Do looks matter where board games are concerned?

[Startoker]

Hi Fellow Scapers,
I'm doing a class project involving game design. Take a minute to answer the poll if you would please.
Regards,
Startoker

[Screaming Eagle]

it's sorta important to me, I've played a game called feudal that looks crappy but is really fun, but, as long as the pieces arent bits of paper, then I'll roll with it. :D


$E

[Malechi]

A game may have the best mechanics in the world but if the board and pices are ugly I won't even consider it, and of course, vice-versa. I hate meeples.

[AgentX-127]

Image is a huge part of the appeal of our favorite games.

Why did I love Shadowrun so much?
The awesome illustrations!
But I used GURPS for the rules!

[monkeyfish]

I find it to be quite important. That's how Hs became so popular.

[Vydar]

Monkeyfish is dead on. I bet 90% of the people on this site picked up HS just because it looked cool. Most of them probably didn't even know the rules before buying the game. (In fact, I actually find the rules to be lacking, but I still bought lots of HS.)

Even though I hate to admit it, because rules are very important to me, there are a lot of highly renouned games that don't appeal to me simply because of what catches my eye. What have I picked up and played in the last few years? I spent 2 years on MechWarrior clix by WizKids - the rules had balance issues, but the figures are so cool! My next wave was HeroScape and BloodBowl. Recently, I've picked up a number of board games - RoboRally, Nexus Ops, and BattleBall. Now I'm looking at Dungeon Twister. Notice that every one of those games has very cool figures to go with them.

First impressions are very important when you meet someone. They stick with you a while, even though they are often inaccurate judgments about that person. The way a game looks is the first impression you have of that game. Even if the game isn't that good but looks cool, people will want to give it a try. If the game is excellent but looks crummy, many people won't be willing to invest the time to find out what a great game it is.

[bad_calvin]

I would say yes. I play these types of game for the physical and mental imagry that they provide. I would not be interested in heroscape if they were paper miniatures with numbers indicating levels, with paper miniatures. That worked for me with Battletech, but would not work with me for a game like this.

[oni]

I voted "Somewhat Important" with Kill Doctor Lucky in mind. That game is published by Cheap Ass Games and was originally released on plain card stock. Now that they have more money they've moved up to a "normal" type board like Clue or Life.

[Stealth Dodge]

I could care less how any game looks. The only thing that matters is how fun it is. I'd play a game if it had nothing but rocks and soggy cardboard if it was a fun boardgame

[InfinityMax]

Call me Shallow Hal. I won't play an ugly game. You can't get immersed in a theme if you're looking at paper chits and monocolor cards. Looks aren't everything, but they're pretty danged important.

[mrbistro]

I voted "Somewhat Important" with Kill Doctor Lucky in mind. That game is published by Cheap *** Games and was originally released on plain card stock. Now that they have more money they've moved up to a "normal" type board like Clue or Life.

You know, I was going to say looks are everything (and they generally are), but Kill Doctor Lucky is a good example to the contrary. But I would still say games like Kill Doctor Lucky are the rare exception to the rule. I'm not big into seriously abstract games, generally having a preference for representational games and they definitely require attractive artwork. Cheap graphics ruin the dungeon crawl experience. A black and white layout cheats you of feeling like a general in charge of a massive army. And cheesey artwork fails to make Candyland, er, I mean war-ravaged Europe come alive.

[heroscaper2.0]

I hate meeples. The one reason I didn't invest $20 in carcassonne.

[Draconious]

one may play a game made of rocks and soggy card board... but would you have tried it?

looks attract game play keeps ppl interested.

[kanegrundar]

It is somewhat important. There have been games that I've played solely based on that it looks cool. However, there are a few old ziplock bag games that look pretty cheap, but once I gave them a whirl I found that I really like them in spite of the cheap look and feel.

[Grungebob]

Looks are secondary to me. Mechanics and fun are paramount. I have stacks of "pretty" games in my garage that are covered in dust because they are not fun. Surprises me here, the answers from many of you..

[InfinityMax]

Yeah, I know, I seem like I ought to put my priority on mechanics, seeing as I've made a few games, but in the end, pretty games are more fun to play. I've even played pretty games with crappy rules, just because they look cool. But then, I don't tend to play those twice.

I won't play a game twice if the mechanics suck, but without some seriously awesome reviews, I won't play it once if it's ugly. It just seems to me that if you want people to play your game, the least you could do is gussy it up a little for me. You don't have to get all Days of Wonder, and make it look like a box full of expensive toys, but at least an attempt would be nice.

That being said, I love chess. I can play chess with a cardstock board and cheesy plastic pieces. I also love playing card games, and I can use just about any deck of cards. BUT... I love a gorgeous chess set, because it makes the game more fun to see, and I adore a spectacular deck of cards. In fact, my two favorite decks of cards cost me more than ten bucks each, because one looks like an old set of cards from a saloon in 1870, and the other has a skull and crossbones on the back and pirates on the front.

[LilNewbie]

It really depends on the game. Some games don't need a lot of great art to work but some do. The art and components will draw me to look at the game but how engrossing the theme is really keeps my interest. Of course, gameplay is important too. When I started CBT (Classic Battletech) it was just cardboard standups and simple colored maps but the theme was awesome (big robots duking it out) and the gameplay was exactly what I wanted. Later came all the nice figures but I would still be happy playing that game with the cardboard standups. Another game called Outpost (which is difficult to find now and expensive) had limited artwork on the cards but was an excellent game. We played that one a lot. I'm kicking myself for not picking it up at the time (it's going for 285+ on Ebay). What made it such a good game? Excellent gameplay and immersive theme (from my perspective anyway).

Nice components and artwork can add a lot to a game and can even take a game from a "play it once-in-a-while" slot to a "play-it-as-often-as-possible" slot.

For me, it's a mixture of art, theme and gameplay that determine whether I like a game. It would be difficult to solely base how I feel about a game on just one of those aspects.

Fortunately, HS is great in all three aspects!

Newb.

[mrbistro]

Looks are secondary to me. Mechanics and fun are paramount. I have stacks of "pretty" games in my garage that are covered in dust because they are not fun. Surprises me here, the answers from many of you..

Aw shucks. Now I feel like the dumb highschool boy in the movie who's into the vapid (and maybe slightly evil) pretty girl, when every day in biology class I'm missing the batting eyes of the sweet nerdy girl who is covered by a large pair of glasses and frumpy clothes (and who no doubt, if put into an evening dress and had her glasses removed would turn into a cutie). I guess the real answer is I would always prefer a game be attractive, but I can think of some plain Jane's I've enjoyed over the years. Bad rules are bad rules in any game, and ulitmately that is the thing that is unacceptable. But attractive art can take a good game to amazing heights.

[InfinityMax]

Don't feel bad, Bistro. I'm always falling for the cheerleaders. The brilliant wallflower pre-hatching butterfly has never been my type. I like the girls that are already wearing miniskirts and tossing their hair.

Hold on, are we still talking about games?

[mrbistro]

I like the girls that are already wearing miniskirts and tossing their hair.
With a couple of inappropriately placed tatoos!

Hold on, are we still talking about games?
*Sigh* No. But I guess we better.

[hextr1p]

A game may have the best mechanics in the world but if the board and pices are ugly I won't even consider it, and of course, vice-versa. I hate meeples.
Call me Shallow Hal. I won't play an ugly game. You can't get immersed in a theme if you're looking at paper chits and monocolor cards. Looks aren't everything, but they're pretty danged important.
Co-sign for each of these. Looks are VERY important.

No, looks are NOT everything. Obviously. But they are very important, especially for theme heavy games (which is what most games are, these days). Really, there needs to be both aesthetics and mechanics for me to truly enjoy a game. If one of these are missing, I find it hard to find true escapism during my gaming experience. My appreciation for the artistic design of a game might come from the fact that I'm a graphic designer. But when one is able to play a game, and admire the work and effort put into both the visual appeal and the actual gameplay, then you TRULY have something special.

That, and the prettier the game, the more likely people are to buy it without even knowing a thing about it. ;)

[Stealth Dodge]

Draconious, I was attracted to Heroscape by the notion of being able to battle with pieces with figures from all moments in time. Whether these figures were actual plastic pieces or simply coins with pics on them made no difference to me

[philowar]

Gameplay is my foremost concern but, other than theme, looks are often what can interest me in a game without ever having played it. Granted, some of my favorite games are butt-ugly or simply very aesthetically bland (Battle Line, Commands and Colors, a vintage 1960s copy of Stratego I found at a thrift) whereas others have the huge bonus of beautiful or stylish art that makes me like them even more (Conquest of the Empire, Hansa, Dungeon Quest, Mystery Rummy: Jack the Ripper). Then there are definitely games I thought about buying but haven't because I don't like the art style, such as Descent: Journeys in the Dark and Runebound, which look too slick and comic-bookish and Wizards of the Coast to me.

[dickflea]

The aesthetic of a game is very important if you have movable counters.

It does not really matter if you are playing games like checkers or snakes and ladders because of the simple rules, but with games with more complicated rules the "look" of the game helps attract the player to the game and probably overcomes the initial difficulty with the rules.

Another thing IHMO is that humans are very sensory orientated and require these movable counters to really become involved in a game.