New youtube channel for commentating of BGA replays

[Andrei3009]

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is science… there are absolutely brilliant scientists out there, Nobel Prize winners, who can’t communicate their work. Boring to listen to at parties, etc. Then there are the Carl Sagans and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s, who make it all very approachable and interesting, but who wouldn’t themselves necessarily win any grand prizes.

BUT they have their areas of expertise, namely space and astrophysics for both of them, and wouldn’t necessarily be any good with, say, biology.

Then there is Ira Flatow, the host of Science Friday. He never went further than a BS in engineering, and went almost straight into broadcasting, but now he interviews scientists every week all across the spectrum of science, and makes it all understandable and approachable.

So… you can be a Nobel prize winner of board games, or you can be somebody who makes Wingspan and Azul and Catan approachable but not necessarily very good at Go, Scythe, or Can’t Stop.

Or you could be the Ira Flatow of board games… bring others on your show, talk to them about their preferred areas of expertise, and cover a wider spectrum.

Just a thought.

I agree with your words, but I'm very interested how Scythe, go and can't stop ended up in the same sentence.

[Andrei3009]

I don't think that for good content, a player needs to be a guru in this game. Any player who knows the basic principles of the game can make interesting videos on it, you just need to analyze your thoughts in more detail.

i am glad that my response was helpful, I might try loot and pacifica after i'll achieve my goals in other games.

I created a few examples to explain what i meant about detail analysis, i choose up or dows only because it's easier to make examples in this game and we both know it. I'll also say that I really liked the way you talked in the video. You have a pleasant voice and you know how to express your thoughts.

Examples:

1) I see that the opponent's last card in the first column is 37, so I would like to take 36 from him.
2) The opponent has a large column and he has a lot of blue cards in it, so taking the blue is a priority over the seemingly obvious move (description of the move)
3) I really want to put the number 15 to myself, but it's in my hand. My opponent is strong and will take it for himself, so it makes sense to wait until he can't comfortably place 15 on his field.
4) I remember that the opponent took 34 and 36 and did not play them, so it is unlikely that he has the opportunity to take my 15 from the field.

Moreover, you can express simpler thoughts, as long as it is clear that you are thinking, improving and trying to win.

Unfortunately, in a game like flip 7, such an analysis will not work, except for a small guide.

[BarnardsStar]

I agree with your words, but I'm very interested how Scythe, go and can't stop ended up in the same sentence.

Ha ha ha, just three very disparate games to pop into my head as examples of what I’m talking about. The first three I mentioned being all games of moderate complexity, so it’s not unreasonable somebody could be quite good at all of them, vs a very long and involved game (Scythe), the king of the abstract games (Go), and a super quick and heavily luck-based game (CS) which would take much broader skill sets to be very good at all of them. Not impossible, obviously, but I would not think that that sort of skillset would be necessary to make a good channel.

[yodamus]

I have to say I really like this idea, it has potential. Especially if I understand BarnardsStar science. You can easily expand to many different games, and mechanics, by having guest players giving thier insights on games they are good at playing. The more players get involved. The more games. Word spreads.

[BananaHarambe]

I’ll gladly hop on to talk about Vale of eternity, play a game or two, give general play tips, replay analysis. I already do this stuff off camera with coaching a few players or adding content to the game’s wiki page. The wiki has plenty of example games showing good uses of specific cards as a resource to use for content.

[pault111]

Thanks for your post. I found it very interesting. I don't think I'm gong to be the phd of games per se but I do think I can be combination of the person who makes games interesting/approachable and Ira Flatow. Let's see where this channel goes...

Paul

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is science… there are absolutely brilliant scientists out there, Nobel Prize winners, who can’t communicate their work. Boring to listen to at parties, etc. Then there are the Carl Sagans and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s, who make it all very approachable and interesting, but who wouldn’t themselves necessarily win any grand prizes.

BUT they have their areas of expertise, namely space and astrophysics for both of them, and wouldn’t necessarily be any good with, say, biology.

Then there is Ira Flatow, the host of Science Friday. He never went further than a BS in engineering, and went almost straight into broadcasting, but now he interviews scientists every week all across the spectrum of science, and makes it all understandable and approachable.

So… you can be a Nobel prize winner of board games, or you can be somebody who makes Wingspan and Azul and Catan approachable but not necessarily very good at Go, Scythe, or Can’t Stop.

Or you could be the Ira Flatow of board games… bring others on your show, talk to them about their preferred areas of expertise, and cover a wider spectrum.

Just a thought.

[pault111]

I agree that Flip 7 has a significant component of luck, but with that said there is still a decent amount of strategy.

For example, considering who to freeze or a take 3 is highly strategic. You want to generally give it to the person with highest score (other than yourself, obv) but what if a lower score player as an X2 or a second chance?

Also, knowing when to stay and when to push is a strategic decision, largely based on what cards have been played as well as where you are positioned from an overall scoring perspective.

I play a fair bit of Flip 7 so I think that'll probably have multiple games on my channel.

Thanks again for the feedback, its great to see that folks are discussing my post/channel. Hoping this means there is some base level of interest which will allow the channel to grow. So far I'm up to 28 subs. Hoping to cross the 30 subs line over the weekend.

Paul

I don't think that for good content, a player needs to be a guru in this game. Any player who knows the basic principles of the game can make interesting videos on it, you just need to analyze your thoughts in more detail.

i am glad that my response was helpful, I might try loot and pacifica after i'll achieve my goals in other games.

I created a few examples to explain what i meant about detail analysis, i choose up or dows only because it's easier to make examples in this game and we both know it. I'll also say that I really liked the way you talked in the video. You have a pleasant voice and you know how to express your thoughts.

Examples:

1) I see that the opponent's last card in the first column is 37, so I would like to take 36 from him.
2) The opponent has a large column and he has a lot of blue cards in it, so taking the blue is a priority over the seemingly obvious move (description of the move)
3) I really want to put the number 15 to myself, but it's in my hand. My opponent is strong and will take it for himself, so it makes sense to wait until he can't comfortably place 15 on his field.
4) I remember that the opponent took 34 and 36 and did not play them, so it is unlikely that he has the opportunity to take my 15 from the field.

Moreover, you can express simpler thoughts, as long as it is clear that you are thinking, improving and trying to win.

Unfortunately, in a game like flip 7, such an analysis will not work, except for a small guide.

[Name_Taken]

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is science… there are absolutely brilliant scientists out there, Nobel Prize winners, who can’t communicate their work. Boring to listen to at parties, etc. Then there are the Carl Sagans and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s, who make it all very approachable and interesting, but who wouldn’t themselves necessarily win any grand prizes.

BUT they have their areas of expertise, namely space and astrophysics for both of them, and wouldn’t necessarily be any good with, say, biology.

Then there is Ira Flatow...

*cough*richardfeynman*cough*

[BarnardsStar]

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is science… there are absolutely brilliant scientists out there, Nobel Prize winners, who can’t communicate their work. Boring to listen to at parties, etc. Then there are the Carl Sagans and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s, who make it all very approachable and interesting, but who wouldn’t themselves necessarily win any grand prizes.

BUT they have their areas of expertise, namely space and astrophysics for both of them, and wouldn’t necessarily be any good with, say, biology.

Then there is Ira Flatow...

*cough*richardfeynman*cough*

Richard Feynman was a unicorn. I don’t expect anybody, ever, to be the Richard Feynman of board games.

[Name_Taken]

Richard Feynman was a unicorn. I don’t expect anybody, ever, to be the Richard Feynman of board games.

No indeed, BUT in this scenario, I don't think you want one guy doing everything anyway, I just couldn't resist breaking your analogy =p

Ya know what would be the best thing for this is all of the above! Or at least one John von Neumannn and one Carl Sagan. You need somebody in the video with the best facts/analysis, and you need somebody to make sure it all stays entertaining and accessible.

Can I be one of the Carl Sagans, Mr. OP?