If I were to guess about the average American, I would say they would not know. And if they recognized the name, they would know very few details and, likely, a rose-tinted history, if anything.
Sure, but thatās a very different statement.
1 Like
They would most likely recognize the name from the Pirates of the Caribbean film series.
1 Like
I suppose Iām wondering aloud - if a game isnāt doing any of these things, is there any reason for it to be thought problematic?
Iād bet good money - if I had any, and if I was a gambler - that the overwhelming majority of the UK population know nothing about it at all. I know very little about it, and Iām quite interested in history and read history books. Most people arenāt and donāt.
1 Like
Ok, but I donāt think Tom said it was problematic, and I donāt think he said the people who were uncomfortable with the game did either.
There seems to be some disconnect with how various other people experienced that review and I did. Maybe I didnāt notice something.
Tom (and his friends) can talk about all the things he talked about, and some of them can never want to play JoCo again, without anyone accusing the game of being āproblematicā.
On a vaguely related note, I was amused by the parroted repetition of the marketing copy by news outlets when they reported on how the new āEast India Companyā owner bought up āsharesā in it and is the same company now or something. That supports your take, if anything.
1 Like
He may not have used the word āproblematic,ā but words such asāuncomfortable,ā ādisgustingā and āvileā appeared throughout the video to describe peopleās reactions to and feelings about the game - so Iād say thatās clearly saying some find it problematic!
1 Like
Iām assuming they donāt obtain these luxury hampers and chocolate through slaughter, starvation and theftā¦
But thatās quite a set of historical blinkers they have on. āExplorersā since 1600ā¦
I think the difference that @Benkyo is getting at is that some people he played with found the setting so uncomfortable that they didnāt want to play the game due to what it brought up for them emotionally. So the topic was problematic rather than the game was problematic in itās dealing with the topic.
That was also what I got from Tomās review. He didnāt say anyone felt Cole Werhle or JoCo2 were racist nor a racist endeavour but as they dealt with the theme some didnāt want to spend time engaging with that theme in that way.
I think that the game having references for reading on the realities of colonialism usefully makes it explicit. I think that Archipelago is doing something similar and has a similar authorial voice to John Company 2nd. It however doesnāt make it explicit via reading suggestions or notes in the rulebook. Which could at times make it more powerful but also allows the point to be missed more easily. Iām not sure what I think of that being dangerously open to misinterpretation vs the potential benefit of someone understanding the systemic collusion needed for dehumanising people for profit that can only come from discovering it for yourself.
Interestingly Archipelago is also a negotiation game but replaces dice with a hidden traitor mechanic. Both intense games because of the space they ask you to inhabit and I think that sort of role play element is key to the ambitions of both.
6 Likes
I couldnāt agree more about Archipelago, which is very much a game that sometimes provokes the reaction āyou play colonialists, who exploit ānativesā - this game is BADā - whereas Iāve always thought it makes the exploitation very explicit, almost forcing players to consider the historical realities itās based on, and is therefore much less ābadā than something like Puerto Rico, for example.
4 Likes
Off topic somewhat, but some of this does tie in to the generally woeful state of board game media.
I donāt think Iāve ever read a serious book review where the reviewer starts off by saying āFull disclosure - I received a free copy of this book from the publisherā¦ā even though they almost certainly did. Or seen a film reviewer tell us that they didnāt have to pay for a cinema ticket.
And yet board game āreviewersā seem to feel that this is both a necessary and a useful thing to say. Perhaps itās because book and film reviewers actually review the book or film, whereas with the honourable exception of Space Biff (are there others? I hope so!), board game reviews seem to consist of explaining the rules, followed by āI like itā (or, more rarely āI donāt like itā).
Sorry for digressing, but this is something Iāve increasingly been finding annoying.
Feel free to remove this if Iāve wandered unacceptably far off-topic!
Goodreads reviews, since theyāre supposedly written by real people rather than newspaper/etc. staff writers who are just assumed to be in the pay of the publishers, generally do disclose this.
How often do you see a boardgame review that ends āI didnāt like itā?
(Iāve come to terms with this in my Zatu blogging - Iāll only volunteer to review games that I do like, and I try to work in a āyou may not like this ifā section, but if youāre reading a blog post on the same page where you can buy the thing, I donāt expect you to assume itās unbiased.)
2 Likes
Indeed. Which is probably part of the problem!
Although the answer (the exception which proves the rule?) would be Space Biff, who not only says when he doesnāt like a game, he explains why. Which is what Iād want from a reviewer.
Obviously most āreviewersā are unwilling to give a negative review in case their supply of free games dries up, but then they arenāt reviewers, theyāre advertisers.
As for sites like Zatu - of course, I donāt expect unbiased reviews there - any more than Iād expect those little cards Waterstones staff put next to books to say āthis book is rubbish!ā
But thatās okay. Zatu is a shop, and I expect shops to tell me that the stuff they sell is good. If I read a book review in a āseriousā newspaper or magazine, I (maybe naively, sometimes) hope for a bit more detachment. And Iād like the same from board game reviews, but I donāt hold out much hope!
2 Likes
(NB: edited this post a lot to clarify and expand on certain points in response to myself (11 edits??? eek). Iāll stop now!)
Yes!! Iāve not finished the video yet so wonāt comment on JC, but with Archipelago I have found a lot of people either take one look at the game and dismiss it as racist or have heard about the problematic themes and so donāt want to even consider playing it.
While some of the imagery is quite full on (mainly in the piece of art to depict the indigenous population), I do think it characterises the position of people running a business back in the homeland quite well. It feels disconnected from the actual āboots on the groundā activity of colonialism, because it is. Itās all book keeping, importing/exporting and sending people somewhere on a map because it has something you need or because you want to explore further for resources. None of that is from the perspective of being a captain on a ship or an explorer, itās some guy with a ledger and map back in London. The indigenous population are nothing but a logistical nuisance (to put it bluntly) because thatās what they would be if you were hearing about these things whilst trying to run a business - the information youāre receiving is going to be all letters and reports. But because itās depicted as people moving around a map I think people take on the surface level impression youāre part of the explorers. In effect, the visual representation is at odds with the mechanical representation. Maybe presenting the map as ink on parchment and making it look more spreadsheet-y would help it in that regard. The game would look more boring, but at least the perspective would be clearer.
Youāre not going to hear the ins and outs of what the explorers or indigenous population are going through from that perspective, but itās something that modern audiences almost demand. I think thereās a danger from this āconsider both sidesā kind of argument because it does take away from the authorial position of a boardgame. You only play from one side, and so you should really experience the perspective only see one side. For it to present the indigenous populationsās view in addition to the colonial view, you need to have some sort of asymmetric game with players on both sides. Which would be an interesting game, but it would be an entirely different game. The danger is in one game being expected to present all angles, rather than encouraging more games that present the other perspectives.
Some games handle the problematic issues around colonialism by treating it with a revisionist history slant. Like in Endeavour, they handle it by Slavery being rewarding in the resources, but will bite you later when slavery is eventually abolished in the late game. This feels like a āhave your cake and eat itā situation. Were colonialists really thinking of slavery as a ālong term risk for short term rewardā situation? Almost certainly not. Which then skews the entire issue in something quite strange where the game isnāt really modelling the themes it claims to present. In solving one problem, itās created another.
In regards to colonialism and particular particularly slavery (and it sounds like this is an issue that effects JC?), itās really hard to tackle these themes in a game precisely because many players will straight up refuse to engage with those mechanics if they can possibly help it, which massively changes what a game is. A game isnāt working IMO if it provides a route for you as a player to be the āgood/ethical colonialistā. Personally I prefer a game that people donāt want to play, than a game that whitewashes the themes until the player feels comfortable. I almost said mollycoddling but held back in fear of that sounding derogativeā¦ but it is mollycoddling players isnāt it?
IMO even Spirit Island is a rather lame duck for what is often presented as an anti-colonialist themed game. A fictional indigenous population in loincloths who rely on their gods to save them because they canāt save themselves doesnāt present the experiences of anyone (and is almost belittling of their own agency?). So how is it anti-colonialist? It certainly isnāt presenting the perspective of any indigenous population who have been invaded, who are moved around in spirit island as faceless pawns just as much as any colonialist game. There are many historical descriptions of the interactions between indigenous populations and colonial invaders, that are often quite complex stories of manipulation and oppression involving several factions that all held different views of the invaders (thinking of Aztecs in particular here), but spirit island doesnāt engage with any of those. But it makes people feel better that another angle is presented even if it is a nonsensical romanticised fiction. Is it a desperation/exasperation that finally thereās something thatās at least different? Does critical scrutiny shut down once people find out they can be guilt free by playing the āgood guysā?
Anyway, Iāll stop there. Feel Iāve probably digressed too much. But I will finish the video later today!
East India Company is something I didnāt really learn about until I visited museums in Malaysia and Singapore. I knew of them, but certainly the scale and their dominance was something I had no idea about. Had dismissed them as just a business who ran trade routes, rather than basically their own self-governed nation independent of any government with their own territories and a larger GDP and more military power than many countries.
4 Likes
Iām not sure that board game reviews can be fairly compared to book or movie reviews. Understand, this is all just conjecture on my part, as I am not a reviewer nor do I know anyone who does it for a living.
To review a movie, you just take a couple of hours to watch it, then write about what you watched. You can comment on the acting, the script, the cinematography, the direction, how it made you feel, etc., and hopefully give the reader an idea if they will enjoy the movie themselves. On average, I believe there are around 400-500 movies released in a year (in the US/Canada, going by 2021-2022 years and running with those numbers). Assuming somewhat even distribution throughout the year, a reviewer could see every movie in the year if they watch 8-10 a week, so roughly 20-30 hours of viewing, and I have no idea how long it takes to write a review, but letās assume 2 hours to write something, edit it, add promotional stills, etc., bringing us to a full 40 hour work week. Or if they do video reviews rather than text, add some more hours per review for filming, editing, etc.
That said, I do not know of any reviewer that reviews every single film released in a year. Some focus solely on the big budget films, others look more at indie films, etc. And maybe Iām vastly underestimating the time it takes to make a review, I donāt know, but it seems to me like itās not all that much work in the grand scheme of things, so after seeing a movie, why not write the review, good or bad?
Books are a much larger investment of time, and there are many, many more released each year in comparison to movies (4 million, if you count self-published, only 1 million if not). As such, any reviewer is going to need to be a lot choosier in regards to what they review. As they read the book, they can take note of the quality of the prose, if the characters feel fleshed out or hollow, if the plot makes sense, is it too simple, too convoluted, etc. Since thatās being done as they ready anyway, and since each book requires such an investment of time to read, may as well write a review on that book once they finish it, good or bad.
Now take a board game. In this day and age, there are approximately 3000 board games released each year. Unlike a book or movie, most require multiple people to invest time in playing them, so it can be harder to even interact with it fully compared to other media. Similarly, a movie or book can be accurately reviewed after one viewing/reading. A board game often takes multiple plays to really grasp it. Now sure, some games are played in 15 minutes, while others take about 60 minutes, and still others a few hours, so thereās no good way to estimate how long a thorough review of an average game may take, but overall I feel it is a much larger investment in time to do a review of a board game than a movie, and possibly even a novel since each play will often involve multiple people, and possibly play the game at different player counts to evaluate how different the game is with each count of players.
So with so many games being published each year, I think a lot of reviewers will try out a game and if they do not really enjoy their first play of it, theyāll just shelve it and move on to the next. Sure, they could probably write a āfirst impressionā style review of it, and I do know there are many people on BGG who do such things. But for a professional review, I think they just pass on it and move on until they find a game that, if not outright enjoyable on the first play, at least does something unique or interesting to stand above other entries, at which point they dive more into it and that game might get a full review.
So game reviews will typically go over the quality of the materials used to make the game, the rules, the highlights, as in what makes it stand out, and if the review is thorough, the negatives they found. Then there is usually the conclusion where they say if they recommend it or not, and sometimes will give alternative games that might give the same feel as this one.
So in my opinion, I think this is why there are not as many negative board game reviews compared to positive ones. Itās easier to just write off an initial negative experience and move on to something else. Itās not worth the time investment. I know SU&SD stated a while back that they were pretty much just going to review games they actually enjoyed, so I wouldnāt expect negative reviews from them. That said, they do still point out negatives they find in the games they review, and they donāt recommend people purchase every game they review, and will often instead suggest other games that feel similar to the game they are reviewing, which they think are better. And they are one of the only review sites I really follow, so I canāt attest to what others do.
3 Likes
Iām very much in agreement with your post @KIR2.
Between what youāve said and @lalunaverde saying
Mr Verde, Iāve long felt that Archipelago is about the systems of colonialism as the resources and victory points are getting players to have that remote view and issue orders that are dehumanising as you are, as Kir said, a remote administrator. Is this in the direction of the systems you think are not being represented well? Also if you donāt want to talk about this here let me know and Iāll remove the tag and question
2 Likes
You could create a game in which you play the princes of India trying to resist the expansion of the Hated British. Donāt know if you could make it winnable: historically there are three periods where that is plausible: the first arrival of THB, the period leading up to the Rebellion/First War of Indian Independence and the final departure of THB.
2 Likes
Thatās an interesting one. I do have some fascination with Archipelagoās execution to some extent. Because it does what early and mid colonialism does: itās a business enterprise outside of the mother countryās ācore landsā. What made it fall short is it doesnāt interact with the indigenous people in a meaningful way. You can repackage Arch as a game in space populated by all-volunteer colonists and itāll work.
The way that the system interacts with the indigenous people is to create a highly uncompetitive economy - you can only sell to the mother country. Itās illegal to sell your goods to anyone else; and an unfair society - indigenous people have serf status and canāt do X, Y, Z, etc etc.
The āethical colonistā bit of the game is a bit off because it implies that the colonial admin needs to play nice. When you have a mighty army behind your back and the colonists have nowhere to run, thereās little incentive. You just smash them. This would have worked in British North America where the British admin have to play nice, otherwise the colonists will just leave to the vast wilderness of North America, but not in the areas like the Caribbean or Asia-Pacific where Archipelago was inspired from.
==============
Re anti-colonial games, Spirit Island:
I never really seen Spirit Island from that angle, so that is highly interesting to hear. A ārealisticā anti-colonial game - assuming that the game is set where the Europeans already have a massive advantage - would be about conducting a wholesale āWesternisationā of the country, while trying to resist them, until the players reach sufficient parity. Because this is literally what happened in real life. Japan being the best example of this.
My cynical take is that itāll be uninteresting as a board game because it doesnāt āfeel goodā to White consumers. But please tell me if you disagree! Because itās a complete reversal of the ānoble savageā trope. I can imagine the criticism along the lines of:
āIn order to beat back the colonisers in this game, you have to adopt the culture of the colonisers. So you did win, but did you really win?ā
GigaChadYes.jpg
4 Likes
I could see a Spain vs Aztec game as a COIN game. I donāt know much about the history, but if I understand correctly there is the Conquistadors led by Hernan Cortes, the Aztec Empire led by Mochtezuma, and the Tlaxcalans led by Xicotencatl (who helped the Spanish fight the empire for their own political means). Thatās a 3 way battle with plenty of diplomacy and ulterior motives involved. Plus small pox happened partway through which swung things a lot.
Would obviously need research to get the right portion of the invasion and figure out how it would all work, but seems like thereās something there. Certainly was a lot more to it than just the colonialists coming in and killing everyone, and Aztecs had plenty of power in their own right.
(Think Aztecs were one of the first cultures to be invaded by the Spanish as well, so the Spanish Conquistadors werenāt quite the crazy unstoppable super force they later became?)
3 Likes