First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #4247?
skelebone: Do you think expansions to games should be restricted from appearing in the Top 100 since they're not full games?

ocdspectrum: Yes, makes a lot of sense.
Caedmus: Yes! I've seen very few expansions that I would consider necessary or game changing. They are not 'games' they are expansions to games... They have no place there!
Woelf: I thought they already were excluded - not counting the few like Dominion: Intrigue that are expansions capable of being played without the base game.
ricardofo: nope
sweetgotham: you know what, yes; I think this is reasonable
Felimid: What about having a Top 100 for full games, and a Top 100 for expansions? Or is that too much like "separate but equal"? Probably is. Oh well.
garryj99: yes
Upperbylad: Yes.
jessitron: Yes.
jp21763: yes
pwilz: It should be all or nothing, not 'okay, just not for top 100'
rseater: Expansions should have special treatment in general. In this case too.
johannes: Yes
jasta6: No. Some time the expantions help make the game better...................................................................................................
cgund: meh, i don't have a strong opinion.
locusshifter: YES
Couggar: yes
Megadev: No, because some expansions completely change the nature of the game.
ironsizide: Yes
knilob: Probably so.
paattymaton: no
Ebon Wendigo: No
themagni: To get the rest of my response, please ask this question again in a year.
enwood: Yes, I do
DHEK: Not really. Some expansions are more complex and detailed than some full stand-alone games, so why penalise expansions? Also, how else are you going to track how popular / good is an expansion versus stand-alone games (i.e. should I get this expansion or a new game)?
vampywife: No, because sometimes the expansions really make the base game worth playing.
scriptorum: In a sense, expansions ARE full games, once you take what you need from the base game. Really, what are we comparing with a top-N list? Game experiences. When game experiences are sufficiently different, they should enjoy their own entry in the list. But if you're going to exclude expansions from lists, don't you have to integrate that expansions rank into the base game rank somehow? This line of thought brings me to the realization that games with expansions are being handled inconsistently. Some people when rating a base game are rating the base game by itself, some are rating the game as a "system" and take into consideration the expansions available for it, and some rate a base game solely by their enjoyment of a particular expansion for that game. Yet others don't even rate the base game, but only rate the expansion itself. Some don't rate the expansion, since they've rolled that rating into the base game. Until we get THAT mess straightened out, there's no point manipulating the top 100 list. The data's all flub anyhow.
martybjsg: Yes, sort of. Stand-alone expansions should be counted, otherwise expansions need to be ranked and treated separately.
_Kael_: no -why? If everybody likes it very much.
Sigisgrim: Yes; I don't rate expansions at all
puffinge: a complicated issue, I think it would depend on how different the expansion makes the original game, but who wants to determine whether or not it does or not.
ZeroZilla: Yes.
Laudwic: no
tipigi: yes
pitferret: Yes.
rawdawg: no
Cut & Space: yes
XenoMaster: No
Dorque: Yup.
j_gamer: yes
Langoroth: Yes they should have a separate category for expansions because not all expansions are created equal.
ronster0: no
TMJJS: no
gameskeepllc: no - sometimes the expansion makes the original better - case in point, i like cities & knights better than the original settlers
lauramath: No
ststrat: no
heli: I think expansions in the rankings are fine. You must remember that a rating for an expansion represents the experience of the entire game, original + expansion.
Dhunam: Yes
mrraow: Down with the ratings, follow the games played!
hkishel: No.
bigbadsteve: that is an interesting thought.
fFish: I understand where you are going. But take a deep breath, it'll be ok.
janiera: NO
brainrob: Yes
Great Dane: Yes
Mig_: yes
Syrion: No. Their rating is important and independent of the game upon which they are based.
acetate3: I don't care.
Akke: yes
ahdiovis: Yes, they only reflect on the mother game
mrbeankc: yes
Aelf: No, they should appear since they are generally distinct variations on a game, that may be better than the basic set.
Belash: yes. I asked for a separate database....
ssmooth: Good idea
ValJor: I don't have an opinion on that
Jim_P: Not if they add or change the original to play differently.
GI Joe: Yes
skrutsch: They've already dealt with that issue.
Dante_Cubit: Yes.
Karlsen: No, although it is not an issue near and dear to my heart so I could be influenced either way on this subject
jttm: Nah
djlg: No. Maybe the base game is crap, but its perfect with the expansion.
snoozefest: y
chaddyboy_2000: Ehhh, they're not hurting anything.
CortexBomb: Not really
Lord_Prussian: Nah
Spielfreak: sure
skelebone: Maybe, just looking over the Top 100, I see some dozen or more expansions.
CDRodeffer: That might be a good idea.