I’m mainly mentioning it for the title, but this Guardian article may be of some (probably slight) interest:
I think I have seen one or two of the shown roll-and-move games, but could not have told you their names. The only one of these I know by name is the one I am so tired of hearing about, to the point I want to change terminology in trick-taking games just so I don’t have to hear this f’n word anymore.
I think I’ve actually played Spy Ring… My grandparents had a copy
Pank-A-Squith! Suffragette boardgames are wild.
As a Guardian reader this article pissed me off. I know it’s a joke, but they are currently doing top 50 for 2023 of films, albums, video games and TV shows.
They’ve done some really positive and interesting boardgame content before, so I hope they do a counterpoint to this, even if it’s Ticket to Ride, Wingspan, Azul, Pandemic etc
If they do, it will indeed be Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, Wingspan etc…
And the article will begin “It’s time to put away that copy of Monopoly. Board games have changed…”
And to the majority of the public, this is a great thing. WE are not the audience for these articles so why bother getting irritated about it?
I’m more amused than irritated. They’ve been coming up with the exact same article for about fifteen years! And every single time it starts with the ‘these days there’s more to board games than Monopoly…’ line!
The first three are basically examples of what board games were expected to be from about 1700-1900, and still often were afterwards: roll the die, move that many spaces, see what’s on the square, everybody laughs. Board games are for children, usually to teach them moral lessons. Grown-ups lose huge sums of money at cards.
And the last two strike me as “we’re trying to promote a brand, we’ll release a game to go with it”.
The two that seem potentially more interesting are Spy Ring and Ulcers. I mean, either of those themes could work for a modern game…
Don’t forget Catan. A classic for those lists…