because they're authentic.

If i dislike rules it is because I dont enjoy playing them. This could be due to the mechanics, the portrayal of the period, or sometimes the people who play the game.

I don't dislike rules just because they are popular. I think there is a certain crowd who like to put down whatever is popular in order to feel edgy and cool.

Let me see…..
The exact same thing applies to food, wine, beer, movies, music…

So, yes.

I dislike popular games mainly because of the expense. I also think they are geared to sell more other things needed to play the game which is also a turnoff. Extra gizmos, dice special templates, rulers, supplements, codecies etc. All a turnoff.

Dear Weasel

means "Not invented here."

I think Frothers and Haywire are on to something, though my impression was that rules were not usually forced into tournament mode by their popularity--ever seen a TSATF tournament?--but were often written with tournaments in mind.

There are rules where, if one studies the history one improves game play, and rules where knowing the historical tactics is just going to mislead you.

There's a modern 1:1, and I think it might be Bolt Action, in which it is an accepted tactic to put a flamethrower on a motorcycle in order to reach further on a given turn. That sort of thing can happen to a lot of rules sets. But in certain rules communities the concern would be to rewrite or reinterpret the rules to prevent this. In others, the response is "kewl tactic!" (Those communities mostly can't spell, either.) That sort of thing goes a long way toward making rules unpopular in certain quarters. The rules could be fixed, but they won't be because the community can't.

This is also why I flinch a little whenever a fantasy or SF player tells me "it's all minis!" (Miniature is too long a word for some of them.) I play some SF and fantasy. But the very nature of the subject puts the communities on the "kewl tactic!" side of the line.

Might not be the problem here. But I've not gotten the sort of reports back with CLA that I have with BA.

Otto. -Gotcha, thanks.

Robert – Sure that makes sense.
I actually wonder now that you mention it whether that may have affected some other games.

Blitzkrieg Commander f.x. used to be very popular online, but when I see it discussed in recent months, the reception seems to be a lot more muted.
The game obviously didn't change, so what did?

Maybe that cycle of "get popular, attract wider range of people, get solved, get broken" ran its course?

The guy playing a game at his own little club might never see that, because they just do their own thing, but the people who look online for tactics etc. will definitely come across that.

How can skirmish-y games cost $40 USD? I think I must be getting old….

Big glossy hardcover books?

PDF copies are usually pretty affordable.

I play a pretty wide rage of rules, from simple to complex, across a pretty wide range of periods. Some of the rules are classics, some were popular a while back and aren't now, some are popular now, and some have never been popular. I'm willing to bet that this holds true for most people – but there is such a wide range of rules available now that there is *always* something to not like! ;)

More seriously, game design seems to swing through various fairly strong phases and methodological leanings. For a while now, what I think of as "meta game" mechanics have been getting more popular – inserting another whole and distinct level and type of gaming, such as card deck management or point/bidding systems, over the top of tabletop play. Lots of folks like them, and there are some pretty innovative ways to use them out there … but *personally* they just rub me the wrong way, and intrude on my enjoyment of actual tabletop play. So, during this particular swing of the design pendulum, I have found more to complain about in "popular" designs. I'm sure when the pendulum swings in another direction there will be others in the same boat for different reasons.

Cheers,

Christopher

I dislike these popular games because of the expense:

the need to buy army source books to keep up with the game,

the cost needed to field an army (when a single figure can cost $30 USD upwards for a game there is something very wrong),

that every two months (well, longer, but is seems like every two months) they release second/third/fouth etc editions that you need to buy to keep playing the game with other players.

Should a set of rules using a platoon a side cost any less than one using a corps per side?

I suppose it's all about how we define popular. Bolt Action is popular, Chain of Command is popular. Both sets of players seem to think there game is better than the other, but for different reasons. The BA supporters seem more in the "kewl" bracket, CoC supporters seem more interested in a historical based game, yet both shout for their side with equal enthusiasm.

shelldrake, I don't think it's the popularity as such. Might call it the business model. Lion Rampant seems to be quite popular these days. (I bought it--very cautiously--and enjoy it.) TSATF is a classic. Fire & Fury keeps rolling on. In each case, you buy the rules and that's it. You need troops and terrain, but there's nothing else you need to buy from the people who sold you the rules, and even rules revisions are quite rare.

But there are other games. I name no names, but once someone tells me I need to buy the base rules, two army books and a book for a particular theater or campaign in order to play the game, he's already lost the sale. (Did I mention that those four books will never all be in the same edition at the same time?) It's not popularity: it's the conviction that people will pay $300 USD every five or ten years to play your game.

So would it be fair to say its less about game mechanics and more about business practices, then?

Or visibility and popularity.

I only truly hate games that smell like Lima Beans.

I'd love it if the games I like were popular, but in general I dislike/avoid popular games or games from big-name companies because of the expense. As an example, II refuse to shell out a minimumd of $150 USD for a rulebook and pair of codicies just to keep current with 40k.

There are exceptions though. 2 recent ones for me.

-I just played RuneWars and loved it. Got a free core box from Adepticon, but I can already see that if I stick with it this game is going to really cost me.

-I will be buying the Shadow War rulebook when announced. However, this won't be too expensive in the long run as it's a standalone product and I've already got all the figs I need to play it.

Weasel, I don't think so.

Look at the example I gave above. Bolt Action follows the FOW model with multiple codex books, special rules and a new edition after four years. Chain of Command give all their Army list variants away for free, their campaign supplements cost something daft like three pounds. Totally different approaches, but the same end result.

I suspect the fact that Bolt Action is perceived to be backed by a bigger company, with an associated figure range and a slick marketing team gives it some advantages. However, that same packaging seems to put off others.

Big popular commercial titles draw a lot of attention. They get discussed more, and people who don't like them will speak out.

Small niche games are usually played in isolation. Those who don't play them or didn't hear about them don't care what is being said. There is much less of an opportunity for people to dislike such games.

Back in the heyday of fantasy roleplaying game only the hoi polloi would play Dungeons & Dragons. Everyone else who took their hobby seriously would flock to more sophisticated systems, most of them long forgotten by now. Same phenomenon.

In any hobby you have a spectrum going from "dumb consumers" to "original thinkers". You see the same in wargaming. When the ends of that spectrum collide, you get heated discussions ;-)
TO make matters even more complex, individuals fluctuate on that spectrum depending on period/system/age/social/… .

But then, that wide variety of approaches towards the hobby is what I love about wargaming. We would be a very boring hobby if everyone would use the same rules, same figures, same attitude towards the game.
I love to see youngsters engage in a game of Warhammer or Infinity or Kings of War or whatever the current hype is- and see how they discuss the canonical lore of a specific rulebook. I was there once. Now I'm older, with a different gaming style. 30 years from now, they will occupy my spot in the wargaming ecosystem. And I will occupy a different one.

Very well put Phil

I would wager that many of the "haters" of a popular rules set (but have never played it!) would have a good time if they were given a 80's booklet, mimeographed and coffee stained.
And it might have crude fan art showing a Tiger tank.

"Those tanks are pretty close together…"
"Yeah. But it's a function of figure scale vs ground scale."
"Ok. Unfortunately that's unavoidable. Nice mechanics, though."
As opposed to "I was HORRIFIED to see tanks hub to hub!"
Take away the gloss and suddenly it's a fine fun game.

How can you be cool if you wear the same clothes/drive the same car/play the same game as the hoi polloi? This is what keeps microbreweries going.

This is not what keeps microbreweries going…at all. The US is fairly unique in that we have soo few major breweries that all essentially serve 40 different kinds of lager. Microbreweries are bringing back what was lost in prohibition, which is local flavor and high quality. Nothing wrong with Miller Lite if you that's what you like, but if it's all you've been offered you wouldn't know what else you'd like.

I sort of think the microbrewery revolution is funded by Hops farmers, based on the number of IPA's out there :)

As for IPAs….
If I want to suck on a grapefruit rind, I will suck on a grapefruit rind.

How can skirmish-y games cost $40 USD USD? I think I must be getting old….

In all things, gripes about cost tend to be about getting old. Ages ago, I figured out that I needed to update my perception of the value of money about every five years to keep pace with inflation. Take the value of money from when you first set your mental framework and adjust from there.

A $40 USD game in January 2017 =
$33.34 USD in 2007
$26.21 USD in 1997
$18.32 USD in 1987
$9.64 USD in 1977
$5.42 USD in 1967
$4.55 USD in 1957

For my own calculations, I take today's prices and divide by 7.

Inflation calculators are your friend: data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

No clear cut answer here, it could even depend on a person's mood.

I like FOW as an enjoyable game but don't care for GW type games – Black Powder, Hail Caeser etc. not because they are popular but because they ticked less boxes than the likes of Armati and Shako.

Simple inflation formulas do not reflect the reality of "luxury" item cost (which hobby items are in the broadest sense). Instead, take the percentage of the price versus estimated gross income, or even better versus estimated free income after necessities. Since income has been generally flat or declined in real terms for the past generation, and disposable income has shrunk, while the cost of luxury items has risen by orders of magnitude, it's not unrealistic to sense that hobby prices have risen in real terms.

Actually it's Joe Yabatz' fault.

The reason for the unpopularity, usually begins with Joe Yabatz, who was once a moderate partisan of the rules, arises from his narcissistic desire to be the center of attention, so he will adopt the pose of despairing "Weltschmerz and say how "He has studied it and come to dislike it because of its reliance on, (insert here whatever war game jibber-jabber is in fashion at the moment) and it's obvious a-historicity- (he's actually never read a book on the period but he's looked at all the pictures). Because of his constituency in the club, his friends wish to remain his friends so they trash it too, and soon what was loved and played by the club now lies a moldering in the storage cabinet. Of course all of the above game players who like it now carp among themselves abut Joe's being a real (euphemism for a male reproductive organ) and make up their minds to dislike whatever Joe comes up with. Joe and friends then form a pack and go on whatever forum they frequent, let's call it TSP (The Snake pit) and routinely trash it, and everyone and anyone who defends it, and this is what passes for criticism and intelligent review. This spreads the bile near and far and people who had liked the game swimmingly are swayed by Joe and now hate it, and those who hate it now find Joe the modern day reborn Solon of the ages (where before they thought he was an idiotic twit). People are bounced from the list and the group breaks up, but Joe is happy.

Then the "bemoaning of the fate of the hobby" phase begins where the reason the hobby is so fragmented is attributed to the greying of the hobby, the cost of the miniatures, the insensitivity of the clubs, the HMGS, the Venders, the lack of standardized rules, global warming, the growth of science fiction and Fantasy, the lack of promotion of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and drops that spot.

Joe, however, is extraordinarily happy.

You forgot scale creep :D

"Do people hate games just because they are popular?"

Clearly some do, as demonstrated here on TMP almost every day. The latest grognardy fad appears to be to ascribe the popularity of any post-1990 rulesets solely to the demon "Marketing."

Dear Weasel

Sorry, couldn't remember them all.

Griped (no surprise, its what you do! Go, Team Curmudgeony!) Winston Smith;

"As for IPAs….
If I want to suck on a grapefruit rind, I will suck on a grapefruit rind."

Come on, John, you live in Beer Country, your state has WAREHOUSE beer stores. I know from happy experience you can find a dozen or two dozen non-IPAs to drink with no problem at all.

But even if you had to drink IPA, they don't ALL taste of citrus (lord knows I can't find ANY grapefruit IPAs out here except the grossly overpriced Sculpin). Or do like I do and mix it with something… I like to mix an IPA with Guinness, or with champagne/prosecco…

I really wish Hawaii had been proselytized by Pennsylvanians instead of New Englanders… we'd still be a monarchy, and we'd have much better beer.

MOMEE! Billy doesn't like my game!

If some mechanic in an otherwise fine ruleset bothers people, they should change it. The trick is to get the rest of the group to agree…

I'M JUST A HATER!

Well that's what they say.

?

"Disliking a product because of a dislike of a feature or property that happens to make it popular is neither snobbery nor prejudice, but discernment."

That's not discernment, that's personal taste. Discernment applies only if the item or concept being disliked actually is faulty or lacking in some specific manner that is fundamentally independent and distinctive from alternative choices, as, say, and In-N-Out burger compared to a McDonald's Quarter-Pounder. There are qualities of flavor, freshness, etc., in the former that are distinctly lacking from the latter. Popularity has nothing to do with the decision that the former is better than the latter.

In a game, therefore, while you may have a specific reason for disliking a given rule system compared to an alternative, the question of whether that alternative's difference is actually superior, and not simply more suited to your personal idiosyncrasies, is a tricky proposition. In some cases it might well be valid— "It makes more sense to just roll a d20 to reflect 5% differences than rolling percentile dice—" or it may be preference— "that game uses too many dice—" (which could simply means it uses more dice than the critic likes to use).

Of course, in the world of games, even if the distinction is indeed one of actual flaw, the discernment of that flaw may be a personal positive for you, but that does not inherently make you a superior individual to those who overlook or even embrace that flaw. It just means you think otherwise than they do. (Note that I am merely referring to the world of miniature wargaming, where, quite frankly, anyone's game preference is of no actual significance or importance whatsoever, and not to realms of real consequence and impact, as science, medicine, politics, religion, or discerning that yes, that is hemlock on that salad…)