Votes so far...

Well, with 8 votes in so far, we have 3 of them for Pinochle, 2 for Settlers, 1 for Mare Nostrum (that was my vote), 1 for Puerto Rico (probably Kevin), and 1 "other".

Pinochle is interesting. I am kind of surprised by this one. Considering how many other interesting games there are out there.

Giving thought lately to people's preference in games, I noticed myself talking more about "gamer's games" versus "regular games". Unless you are a game nut like me, I suppose you would have not thought much about what I'm talking about.

Let me break it down this way. There are three types of games: 1) mass market games, 2) gateway games, and 3) gamer's games.

Mass market games are distinguished by the fact that 90% of people have either heard of them, or played them. Often mass marketed by large American publishers, the can be in the public domain. I think of games like Sorry, Monopoly, Scrabble, checkers, backgammon, card games like Euchre, Spades, Pinochle, Canasta, Rummy, etc. Risk even falls into this type of game. Made in 1959, anyone who was shopped "on purpose" for games of a strategy type, would come across this ancient title in a store in one of it's many incarnations.

Gateway games might be found in a toy store. Games like "Axis and Allies" would be found there, but it's "A&A:Europe" or "A&A:Pacific" would probably be found in a hobby shop. Settlers of Catan would only be found there, as would others like "Memoir '44", "Risk 2210", "Acquire", "Pirate's Cove", "War of the Ring", etc. I call these "gateway" games because they have limited complexity, and have heavy themes (WWII, business, pirates, Tolkien, etc.), which would add to their appeal, and tempt non-gamers into playing. They also introduce more complex elements, and more interaction in the case of German games.

Gamer's games would include: Puerto Rico, Mare Nostrum, Tigirs and Euphrats, Princes of Florence, El Grande, go, bridge, chess, Power Grid, Tikal, Java, and their ilk. These titles require a deeper level of concentration to appreciate their beauty. They may use the most advanced gaming mechanisms in the world. Clear strategies may not be obvious, and may only appear after repeated playings. Games like chess, go, and bridge could really take a lifetime to master (and have much literature devoted to the study of their play).

Depending on a person's level of concentration, experience, time, and the desire that they have to flex mental muscles, different levels of games are appropriate. Personally, I will play just about anything except charades. I have taken a number of gaming groups from the mass market, up a level to gateway games. And a select few have made it to gamer's games. It's really fun to introduce new titles and expose friends to the joy of a well-played board game.

Back in the late 1980's, my brother Tab, and cousin Bob Oberheu played some games very heavily, and explored some strategies as far as they could go. I remember one night playing Monopoly about 10 times, and finally realizing the effect dice had on the contest. We were so well matched after dozens of plays (and the hundreds we had all played as kids), that we basically "retired" the game. We did this with others, like Axis and Allies (the Allies will always win using the standard rules, if played correctly), and almost burnt out on Acquire as well.

It felt like we burned out Settlers once or twice, but that games proves tricky to master, and except for Tab noone seems to be able to win consistanly enough to prove it "broken". Chess, Bob and I have pushed the boundaries of our brains a few times, but I've rediscovered the game since my six-year-old Grayson has taken it up. Now Tab's kids are playing him over the internet on Xbox Live!

I think Mike, Kevin and Doug may have burned out on Risk (or come close), and you could easily argue that they've played enough to see just about every strategy succeed or fail.

Have any of you played out a game? Explored it as deep as it would go? Uncovered intricate stategies like mining for gold?