What brought this to the forefront of the normally tumbleweed riddled chasm that is my brain was a post in the recommendations forum asking "Which game to get, Terra Mystica or Tzolk'in: The Mayan Calendar?"
My gut reaction was to simply say Terra Mystica. I hit reply and started to type exactly that. Then I hesitated a moment and asked myself why. Did I really think that Terra Mystica was a better game than Tzolk'in? I've only played TM once, not that that means I can't like it better, but I didn't even stop to think about it. The first thing that came to mind was TM, and I think it's because that's the one that I own. My friend owns Tzolk'in, and we make a point in our gaming group to not purchase the same game that the other members have, for diversification purposes. But I wasn't sure that I sincerely thought TM was a better game than Tzolk'in. I just kind of felt like I should stick up for the one in my own collection. I ended up responding and saying that the games are very different, and it's difficult to compare, that they both were great, yadda yadda. And that's partly true, but I was thinking about which game would I rather play? Of course, the one in MY collection, but that's not really fair and wasn't answering the OP's question accurately. This got me thinking much more about the subject, and hence the reason for this blog.
So there are a couple different ways of exploring this topic. First the ownership bias. I clearly found that the bias I have towards a game that I own seems to possibly cloud my judgment on whether or not I find it fun. You tend to root for your own game a bit harder, possibly overlooking faults and things you might find boring if it were a game in someone else's collection. When people get rules explained to them, they tend to zone out, but why doesn't the rules explainer ever get bored? Maybe rules are just boring to listen to, but possibly it's that people just don't quite care as much to learn a game that's not theirs.
Second, there is the "Does my group seem to enjoy this?" bias. If I bring out a game, and the group appears to be asleep at the wheel the entire time, it GREATLY impacts my desire to play again, and usually just makes me want to ship it out as soon as I can. There are exceptions, of course, but I've had a great number of games go out the door after my group seemed to not enjoy them. I've been super excited about a game, learned the rules, watched videos, read reviews, looked forward to playing it with the group, then we play and they're like "eh," and all the wind is out of my sails and I get rid of it in disgust. Part of it is the whole, might as well not waste time on a game that's never going to get played, but more so I think it's that if they don't like it, I don't like it. Rarely will I keep a game around that the group didn't immediately latch onto just because I liked it so much. Maybe it was just an off night. Maybe the game would be a hit if the people were in a different mood. Too late. The game is soured for me and has to go. Crazy.
Third, there is the win/loss/understanding the game bias. The game could be the greatest game in the world, but have I lost every single time I've played it? How badly? Am I at least competitive? What does that do to the way I view the game? Moreover, if I WIN the game, even once, how much does THAT cloud my judgement of a particular game? Winning shouldn't automatically equal liking a game, but I find that for me, probably because I win so infrequently, that when I win a game, I give it much higher marks than if I don't win. Also, not understanding a game can really be problematic to enjoyment. I don't mean not understanding the rules. I mean strategies and such. Having so many games in our collective collections means that games don't get repeated plays very often, which can really put a hurt on heavy strategic games that require multiple plays to understand the basic strategies. We might play a game like Caylus once or twice a year, and that's not enough to grasp the nuances of the strategies for me, so as a result my overall impression of the game wanes. The more I've played that game, the more I enjoy it, but that level of understanding fades away after months and months go by with no play. Does that mean the game is bad? Nope.
So thinking about all of this I find that games themselves don't get a fair shake. There are so many outside factors separate from the actual game that make it good or not. Obviously being a good game and enjoying the game can be two entirely different things. The game can be good, but that doesn't mean I'll like it, but the fact that I don't own a game shouldn't hurt the game's level of enjoyment for me.
Being cognizant of this can hopefully change some things, but I'd still rather play Terra Mystica over Tzolk'in if you asked me right now. I bet you if I owned Tzolk'in and my friend owned Terra Mystica, I'd give the opposite answer. Those two games aren't really the best examples, however, because I researched Terra Mystica before I purchased it, and didn't research Tzolk'in, so it wasn't like I wanted both and my friend happened to get one and I got the other. A better example is with Kemet. That was a game I wanted for a long time. Eventually another person in my group got it. I LOVED the game the first time I played it, but I won, so I'm sure that really effed things up. But I think right now if you asked me whether or not I want to play Kemet or Runebound: Second Edition, which is a game I own, I'd pick Runebound. Do I think Runebound is a better game than Kemet? I don't know that I can say that. If Kemet was in my collection and you asked me which one to play, things would probably be much different. An even better example is a game that I own that a friend of mine also owns. I would rather play MY copy of the game. Why? Who cares? Who knows? Bottom line is a game in my own collection trumps a game in someone else's collection. The whole thing is a bit weird and confusing.
Back to winning and losing a game. Constantly losing a game directly affects my enjoyment of the game, even if I'm having a good time during the game. An example is Kingsburg. I really enjoy this game. It's got some mechanisms that really speak to me on all levels. It's got a luck element, which can be somewhat mitigated. You have your own player board that you can customize and be different than the other players. It's got some thinky elements in it that put my brain to work, though it's not so heavy that I can't function. All of this points directly toward a win for me. However, in the four or five games of this I've played, I've never finished higher than second to last. I can't tell you how frustrating that is. It's not even that many plays/losses, but already it's affected how I view the game. If I won occasionally, or even felt competitive in the game, it would have potential to be in my top five favorite games, but I am so terrible at the game for some reason that it just makes me frustrated to even think about it. So why haven't I gotten rid of it yet??? Because I own it, my group enjoys it, and I like the mechanisms of the game. I'm sure the first two outweigh the last one, though. I recently put together a top 20 list of favorite games, and I put Kingsburg at number 20. The reason it stays there is that even though I'm so frustrated playing it, I still have a desire to play it again. I know I'll get mad playing it as I hopelessly drift at the back of the scoring track, but I would play it again. Why??? If the game wasn't in my collection, would it be on my top 20?? Highly doubtful. Every other game on my top 20 I've won at least twice.
So what can I do about these biases? I really don't know. It's very difficult to view a game without a number of these biases affecting things. Staying objective and looking at each game on its own is extremely difficult. Winning/Losing isn't all there is, to be sure, but I'm a competitive person. Winning feels great. Losing feels like crap. When I win I want to talk about it and revel in it, but that doesn't mean the game is great. When I lose, I want to erase it from my memory, the horrible feeling of losing along with it, but that doesn't mean the game is bad. It's sorting this out that's difficult. Owning a game doesn't mean it's better than a game in someone else's collection, so why would I much rather play every game in MY collection before even ONE game in yours, even if you own a game I reallllly like?? No clue. Again, it's very weird/confusing and will take more reflection to work it out.
So all of this may seem obvious and/or ridiculous to everyone, but it's just something I found interesting and wanted to write down.
