A plug for the two online sites I have frequented for game purchases, Fungain.com and Fairplaygames.com.
The first, Funagain, was the first site I frequented heavily. They have an extensive "Amazon.com" style review system, 2-3 photos of the game box, and some good linking resources. I even wrote a review for one game (Star Wars: Queen's Gambit).
Their prices are decent, typically 15-20% off. They occasionally have a sale, sometimes up to 30% off, and have a good selection of "ding and dents". They shipped quickly on my orders, and were available by phone when I had a question.
Their best feature is their "shopping lists". During the early phases of my Brettspiel collecting (right after discovering Settlers, and then the 'Geek, etc.) this was invaluable as I constantly evaluated and reevaluated games to determine what I was looking for.
Recently, I've tried Fairplaygames. These folks have amazingly fast shipping, daily 30%+ discounts, free or descounted shipping on large purchases (currently $125, or half off on $80 orders).
No frills like reviews, often no photos (or just a photo of the box), no "wish lists", few game highlights. Basically, just hot links to Boardgamegeek, and fantastic prices.
Funagain claims that they match prices, although I have never tried this. I check them daily, and they have a nice looking site. I've tired of their user reviews (most of them by casual gamers, generally only positive comments), so I've split time with Fairplay.
Update: as of 11/24/05, Funagain has added "frequent buyer points" to their purchase program, and have begun selling exclusives, like a new version of Carcassone only available from them! They also consistantly seem to have a deeper selection that Fairplay, and I've been able to find some games there that I've found nowhere else! I recommend checking both retailers!
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Friday, June 17, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Gaming Ethics (edited)
Post EDITED on 7/25/05, most new comments below in BOLD
------------------
A fascinating subject, one that I would love to discuss with you all, is the subject of gaming ethics. Check out this article, from the Games Journal.
Consider this quote regarding sportsmanship:
"With regards to sportsmanship, you could say that most principles of sportsmanship are also basically ethical, with a few exceptions. Basically, the principles of sportsmanship are: don't quit, don't whine, do your best, play fairly, win gracefully, lose gracefully, abide by any decisions of the referees, and keep the game moving. All of these principles ensure that people a) don't feel that their time has been wasted, and b) have fun in the process."
The article discusses many aspects of gaming behaviors, including "metagaming", whereby results or events in one game are carried to the other. For example, attacking a certain player in Risk because he beat you in the previous game. Or, forming an alliance with a player in exchange for preferential treatment in the next.
One example which we had some discussion about was a situation in Serinissima, where a player (me) was overly agressive in gathering resources in the early stages of play. This made me an easy target for a second player (my Dad).
I argued against being attacked, suggesting other ways for my Dad to balance my apparent advantage, perhaps by alliance, or some other form of compensation. As leverage, I threatened that if he attacked me (which would have certainly knocked me out of contention for a win), I would spend all remaining resources on counter-attack for the rest of the game, even if it pushed a third player (my brother) into a winning position (which it certainly would).
In other words, the argument to my Dad was:
"If you attack me, I will spend the rest of the game attacking you back (with no chance of actually defeating you), effectively handing the victory my brother (who would certainly benefit from the war between the two of us). This will basically insure that neither of us can win."
If I did not employ this "poison pill strategy", Dad would probably have had a chance against Tab, and in fact I would have as well, although I would have had a better one than Dad. So I was offering a small chance for Dad, a decent one for me and Tab, OR ZERO chance for Dad and I, and hand Tab the game.
Naturally, Dad refused to see my logic, and attacked me. I fought back futilely, and Tab won the game.
In the end, both of them argued that I had behaived poorly, that he was not given any real choice but to attack me because I had over extended myself. Therefore, I deserved to be attacked.
Do you agree?
------------------
A fascinating subject, one that I would love to discuss with you all, is the subject of gaming ethics. Check out this article, from the Games Journal.
Consider this quote regarding sportsmanship:
"With regards to sportsmanship, you could say that most principles of sportsmanship are also basically ethical, with a few exceptions. Basically, the principles of sportsmanship are: don't quit, don't whine, do your best, play fairly, win gracefully, lose gracefully, abide by any decisions of the referees, and keep the game moving. All of these principles ensure that people a) don't feel that their time has been wasted, and b) have fun in the process."
The article discusses many aspects of gaming behaviors, including "metagaming", whereby results or events in one game are carried to the other. For example, attacking a certain player in Risk because he beat you in the previous game. Or, forming an alliance with a player in exchange for preferential treatment in the next.
One example which we had some discussion about was a situation in Serinissima, where a player (me) was overly agressive in gathering resources in the early stages of play. This made me an easy target for a second player (my Dad).
I argued against being attacked, suggesting other ways for my Dad to balance my apparent advantage, perhaps by alliance, or some other form of compensation. As leverage, I threatened that if he attacked me (which would have certainly knocked me out of contention for a win), I would spend all remaining resources on counter-attack for the rest of the game, even if it pushed a third player (my brother) into a winning position (which it certainly would).
In other words, the argument to my Dad was:
"If you attack me, I will spend the rest of the game attacking you back (with no chance of actually defeating you), effectively handing the victory my brother (who would certainly benefit from the war between the two of us). This will basically insure that neither of us can win."
If I did not employ this "poison pill strategy", Dad would probably have had a chance against Tab, and in fact I would have as well, although I would have had a better one than Dad. So I was offering a small chance for Dad, a decent one for me and Tab, OR ZERO chance for Dad and I, and hand Tab the game.
Naturally, Dad refused to see my logic, and attacked me. I fought back futilely, and Tab won the game.
In the end, both of them argued that I had behaived poorly, that he was not given any real choice but to attack me because I had over extended myself. Therefore, I deserved to be attacked.
Do you agree?
Friday, June 10, 2005
Game activities: Acquire, Settlers-online, etc.
Not much boardgaming to report on these days. Everyone's been bus, myself included. I have had time for a few online sessions of Settlers, and NetAcquire. My rating for Settlers is around 1650 in 15 games, and I have probably won my share in Acquire.
I did purchase a new game, China a few weeks ago. By the same company and developer as made Hansa, so you know I'm going to like it. (China is apparently an update to Michael Schacht's Web of Power which I have never played, but is ranked 79th overall in the world according to the Geek).
I did purchase a new game, China a few weeks ago. By the same company and developer as made Hansa, so you know I'm going to like it. (China is apparently an update to Michael Schacht's Web of Power which I have never played, but is ranked 79th overall in the world according to the Geek).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
