Learn the difference between the two (rough) schools of board game design - how to guess which kind of board game you're looking at in a glance, and why one or the other style might be more your taste.
I just watched a random little ProZD comedy skit about this topic and to be honest I've never played a designer board game in my life, so I wasn't even sure if these were real categories (but I did definitely understand the difference from his skit lol). But then your video was recommended under it. I love it when the algorithm blesses small channels like that. Lovely work, thank you.
Thank you so much for the kind comment! It is certainly nice, though unexpected, to get to ride the great SungWon’s coat tails, I’ve been a fan of his for years!
ProZD brought me here, never knew it divided like this, tho i have been playing a lot in BGA, and i quickly realize these patterns, and i quickly divide it into groups. Next up: Asian style board game.. I dont even know if this exist, feels like its not XD
Thanks for the watch Random Hami! It certainly was a surprise to step off a two-day train ride to discover my little video has algorithmically been attached to the coattails of the always great SungWon Cho. I’m a big fan of his channel, and LOVED the skit when it was first posted. This feels a little bit like I’m photobombing greatness lol.
And to respond to your note about “Asian style board games” I can tell you that there is GREAT design work coming out of both Japan and China (I believe Korea as well, but I don’t think I have personal experience with games by Korean designers). That said, the board game community has largely segmented their games into these same two stylistic groups. As I believe I said in the video, Euro- and American-style games may have locales in their names, but it’s not really about countries now. And more and more hybrids are hitting the market too, plus games that don’t fit into either (I’m not sure anybody looks at party games in terms of US vs EU).
Eurogames often give me the feeling that everyone is playing solitaire with little interaction with each other. First one to beat their solitaire game wins.
That’s definitely a risk. Some designs include elements to increase interaction past that point, but many Euro gamers like some friction (like competing for worker placement spaces) without the significant disruption to their projects that greater interaction could bring. It’s all about balance and the tastes of the people at the table. I could imagine Euro gamers complaining that American-style games have too much interaction, to the point where they feel they can’t plan big moves or enjoy building things because other players will hamstring what they’re trying to do. To each their own :)
You're not alone in associating that with Euro, but I admit I find it a puzzle all the same. Clearly that is the new Euro given how often I hear it. But realistically my best games are all Euros and I detest multiplayer solitaires. They are interactive and competitive. Because that is what I seek in a game. High levels of interaction and competition. I saw (not sure anymore) the evolution of multiplayer solitaires as a simple non-cultural (not Euro or Ameri - post divide) response to the enormous growth of the games market ... a snowballing thing. As it was growing from the 2000s on more more non-gamers (for want of a better word) were discovering Catan and Carasonne, and buying games. A solid portion of that market and it is dominated by women in my experience - not a criticism, far from it, but an observation - are conflict averse. They don't like conflict. And to feed this market the endless cycle of multiplayer solitaire and point salad designs evolved. Around this same time frame I for example split off a focal games group on competitive play, folk who actually love in game conflict - and again, observationally, these are mostly men and 'gamers' and out games focus on that. But they are dominated by Euros not Ameri ... why? Because to us Euro really means the game plays down luck, and plays up strategic and tactical influence, it's been play tested to the hilt to run to a fine and tense conclusion within 60-120 mins and the rules are a few pages not 10s of pages. That is the divide for us. And I destes multiplayer solitaires and dislike point salads. I table open scoring tracks (VP based games indeed, where VP have thematic names of course) and a central play board or area in which there is open conflict and contest, and/or high levels of interaction. We love auctions, negotiations, power dynamics, take-that and nukes from orbit and more ... but we play Euro.
@@LucasHenrique-it2io sorry for a very slow response. I’d say there’s a lot more innovation, more attention to mitigating randomness, more attention to giving the players meaningful choices (not that there weren’t games doing this before, but we’ve come a long way from Monopoly, Candyland, etc.). A much wider breadth of themes (though still more room to grow there), etc.
@@NeverEnoughGames I agree. When I was a kid, I mostly played chess, because it was the only game I knew that had no luck factor in it. All the information was technically visible, so at least in theory you always could've seen an attack coming, meaning you can learn from experience. As far as today is concerned I'd like to add that there has been a rise in cooperative games and I jumped the bandwagon as soon as I knew about them. In case of coop-games I don't mind luck factors quite as much and it generally improved the atmosphere in social gatherings to play as a team. Hanabi, Mysterium, Aeon's End, The Crew, Code Names Duett, Flashpoint, Space Alert, Escape: Curse of the Temple, Harry Potter: Battle of Hogwarts - there are so many awesome cooperative games of all kinds of genres. Note that there are also semi-coop games e.g. when there's a traitor among the group, but I don't like those either, even when they're well-made (like Shadows over Camelot or Battlestar Galactica).
We should have a similar term for it on PC. There are games that focus more on the visuals of what is going on. Where there are others that give more depth but at the expense of resembling a virtual board game.
Looks back at old versions of Catan... and then on newer versions (10 years aniversary edition and later). Wow, that was a fast change from "the one Eurogame that set a new meassure" to "Ameritrash"... That is from wood to plastics. ^^
How cool :) I’m lucky enough to enjoy both styles for different reasons. Didn’t know there’s was a difference. Reminds me of the difference between western rpgs and japanese
To each their own, and I love both, but I think I lean more towards the eurogame side. Because when I loose, it's because I was outsmarted by my opponents, made some bad decisions, didn't adapt well to the situation. More confrontational games can often end with you loosing because someone else decided to gang up on you, and I find it kind of frustrating, especially when the random aspect is strong. Like, when I finish a good game, I can reflect on how good or bad I did, and that's my responsibility, and when I enjoyed a game, it makes me want to play again to do better, or explore another strategy. If I loose because someone was mad at me because I killed one of his things in the beginning, it's just a bit more annoying. But again, I enjoy both, just more of a "building my own thing" guy but from time to time I'll be ready to fight you :D
I can definitely see that. I lean more towards American games but euro games can definitely be fun. I feel like a good comparison is that american ones are more casual with luck evening out the need for better strategies/more familiarity with the game. It's not uncommon for a newcomer to come close to or even beating others who have played for awhile. Whereas Euro style games are more hardcore due to needing deeper strategies, making it harder for a newcomer to the game to win right away versus experienced players.
@@user-tg3jl1mt4e yeah, I'm still a bit figuring out what classifies as "ameritrash" and "eurogame" but from what I heard there can be some American games with very long rulebooks and lot of little pieces or figurines, I guess it depends on the game, but I think it's visually more attractive to casual players too, and can be great to get them a bit more into board games! I guess it really depends too on the complexity of the game once you get past the initial visual attractivity but I think then can serve as a good introduction for people a bit "afraid" of board games. As long as it doesn't get "too" confrontational and they get obliterated by more experienced players, but it's also up to you to play a bit nicer too xD (Tbh on a side note I've looked at more videos about the eurogame/ameritrash thing and thought about all the games I own, and I'm starting to believe that many games don't really fit in one category or the other now. Which is great for diversity and accessibility I think)
@Pok’ l’Ours yeah, I’m more of a euro gamer myself for exactly those reasons, but American-style games can be fun too…especially co-op. I think we’re definitely seeing a rise in hybrids, as you say, which is pretty cool, though they’re still a bit on the rare side. There are also many games that don’t really fit into this dichotomy.
Been getting into board games last few months and was really starting to formulate these two different kind of games but couldn’t exactly put my finger on it or put it into words. This vid confirmed and informed a lot of what I was feeling. Thanks. One I have really noticed the last few months is I DO NOT LIKE DICE ROLLING GAMES. Anyway…
Good breakdown. I'm personally a fan of theme-strong Euro games like Wingspan or Dune Imperium, as well as some American games like Betrayal at the House on the Hill or Wasteland Express Delivery service. Euro mechanics are great, but I don't get the appeal of playing 543 different games where you're just trading wood for wheat for fish on some farm or village or whatever. Additionally... whether you play more Euro games or American will depend a lot on who you play with. I attend a lot of board game meetups, and those meetups tend to lean heavily toward eurogames (or party games!) and treat American games with no small measure of scorn (hence the moniker "Ameritrash"). Usually if I play an American game it's with friends I met outside of the boardgame meetup community.
I feel it's a bit unfair to say that Amerithrash/Ameritrash games are "theme-first" rather than "mechanics first", it makes it sound like the gameplay is lacking, which is obviously not the case, merely that they use different gameplay mechanics compared to euros. I guess there may be more games where someone has said "we need a game for this movie/theme" and then an amerithrash game is made (because let's face it, not many movies/shows get made about farming...), but I feel that the comparison given still sounded harsh. I think it's fair to say that Amerithrash games are more exciting/action-oriented themes compared to the more peaceful themes of euro games (but even that isn't always the case e.g. Scythe is predominantly a euro, but is based in a fantasy WW1 esque war with mechs). But I agreed with everything else you said . I also feel we should start using the term Amerithrash (which you used at the start) rather than ameritrash (or get rid of the euro Vs american names entirely now), since I feel ameritrash sounds derogatory and makes them sound lesser.
So sorry for the slow response! I’ve always hated “Ameritrash” as a term. I think its origins are indisputably derogatory. I also agree that the gameplay is not lacking in “American-style” games. My point with the theme first vs mechanics first discussion is that Euro games often feel like really neat collections of mechanisms that were then shopped around to find the right theme (and then hopefully developed further to match the theme). In other words, “this is a really cool new twist on a rondel mechanism…what can I build with it? Oh, I know, Arthurian legends! (Love you Feld!) On the “American style” side, games often feel more like they started with the theme (“let’s make a game about a edge-of-your-seat alien invasion!”) and then went looking for mechanics that deliver on that theme (“we’ll have dice rolling for actions AND to hit…IN REAL TIME!” (talking about Project: Elite)). Excellent games and a lot of fun to be had either way, but two different origin points.
Wonderful! You are exactly who this video was made for, so I’m so glad it fit the bill. I originally planned a whole series to help people discover what’s out there these days and find what’s the right style of game for them. I need to get over my burnout and make it happen. Thanks so much for the feedback!
In recent years many games came out that mixed both genres and for me that are the best games. They combine the best of both worlds. Games like Eclipse or Dune Imperium.
Yeah, I learned this the hard way yesterday. I don't understand what's the point of board games where there's hardly any player interaction. I thought boardgames were meant for a group of people to have fun TOGETHER at the table and not having "fun" playing by themselves on it.
Sorry for the slow response! There’s often player interaction in Euro games, but it’s more subtle. More about blocking, or getting to prized resources first, etc. I and a great many other Euro fans find that there’s enough for us, but it’s definitely not everyone’s cup of tea, just like a lot of Euro gamers avoid high conflict games where their plans can be utterly destroyed, not just impeded to the point where they have to reassess their strategy to adapt.
Interesting. I’d never thought to apply the euro vs American stylistic lens to rpgs. I don’t know a ton about Savage Worlds, but your comparison sounds right to me!
At the beginning, when you said that Euro games were basically German games I was like "Cool, we get to represent all of Europe. But what kinds of games did the other european countries make?" I wasn't aware of Ameritrash and Euro types of games, but I knew that these types of games exist. Instead I distinguished American and European games by a different category: Are there neat compartments for all types of game pieces (Euro) or is it just one big box to toss everything in and sort it again the next time you play (American)?
Look, the Jamestown rules clearly state that fish can not be traded. I don’t know what else to tell you. Euro games don’t need thematic reasons for their rules! No fish trading is more mechanically pleasing! Silence your grumbling and strive for more VICTORY POINTS, player.
I actually played an excellent Euro game recently (Praga Caput Regni) where you use eggs to build a road. Eggs?!? Thankfully for my sanity, the rule book explains that it’s based on historical fact. Raw eggs were sourced from surrounding villages for use in mortar for Prague’s construction needs. I love it when games incorporate fun facts.
I have never tried an American style board game, so i wondered why they are called ``trash``. Odd that term stuck since they seem to be just as popular, looking at stuff like warhammer 40K.
Yes. There was at one point a (halfhearted?) movement in the hobby to try to change it to the less negative “Amerithrash”, which I probably used at least once in the video (it’s been years since I made this), but it never took off.
No. “Abstract” games like chess are typically not included in euro vs Ameritrash discussions because they’re more their own thing. Though there are hybrids that I think take abstracts in Ameritrash directions. While chess is directly antagonistic, in general I would say (if forced…again, I don’t think the labels apply to abstracts) that it’s more on the Euro side. it is purely deterministic. There’s no randomness, no chance of surprise outcomes beyond the direct effects of strategy. While very thematic at the time of its creation (much more evocative pieces than other traditional abstracts), it would likely be considered a bit light on theme if released new today. That said, I would emphasize again that I don’t think it actually belongs in either category.
That's just this guy's bias way of introducing it. I found this video because I heard my board gaming friends talk about "erotrash" games, and I wanted to know what that means.
If your going to talk about this subject you gotta get the basis of the facts correct first. The Ameri-trash reference is too the British style of games (which still exist) that after WWII were flooding European war torn countries as they tried to rebuild. These games are produced without much if any playtesting and they do no have a theme of any sort. Jenga is an example, the designer of Jenga still designs games and she said play testing is not needed. These toys were mas produced and sold as a way of helping the great Britain empire rebuild. I would like to know where you get your information, or did you just make it up?
Hi Kevin, that's an interesting take on this whole thing. One I've never heard before. You'll note in the video that I don't get into the historical origin of the term "Ameritrash" - that's simply because I didn't have a good answer! I try to be very VERY careful about throwing around information when I'm not sure it's true. I have no idea where you get your idea of Ameritrash-style games not getting any playtesting. I think you'll find many designers and employees of companies like Fantasy Flight and CMON who would disagree with you very strongly and probably present rough estimates of staff hours spent testing. I guarantee you it happens. Jenga, an exceedingly basic dexterity game that has something like two rules, is not the same thing as say, Mansions of Madness 2nd Edition, or the X-Wing Miniatures Game, or Too Many Bones. It appears you're using a different definition of what "Ameritrash" tends to refer to here. You seem to think it means "bad games"...which is not at all what I (and, I'm confident saying, a huge percentage of the people in the hobby) are using it to refer to. I suspect board games being pawned off on the rest of Europe probably weren't footing the bill to rebuilding the "Empire". In the interests of full disclosure: this is the first time I've heard this theory, and I have not researched it. I'm not sure I'll put in the time to do so. It seems silly. Now, as to where I got my information...these definitions are informed by 7+ years of obsessive participation in the designer board game hobby, during which I have: a) consumed a very rough average of 10+ hours of board game hobby media per week (review videos, podcasts, blog posts, forums, etc) b) amassed a very carefully curated collection of over 300 board and card games. This collection covers a huge swath of genres and sub-genres. While it's biased towards Euro-style games, it also contains many American-style games (some of which were designed in Europe! We're talking about style, not actual origin here) c) attended Gencon (one of the two biggest board game conventions in the world) twice d) recorded a board gaming podcast with over 1100 downloads (this is INFINITESIMAL in the world of podcasting, to be sure, but I include it as further evidence that I learn and think about games A LOT) I feel fairly confident that other people heavy into the hobby would not disagree with the assessments in this video. Nothing in here is controversial. Indeed, what "content" I bring to the discussion in this video is an attempt to explain things as accessibly as possible to people who might be new to the hobby.
I hate the term “Ameritrash” so, so much. The community needs to settle on a better one that doesn’t carry a value judgement. There is NOTHING wrong with American style games. It’s just a question of what you’re in the mood for. My collection skews very Euro as they’re more my style, but there are still a bunch of American style games in there, because they’re a blast to play.
I’m sorry to hear that! It certainly wasn’t my intention to be smug, rather to present it in a “modern board games 101” class style for people new to the hobby. I actually have a lot more videos covering jargon, genres, subgenres, big name designers, etc. planned (honestly a whole class) that I never got around to filming. This was a test run to see what one would look like, given my extremely limited editing skills. The goal is to share things I’ve learned from being obsessed for over a decade in an approachable way, not to sell myself as THE expert. It’d be silly of me to try to compete with the amazing leaders of the board game content community. I’m sorry it wasn’t what you were looking for!
