Re: piecepack on the 'geek

["boardgamesbook" <dhohls@...>]

--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, Randy Cox <yahoo@c...> wrote:
> boardgamesbook wrote:
> 
> >At present piecepack is an 
> >'unranked' game as it has been ranked by less than 30 people.  So - 
if 
> >you want to help raise the profile amongst the gaming community - 
> >please remember to give it a rating.
> 
> I'm not entirely surehow one can rate the piecepack since it isn't a
> game in and of itself. It's like saying "I like dice. I give it a 6. 
I
> would be willing to play dice most of the time, but can't give it a
> higher rating due to the luck factor." 

Randy

I do not think this is a good analogy.  When you are rating piecepack, 
you are rating the concept, how well that concept is applied (in terms 
of the existing pieces and games) and how much you enjoy it.  There 
has been lots of debate on the 'geek in various places about the 
rating system and how its used and abused... but at the end its a 
simple, subjective tool that allows gamers to say "hey, I really 
like/dislike this game".  There is nothing in that approach that 
cannot be applied to a game system.  For example, "New Games in Old 
Rome" is listed - even though its not one game, but a set of games 
with a common set of components (that happens to be packaged in a box 
and labelled "a" game).  If that can be rated, so can piecepack.  I 
don't think t would make much sense for individual piecepack games to 
be posted on the 'geek (even though they could be, I guess).

My 2c
Derek

PS I would still encourage 'geek members to assign their "overall" 
impression to piecepack and give a rating.