Game Ratings: I think I'm beginning to see what mine mean
- More and more, when I'm trying to describe my reaction to a game, the
question is: did I feel involved in the game? And it strikes me that, if I
answer yes, I probably rated the game 8 or higher, and if I answer no, I
probably rated it 7 or lower.
Extending this by thinking of other reactions to games I feel, the adjctives
that occur to me are: absorbed (the level above involved); interested (the
level below); uninterested.
Hey, this fits:
absorbed = 9, e.g., La Citta yesterday evening
involved = 8, e.g., Palmyra yesterday evening
interested = 7
uninterested = 6
That leaves 10 for games that are even better than games that are even better
than "just absorbing" (e.g., E&T).
It also leaves 5 and below that are (for me) worse than "uninteresting"
(e.g., Lord of the Leprechauns).
It also leaves the halves for games that come somewhere in between
categories. For example, many Kramer games are 7.5s. They don't quite involve
me, much though I might admire them; I think I'd give Princes of Florence a
7.5 most times.
Your milage may of course vary. For example, I know that Alison's milage
varies from mine. Even if she used the same mapping between numbers and words
(and there's no reason why she should), her ratings of La Citta and Princes
of Florence would be very different from mine.
OK, that's enough retrospective sense-making for now.
ps One of the advantages of not having a car is that the good people who give
you rides to your home or to the T are also interesting to chat with. Thanks
to all who have provided such transport and conversation. The above thoughts
followed a chat with Jonathan on the way back from SSG last night/this
morning. But only in this very limited sense is he to blame for the above :)