{"id":11719,"date":"2020-10-29T11:02:40","date_gmt":"2020-10-29T11:02:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/?p=11719"},"modified":"2020-10-29T15:11:22","modified_gmt":"2020-10-29T15:11:22","slug":"streamlining","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/blog\/2020\/10\/29\/streamlining\/","title":{"rendered":"Streamlining"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Lorsque, au d\u00e9but ann\u00e9es quatre-vingt-dix, sont arriv\u00e9s en force les jeux de soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00ab \u00e0 l\u2019allemande \u00bb, l\u2019un des points qui les diff\u00e9renciait de ce que l\u2019on pourrait appeler la premi\u00e8re vague des jeux contemporains, essentiellement anglo-saxonne et tr\u00e8s ancr\u00e9e dans la simulation, \u00e9tait une relative simplicit\u00e9 et un c\u00f4t\u00e9 \u00e0 demi abstrait. La fraicheur des Colons de Catan<\/em> par rapport aux nombreux jeux de d\u00e9veloppement, souvent spatial, des ann\u00e9es quatre vingt, ou m\u00eame dix ans plus tard des Aventuriers du Rail<\/em> par rapport aux jeux de train \u00e0 l\u2019am\u00e9ricaine, venait d\u2019une certaine l\u00e9g\u00e8ret\u00e9 de leurs r\u00e8gles. Les auteurs avaient enfin appris \u00e0 se retenir, \u00e0 ne pas ajouter au jeu tout ce qui leur passait par la t\u00eate, \u00e0 ne rajouter une carte, un effet, une r\u00e8gle que si cela apportait quelque chose de plus au plaisir et \u00e0 la tension du jeu sans pour autant trop compliquer les choses.<\/p>\n

Cette \u00e9poque l\u00e0 est loin d\u2019\u00eatre termin\u00e9e, et de nombreux auteurs, dont je suis, font toujours attention \u00e0 ne pas compliquer inutilement les choses. Deux raisons font cependant que l\u2019on recommence \u00e0 voir appara\u00eetre de tr\u00e8s bons jeux qui ont un peu trop de r\u00e8gles, parfois qualifi\u00e9s par les am\u00e9ricains de \u00ab surd\u00e9velopp\u00e9s \u00bb (overdevelopped), mais qui sont parfois aussi \u00ab underdevelopped \u00bb tant le d\u00e9veloppement et la mise au point d\u2019un jeu consiste souvent \u00e0 enlever tout ce qui ne sert pas \u00e0 grand-chose.<\/p>\n

Je n\u2019ai pas jou\u00e9 \u00e0 tellement de nouveaux jeux ces deux derniers mois, mais il en est deux que j\u2019ai beaucoup appr\u00e9ci\u00e9 mais qui me semblent souffrir de ce probl\u00e8me. Je suis convaincu que ces deux excellents jeux auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 encore meilleurs avec quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments en moins.
\nLe premier est The Artemis Project<\/em>, De Daryl Chow et Daniel Rocchi, un jeu de placement d\u2019ouvrier assez classique, mais tr\u00e8s fluide et tr\u00e8s agr\u00e9able \u00e0 jouer, qui m\u00e9riterait le m\u00eame succ\u00e8s qu\u2019Architects of the West Kingdom<\/em>. Il y a juste un truc qui ne sert \u00e0 rien, ou en tout cas qui est d\u00e9mesur\u00e9ment esur\u00e9 complexe par rapport \u00e0 son int\u00e9r\u00eat ludique, les micro-pouvoirs des colons plac\u00e9s au camp de base. Ils se ressemblent tous, et le jeu est beaucoup plus fluide sans \u2013 mais bon, ce n\u2019est pas trop grave, on les oublie vite.
\nLe second est Unicorn Fever<\/em>, de Lorenzo Silva et Lorenzo Tucci Sorentino. C\u2019est un jeu de course et de paris, un genre que j\u2019appr\u00e9cie, superbement \u00e9dit\u00e9 et construit autour de m\u00e9canismes originaux et astucieux. Le probl\u00e8me est que sur un m\u00e9canisme tr\u00e8s sympathique ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ajout\u00e9es de trop nombreuses cartes, contrat, magie et licorne, aux effets int\u00e9ressants mais microscopiques, trop nombreux et souvent un peu complexes.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Artemis Project<\/em> et Unicorn Fever<\/em> restent deux excellents jeux que je recommande vivement, mais je suis convaincu qu\u2019ils auraient pu \u00eatre meilleurs, et rencontrer un bien plus large public, avec quelques trucs en moins. Il y a dix ans, ils seraient sans doute sortis sans \u00e9l\u00e9ments superflus et r\u00e8gles inutiles.<\/p>\n

L\u2019une des explications de cette \u00e9volution, assez \u00e9vidente, tient \u00e0 Kickstarter. Ces deux jeux, je crois, ont \u00e9t\u00e9 comme bien d\u2019autres publi\u00e9s gr\u00e2ce au financement participatif. Or la logique de Kickstarter et de ses \u00ab stretch goals \u00bb conduit \u00e0 toujours promettre d\u2019ajouter aux r\u00e8gles et au mat\u00e9riel du jeu des “trucs en plus” si un certain niveau de financement est atteint, alors que le v\u00e9ritable d\u00e9veloppement d\u2019un jeu consiste souvent, \u00e0 l\u2019inverse, \u00e0 jouer suffisamment pour voir ce que l\u2019on peut enlever sans appauvrir le jeu. Comme il est bien difficile de promettre de supprimer des r\u00e8gles ou du mat\u00e9riel si la souscription remporte un certain succ\u00e8s, je pense que les \u00e9diteurs utilisant kickstarter devraient se contenter de promettre du mat\u00e9riel de meilleure qualit\u00e9, mais \u00e9viter de promettre des cartes ou des r\u00e8gles en plus – apr\u00e8s tout, si ces cartes et ces r\u00e8gles \u00e9taient vraiment int\u00e9ressants, ils seraient d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans le jeu de base.<\/p>\n

Kickstarter ne suffit cependant pas \u00e0 tout expliquer, car cette tendance se retrouve aussi, certes plus rarement, dans des jeux qui sont pass\u00e9s d\u2019embl\u00e9e par les circuits commerciaux traditionnels. Je vais prendre en exemple, l\u00e0 encore, un jeu que j\u2019appr\u00e9cie beaucoup, Mysterium<\/em>, le premier \u00e0 \u00eatre parvenu \u00e0 ajouter un \u00e9l\u00e9ment narratif au principe de Dixit<\/em>. Lorsqu\u2019un \u00e9diteur fran\u00e7ais a adapt\u00e9 pour le monde entier un jeu qui n\u2019\u00e9tait jusque l\u00e0 sorti qu\u2019en Ukraine et en Pologne, il y a fait quelques modifications, dont la principale fut d\u2019ajouter une syst\u00e8me de score individuel qui ne sert absolument \u00e0 rien et alourdit sensiblement le jeu. L\u2019\u00e9diteur a peut-\u00eatre r\u00e9alis\u00e9 son erreur apr\u00e8s coup puisque Mysterium Park,<\/em> qui sort ces jours-ci et que je n\u2019ai pas encore vu, semble \u00eatre une version all\u00e9g\u00e9e et donc mieux d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e de Mysterium<\/em>. Enfin, j\u2019esp\u00e8re qu\u2019ils ne sont pas all\u00e9s trop loin dans la direction oppos\u00e9e, c\u2019est aussi un pi\u00e8ge.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Il y a donc une autre explication, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, qui tient \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9volution du public des joueurs et, surtout, de l\u2019entourage des auteurs et des \u00e9diteurs. Lorsque le jeu de soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tait encore un loisir culturel assez marginal, les tests et la mise au point du jeu se faisaient, par la force des choses, avec des gens qui n\u2019\u00e9taient pas des sp\u00e9cialistes, qui ne connaissaient pas tout, la famille ou les amis de l\u2019auteur, ou des joueurs venus du jeu de r\u00f4le, alors plus populaire. Ce public tendait \u00e0 aller doit au but, \u00e0 favoriser les syst\u00e8mes les plus simples. Aujourd\u2019hui, tout ce travail de d\u00e9veloppement se fait de plus en plus avec des joueurs exp\u00e9riment\u00e9s, parfois des professionnels ou des semi-professionnels, voire avec d\u2019autres auteurs, donc avec un public que ne g\u00eane pas vraiment une complexit\u00e9 dont il n\u2019a souvent m\u00eame pas conscience, et qui peut m\u00eame \u00e0 l\u2019occasion sugg\u00e9rer tel ou tel ajout.
\nIl y a de la place sur le march\u00e9 pour des jeux complexes, et pour d\u2019autres qui le sont moins, mais j\u2019aimerais que les auteurs et les \u00e9diteurs, et surtout ceux qui passent par kickstarter, r\u00e9alisent que la meilleure version d\u2019un jeu est rarement la plus riche et la plus sophistiqu\u00e9e. Le principe m\u00eame du jeu est d\u2019\u00eatre plus simple que la r\u00e9alit\u00e9, et si d\u00e9velopper un jeu, c\u2019est parfois y ajouter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments, c\u2019est parfois aussi en enlever. Les anglo-saxons ont un verbe tr\u00e8s imag\u00e9 qui exprime parfaitement cette id\u00e9e, to streamline, qui comme souvent n\u2019a pas vraiment d\u2019\u00e9quivalent fran\u00e7ais.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nWhen \u00ab\u00a0german style” boardgames arrived in the early nineties, their main difference with the first wave of modern boardgames, American style games heavy on simulation, was their relative simplicity and abstractness. What made <\/em>Settlers of Catan fresh when compared with older development games, usually in space, and what a few years later made <\/em>Ticket to Ride more exciting than US train games, was their relatively light rules. For the first time, game designers were not let loose, and considered adding a card, a rule, an effect, only when it really added more to the gaming pleasure than to the game\u2019s complexity.<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s still mostly true and most game designers, including me, are still very careful not to make things unnecessarily complex. Unfortunately, there are also more and more good games which are sometimes called \u00ab\u00a0overdevelopped\u00a0\u00bb but which are often, in face, \u00ab\u00a0underdeveloped\u00a0\u00bb, since developing a game is mostly streamlining it, keeping everything useful but removing all the unnecessary stuff.<\/em><\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t play that many new games these last months, but there are two I really enjoyed, but which I also think could have been even better with some elements removed.<\/em><\/p>\n

The first one is Daryl Chow\u2019s & Daniel Rocchi\u2019s <\/em>The Artemis Project, a relatively classic, fluid and very enjoyable worker placement, which deserves to get the same success as, say, <\/em>Architects of the West Kingdom. There\u2019s just one thing in the game which is supererogatory, the micro-abilities of workers placed in the base camp. They feel similar one with another, and don\u2019t add any real interest to the game. the game is more fluid without, and as a result we forget them when playing – so why put them in the rules ?<\/em>
\nThe second game is Lorenzo Silva and Lorenzo Tucci Sorentino\u2019s <\/em>Unicorn Fever. It\u2019s a betting race game, a style I like and which deserves a better recognition, gorgeously published and based on a few clever systems. The problem is that on a really exciting basis have been added layers of unnecessary card effects, contract cards, magic cards, unicorn cards, which makes for too many interesting but microscopic effects.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Both T<\/em>he Artemis Project and <\/em>Unicorn Fever are already outstanding games, but I\u2019m convinced they could have been even better, and find more players, with a few rules and elements removed. Ten years ago, they would probably have been published without them.<\/em><\/p>\n

One of the reasons for this is, obviously, Kickstarter. These two games have both been published through crowdfunding. Unfortunately, the logic of Kickstarter\u2019s stretch goals is to always promise more rules and more components once a given funding level has been reached, when a game\u2019s real development often consists in playing and playing gaian to check what can be removed without weakening the game. Since it\u2019s probably counter-intuitive to promise the removal of elements if a game is successful, may be publishers of modern games, and especially eurogames, should only promise better components, but not extra rules and stuff, as stretch goals. After all, if these extra elements were that good, they would already be in the basic game.<\/em><\/p>\n

Kickstarter is not the only reason. This trend also affects, though to a lesser extent, games published through traditional distribution channels. A good example is a game I really enjoy, <\/em>Mysterium, which manages to add real storytelling to the <\/em>Dixit system. When a French publisher decided to adapt for the whole world a game which was so far available only in Ukraine and Poland, they made a few changes, the most notable one being to add a convoluted and totally unnecessary individual scoring system, which slows the game without adding any interest. They realized their error later, and it seems that the new <\/em>Mysterium Park, to be released in the coming weeks, is a streamlined and better developed version of the game. I\u2019ve not seen it yet, and I hope it didn\u2019t go too far in the opposite direction, it can also happen.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There\u2019s another and more global explanation. When games was still a relatively marginal cultural activity, play testing and developing games was made by and with people who were not real specialists, who didn\u2019t know everything – mostly the designer\u2019s friends or family, or people coming from role playing games. These people tended to go straight to the point and to favor relatively simple systems. Nowadays, this is made with \u00ab\u00a0experienced gamers\u00a0\u00bb, sometimes pro or semi-pro gamers, or even fellow game designers. The problem with geeks is that they are not really troubled by complexity in games, they don\u2019t even notice it any more, and some relish in suggesting this or that addition.<\/em>
\nThe market is now big enough to accommodate various game styles, some complex and some less, but it seems to me that many designers, developers and publishers, and especially those who go through kickstarter, are forgetting that the best version of a game is not necessarily the one with the most stuff in it. The very point of playing games is to enter a world which is much simpler than reality, and developing a game means sometimes adding stuff, sometimes removing stuff – it\u2019s streamlining, an english verb I like a lot because it has has no equivalent in French.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lorsque, au d\u00e9but ann\u00e9es quatre-vingt-dix, sont arriv\u00e9s en force les jeux de soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00ab \u00e0 l\u2019allemande \u00bb, l\u2019un des points qui les diff\u00e9renciait de ce que l\u2019on pourrait appeler la premi\u00e8re vague des jeux contemporains, essentiellement anglo-saxonne et tr\u00e8s ancr\u00e9e … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[123,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-ludique-game-design","category-le-monde-du-jeu-game-trends-and-styles"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2HNOP-331","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11719"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11719\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11726,"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11719\/revisions\/11726"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faidutti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}