I laughed when I saw this image from the forthcoming Small World Underground Game from Days of Wonder."Ferrous" refers to the presence of iron in a substance. (Hence the reference to the "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" on the Iron Dwarves card above.)
And like the versatile Ferris himself, the mechanics behind Small World have proven themselves to be versatile as well.
Small World (Phileppe Keyaertes, 2009) is simply a remodeling of Keyaertes' 1999 game Vinci, And now Underground is another reincarnation. The games play similarly, although the aesthetics are different.
The rules to Vinci exhibit some differences to Small World, but the main difference is the change of theme and the change of artwork. Underground on the other hand, is unlikely to have any major rule changes to its predecessor, but will have a completely new game board and set of player powers.
So I pose the question: What is the distinction between an existing game and a new model?
I don't think anybody would claim that Dogopoly, for instance, is really a different game than Monopoly the original (good ole Uncle Money Bags milking the brand for all its worth!), but is Vinci really something different than Small World? Is Lost Cities (Knizia, 1999) something different than the Spiel Des Jahres winning Keltis (Knizia, 2008)? It seems at least that the Spiel Des Jahres jury thought so...
What do you think? When is a new game really a new game, and when is it just being a versatile little Bueller?
Posts
Great question. I feel as though a game is the "same" when the decision-making is fundamentally the same. I agree that Lost Cities is essentially the same as Keltis, or at most, Keltis is a variant with special "stones" added for interest. But I suppose that's a simplistic answer at best.
ReplyDelete