Issue 5: When is a game a classic?
How do we answer that question with designer board games still being relatively new?
Hello, all!
I’m writing this newsletter basically as GenCon Online kicks off, which is sure to produce some interesting discussions and panels — not to mention a slate of new releases that’ll be exciting — so let’s skip the news today. Maybe I’ll do a quick wrap-up next week of some of my favorite things that have come out from the convention. We’ll see!
I’ve also got a couple exciting things in the works, which I’m excited to share with you when the time comes. So do be on the lookout for those things.
With that in mind, I’d like to talk about something that has continually fascinated me about the board games hobby and the current era its in. One question continually comes to mind: When can a board game be considered a classic?
There are, of course, several questions that go alongside that, which I will list below in the order in which they appear in my brain. I’ll also try to answer them, so what you’ll get here is sort of a conversation with myself.
Can a game be considered a classic within five years of release? 10 years? 20 years? Is there a time frame, or is it foolish to try to assign one?
I actually don’t think establishing a definite time frame is helpful in this regard, because the emergence of a classic game is dependent on a number of factors, not least of which is the history of the industry. Yes, board games have been around for millenia, but this era of designer board games is a different one. When you link at when games like Dominion (2008), Pandemic (also 2008! What a year.), Ticket to Ride (2004), and Carcassonne (2000), four of the most successful games in the market came within the last 20 years. Two of those are only 12 years old.
We can go even closer to the present, too. What about Codenames, released in 2015 and now a party game must-have? Splendor (2014) was talked about in the hushed tones one would expect from a classic, but did it reach that level, or has it sputtered out? (I think it’s still quite good, personally.)
It’s just such a difficult thing to suss out, given how long-lived games can be. There is no meaningful reason a game should lose classic status unless it’s shown that it can be replaced by something considerably better — so it makes me wonder if any of the games I cited above can be. I bet they could be, actually. Maybe they’re not classics, just really great games that have had success since their release.
Does it matter if a game is a “classic”?
In a word: No. Of course, that’s obviously going to be my response, because an arbitrary designation shouldn’t have any bearing on how we feel about a game.
But maybe I should rephrase my own question which I’ve planted here. (I’m starting to see why this format is my favorite, but also why it’s kind of wacky.)
Does it matter if there are “classics”?
Yes. No doubt about it, for me. The value, though, isn’t for those knee-deep in the hobby. It’s because I think there is value in cultural touchstones that exist beyond the oft-insular walls of the hobby, and it would be better for everyone involved if those touchstones were, at times, games were actually fun — and fun for the whole family.
And it’s not because I think we all need to play the same games, or that there should be a small set of games that are “for the masses.” I think about it this way: I want more people to get into games. Gateway games are a good way to do that, and there are lots of great gateway games that come out every year, but if new players can’t find them, it’s hardly useful.
When games can be established as classics, it becomes easier for those not in the hobby to find their way in. They’re certainly not going to find their way in with Monopoly or Sorry, but Catan or Carcassonne? I think the odds are greater.
Even if these games don’t serve as an entrypoint into the hobby, games that delight new players are more likely to see play by the whole family, and I suppose it’s no surprise that I think that’s a good thing.
Should we call them “modern classics”?
Sure, but that term seems weird. They’re two contradictory terms, right? Or at least there’s not a lot of overlap there? Maybe we should use “relatively recent game that is both really good and has a high degree of success outside of the hobby industry,” but for some reason, it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
What’s your favorite, um, modern classics?
I’m so glad you asked, I say to myself.
I think it’s going to be fairly clear if you follow me on Instagram that I adore Carcassonne, and that’s going to be the top of my list here. It can be breezy and relaxing, but it can also be tense and combative. There are a plethora of non-catapulting expansions that add interesting play. It’s also incredibly recognizable on the table, and that’s an important factor, too. You always know when somebody’s playing Carcassonne — even if there are just a few tiles played.
I don’t have too much today. Look for my GenCon Online report next week. I’m also looking at playing a slew of Japanese games, and I’d love to talk about some of my favorites.
Off-topic
I’m still playing plenty of Story of Seasons: Friends of Mineral Town, but the new Paper Mario game, The Origami King, is staring me straight in the face, and I’m itching to get started. (But … my farm!)
My hot peppers are also starting to come in — I’m hopeful that in a few weeks, I’ll have enough habaneros to start a new hot sauce, and I’ve spotted some Death Spiral chilis, too. It’s a very exciting time over here.