Why Puerto Rico 1897 Makes Sense
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- In October 2022, Ravensburger will release Puerto Rico 1897, a new version of Andreas Seyfarth's classic game, with the setting of the game being shifted in time and with you, the player, now representing a Puerto Rican farmer.
In this video, I explain why I think this was the right move to make. For more on Puerto Rico 1897, head to the BoardGameGeek game page: boardgamegeek....
It makes sense that they'd remake make it to be less offensive as their goal is to make money. I typically don't complain about things being offensive but have made the mistake of putting a game on the table with a theme others didn't like.
That's just awkward...
The game was "Black Orchestra" and one of the players has Jewish ancestors. I figured they'd like it for the goal of trying to remove a certain historical figure. He saw the iconography, knew of the people you play as in the game, and didn't like it. No problem. I apologized, explained my logic to why I thought he'd enjoy it in the first place, and we played something else instead. It was a honest mistake with no ill intent.
At least they're not purposefully misrepresenting a time period by pretending something people find offensive was not what it was in reality.
Yes, in that context, Secret Hitler is far more offensive. Party game about the Fascist takeover of Germany!
@@TorIverWilhelmsen that and the makers of "Secret Hitler" got political on their website. In their FAQ section, there was a question about "What if I don't like fascism?" To which they put to send your complaints to Trump with the address for the White House. I simply can't stand mixing politics and board games.
Eliminating that certain person in that game is fine as an exception as that's not a controversial topic people argue about. However, people bringing up politics in games? I can't stand.
Sure, I enjoy discussing politics but don't like the two topics (board games and politics) converging.
@@RandomPerson-nd2ey In the game - or outside? The website is not the game. Also, if you avoid politics in games you miss out on so much - unless you only mean contemporary politics and don’t mind historical. Anyway, people are entitled to their opinions, having a political position is not a monopoly for some professional politician class.
Thanks for the video. I think you presented the issues really well. I know to keep it neutral, you put all of these topics on an equal footing but I think people need to keep in mind that disagreements about topics about one’s core identity (race, gender, disability, etc) can be much more painful than those on other interests a gamer has. Well done, overall!
Well said and in good faith unlike many of the discussions I've come across on this subject that is often more about creating villains.
The argument about the accuracy is completely out of the line.
Since when is "inaccurate" to say that the people of Africa and South America were enslaved?? Maybe I had bad history teachers but for what I know, that's exactly what happened.
No one is complaining about the accuracy of the game. They are complaining because it is about slavery. And because the players have play the part of the bad guy, who exploid their slaves as if they were resources instead of people. Which is something horrible, but historically accurate.
Following your example of the weapons in Undaunted North Africa, what Puerto Rico is doing is replacing the weapons with whater guns because the people feels bad knowing that there was a war...
In Jason Perez' first video on Puerto Rico, he explained that the colonist history depicted in the original version of the game was not history at all, but rather the mushing together of events over a period of several hundred years, which means the "story" of the game that players experienced was inaccurate. I didn't go into those details in my video. -WEM
I think we are in SENSITIVE times, with more awareness about race, history,...
But i feel everyone needs to CHILL.
& i am not a Caucasian. I am a Chinese & my part of the world was under colonisation.
Back to the topic. It’s not possible to offend no one. E.g. colour of meeple can be racism. Hence If you are not comfortable with a certain theme or something, you can don’t play the game, voice your opinions, but don’t get overly upset about it. It’s just a GAME & it’s intention was to have FUN & never to offend anyone.
Just as you suggested, people voiced their opinions. As a result, the publisher decided to change the game. That's the free market at work, with the publisher trying to do what it thinks will satisfy more potential buyers. -WEM
As a State-Side Puerto Rican with family on the island of Borinquen i appreciate that you highlighted this with the background info.
Imhotep also loosely involves slavery, with the construction of ancient Egyptian structures. I wonder if this will be next to get a re-theme?
You did a great job explaining both perspectives and the spectrum of thought which , as you mention, applies to many games (and products). Sometimes there are unintended connections, while others may argue they were intentional. It’s good to have discussions about games in the way you describe. What I feel is wrong is when people then make them into personal attacks like “you’re willing to play (or accept) this game because you are a colonizer, racist, etc, etc. “
Also, the other Lord of the Rings movies are awesome and worth watching! 🙂
I want to know what tweaks are done to the gameplay. Rebranding and fixes are useful. I want gameplay lending to expansions.
My understanding is that no changes were made to the game mechanisms, and I believe this version contains all official expansions and promos that have been released up to this point. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek I saw another video proposing multicolored workers, which I thought could be useful to add new mechanics. I hope it gets expansions because some of the bloom is off PR resulting it being surpassed.
Only watched the first LotR movies? Who are you?
I dug Elric and Piers Anthony's "incarnations" series, but Xanth and Stephen Donaldson and Tolkien never did anything for me. Different strokes... -WEM
@@boardgamegeek I guess for me as a 90s kid, Lord of the Rings movies were an event. I watched every single one at theaters. They also bring back a lot of nostalgia. Haven’t read the books though. But I’d really like to.
I was never and will never be embarassed by this game. Basically all this idea was intended to shame the orginal game, which was and will ever be a piece of art. So I have my edition, I'll, keep it and I let the ashamed and schocked who projected so much problems on a simple boardgame buy the new edition... I will not... Anyway we know how much BGG likes to do virtue signalling...
Great talk!
"tokens are coming on ships". At that time period ANYONE who traveled to Puerto Rico came on a ship. Airplanes had not been invented yet. Just sayin'
Great video well done and balanced.
Independent just before 1898?? 😂 Where is the accuracy in this new version? Just because Perez was in?
Good job, WEM. I might very well pick up this new version as my old one is worn out and old!
Very well said, not only from Puerto Rico but from several other games. Good job and congratulations.
One thing that bothers me aside from the implicit nod to slavery from the original version of Puerto Rico was highlight crops like corn and indigo, instead of historically more significant agricultural output in cotton, rice and cacao. I know in Jamaica, Barbados, the Virgin Islands and Trinidad and Tobago indigo production was a major agricultural cash crop, where in the US, South Carolina and Louisiana (Georgia somewhat) relied on producing plants for this blue dye, but from the literature I have encountered, I haven't seen a rich historic account of indigo industrial production being crucially important to the Puerto Rican economy, let alone around San Juan, which both features indigo as an important commodity in their namesake games. If the Puerto Rico 1897 is mechanically the same but presented more historically accurate, wouldn't indigo be replaced by another more historically important cash crop? Or by necessity needing to keep indigo for the sake of using blue barrels to break the color monotony of dark brown, light beige, tan and yellow barrels (without the blue, this is literally a very brown Euro) for the more historically important export crops?
I think Ravensburger missed an opportunity to tweak the game mechanics different or subtle ways (See the new Amun-Re, Madeira CE, Yedo Deluxe Master Set, La Granja Deluxe Master Set, Stefan Feld's City Collection). Small scale family farms prevalent for the era as mentioned by both Eric and Jason, would have some unique buildings specific for the era like banks to provide loans at a cost from production as repayment or fluctuations in the labor market affecting the profitability or some way to leverage technologies of the era to generate more efficiencies in crop yield, irrigation or pest mitigation. Additionally, simple weather events (implemented like in Snowdonia) such as drought, hurricanes, which result in flooding and rise of salinity in the soil would affect agricultural production. I guess if we are doing a cosmetic revamp to be historically accurate, then some mechanical aspects should change as well. The irony switching to small scale farmers of course, is the current reality of Puerto Rico is, despite it's rich agricultural history celebrated by this game, the actual modern populace is far more dependent on imported foodstuffs than those home-grown, primarily for export markets. If another game developer had been consulted refining this modernization overhaul, like a Vital Lacerda, we would be treated to micromanaging every aspect of the 1897 family farm to eke out enough tobacco or later sugar to survive another growing season. Now it would sound like Agricola (okay maybe Vinhos) but with a Caribbean twist. It's not as far fetched of an idea like New Frontiers aka Race for the Galaxy the Board Game inspired as Puerto Rico the card game but set space, to sanitize any link to actual history and only offend those who find lucrative alien and uplift gene worlds a challenge to their religious world view. I guess we can just stick to Kites, just go where the wind blows.
This is the kind of detail I like!
Tobacco has been set as the highest level crop to reflect its importance to the local farmers who are the new center of the game. Sugar and coffee were grown primarily on larger plantations by capitalists employing low wage labor. I kept the resources because they were crucial to PR export economy, but knocked down a peg in in-game value. I kept corn because, well, gamers like corn. PR imports most of its corn, but the common people know it well and do grow it on a subsistence level. Finally, I chucked Indigo as a total anachronism, replaced with Fruit. Really, it’s plantains (green), another culturally important crop.
Hope that helps!
But Puerto Rico (the board game) is such a tight, interactive and extremely competitive experience that changing even a single digit would create a massive ripple effect that completely changes the game into something that is simply not Puerto Rico (the board game). There are a lot of fans with thousands of plays (irl and online) that are still taking this 20 year old euro very seriously, to the point of organising world championships. They don't even look at the expansions
I would rather play a Ninja Turtle retheme that leaves the mechanics intact
Nicely argued. It makes me wonder why you would theme a game on a particular topic and then misrepresent it. I am disappointed when I see this in a game and then worry that the sloppiness in representing the theme may also be in the gameplay ie bad first impression.
If the only reason for the new edition, as Eric seems to suggest for the last third of this video, is HISTORICAL ACCURACY, then it would seem the game could have been reissued with one change: delete the word "colonists" in the rule book and substitute the word "slaves."
If I choose to play a game set in a specific historical time period, by the way, I don't impose my own morality on the game. I try to "live in the moral skin" of the character I portray in the game, whether I agree with their views or not. THAT'S what people generally mean when they use the phrase "it's just a game." They are well aware of the dichotomy between their own morality and the morality of the world they inhabit.
In Jason Perez' first video on Puerto Rico, he explained that the colonist history depicted in the original version of the game was not history at all, but rather the mushing together of events over a period of several hundred years, which means the "story" of the game that players experienced was inaccurate. I didn't go into those details in my video. -WEM
The old game needed more than one word swap. Slaves resisted and rebelled. Imagine if, after every production phase, the player rolled a d6. On a 4, the slave didn’t produce. On a 5, the slave disappeared (died/ ran away). On a 6, they made you discard one random crop. Now THAT would be closer to “living in the moral skin” of the time period. Read the original source documents, if you want to learn more. So much of it was managing slaves. This game with its “boss fantasy” perfect workers does not do any of that justice.
Cool, then. I think capitalism is an immoral system. I think all games that depict capitalism should be re-thought and designed to expose the evils at the root of capitalism.
@@chuckm1961 At the very least, I would like to see all economic games contain mechanisms to pay workers, or they go away. If we can't model all the evils of capitalism in board games (nor would we want to, because those would be big and un-fun), then at least we can teach the very basics.
There aren’t two sides to this argument, as much as there are two dispositions: easygoing or indignant. The indignant side contains both folks upset about the new version and the folks upset about the old.
Great take on the story and reason behind this new version of the same game. 👍
On BGG people complain about games deemed “colonialist” and that they are “immoral” or “unpleasant” - games on East India Company or Conquistadors or colonies, for example - and you are not allowed to challenge that view. Complaints about similar issues have seen Puerto Rico reskinned, Mombasa and Maracaibo criticised, etc. Yet the same considerations are not applied to other games that could be equally controversial, such as Viking raids, various Empires like Rome, Germans and Japanese in WWII, murderers like Jack the Ripper.
Because Euros are an entirely different genre of game. In a wargame, I generally know exactly what I’m getting, history-wise. Also, the other side can fight back in a war game. In a euro game, colonized people are 1) whitewashed so players DON’T know what they’re getting, and 2) have no agency and don’t fight back, which is ahistorical lies. They almost ALWAYS fought back, resisted, rebelled, etc.
Play war games, especially good historical ones. Avoid bad history Euro games.
@@ShelfStories What about the euros on Vikings, Rome, Ottomans, etc? Feast of Odin has raiding and pillaging, for example. Trading games featuring Romans or Ottomans with certainly have slaves in the background. Why are they different?
@@lohengrindrd depends on the game. I have criticized a number of the games you mentioned. Hadrian’s Wall lies about slaves, calling them “servants”. Gladiator games all pit slaves against one another. Games with casual raiding and pillaging are also not awesome. I have videos about all of this stuff. It’s all more ok if the game treats these things honestly and gives subjugated peoples the chance to resist and fight back. As long as games have that bare minimum (which old Puerto Rico and some others did not), then I’m willing to see what’s up.
@@ShelfStories Well at least you seem consistent, most others are not.
Thanks for the very good argument for (more or less) acurate representation and explaining so well and nicely (and “unaufgeregt” - a German word) why it is important to people and why that doesn’t need to ruffle any feathers with people for who it’s not important. :)
Ancient Rome was also horrible in many aspects, for example for slaves and non-citizens and neighbours. Do we have to ban games in that thematic?
What games are banned?
You need to re-read how the word "ban" is defined. It does not apply here.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen Yeah let's talk here more about "virtue washed"?
@@CarlosLopez-xi2rq you can get the old slave-based edition used. Not every game remains in print indefinitely anyway.
Rather, it is the older games that are "revisionist", kind of like how some Southerners manage to claim that the slaves were "happy" and far better off than if they had remained in Africa.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen I just got second hand the old edition (by the way I had the very first one which was too ugly, and the one I bought have two extensions in addition). You say it's a game about slavery, I just see it as a ressource & production management game. I am not woke, I don't need to see opression everywhere. I played this game again and again as it was, and I will continue playing it as it is. Until I die! I will not need the new edition. If this new edition gives more money to Andreas, who made among my favorite games of all times, I'll just be happy for him... You know... For me it's just another manifestation of virtue signalling...
Continue not carrying +1
No arms?
There is a "lot of unpleasantness buried under general descriptions" in thousand and thousands of game ... depending on your view of what "unpleasantness" is.
I think all war-based games are barbaric and immoral. So I'd like to see them all revised to focus on ways for people to bridge differences without resorting to killing each other.
I think all games based in capitalist systems are immoral, because capitalism is in itself immoral.
Feel free to make the games you wish to see in the world just like the folks who made this game did.
You can approach publishers and see how receptive they are to your suggestions.
What's different between wargames and PR is that I would expect certain things from a wargame (which is why I've avoided them) whereas I wouldn't expect slavery from an involved Eurogame. Now people won't be surprised in that manner. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek I would expect slavery from a Euro game set during a period of slavery. And I would expect slavery to be "assumed" and "ignored," as it largely was by those of the time period who were reaping profits and trying to convince themselves (to various degrees of effectiveness, I'm sure) that the people they were exploiting, killing and abusing were either not human or were somehow benefited.
@@twentysides That's a rather strange comment to make about a game that directly and openly claims to "fix" a prior game, which was made by a person who felt they were free to make the game they wished to see in the world.
Puerto Rico wasn't independent but had autonomy up to a degree. And had representation with vote in the courts in Spain which made it superior sociopolitically speaking than the so called commonwealth which is just a performed colonial status in which congress has complete authority over the island and Puerto Ricans have no say on the matter beyond what congress allows or not.
You just aren't loud enough. Maybe bring that microphone right up, turn it up, and really belt it out.
Ugh, no way! He already has so many weird, annoying mouth noises that I'm starting to suspect that he's secretly the voice of the G-Man in Half-Life. Putting the mic closer would be agony for listeners!
This is all great and we can always get games more accurate to what they are representing. I found it interesting though at 18:20 where you start to talk about Tobacco being the most valuable crop in the game "because tobacco was what was highly valued at that time by those people who were trying to fund their own livelihood. So you are representing the nature of who was there on Puerto Rico at that time in that game and you the player are now that person"
That is the exact same thing often said by people defending games that are suddenly deemed offensive (20 years after they were published) by some other people for some reason or another. There are probably people out there that are offended by the fact that the new Puerto Rico is glorifying tobacco farming and that you are profiting from it. A lot of people die from lung canser each year, because of tobacco and it's use. But as you said "tobacco was what was highly valued at that time by those people who were trying to fund their own livelihood. So you are representing the nature of who was there on Puerto Rico at that time in that game and you the player are now that person." Which I completely agree with. But are we now going to make another version of this game to make sure we don't offend those people too?
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to point out, in some instances, you're just never going to please everyone. Some one is always going to be offended by something. The question is, where's the line of where you start to go to the "It's one game among hundreds of thousands available, don't buy this if it bothers you." line that often those of us who say that follow our own advice and don't buy games that we are bothered by, and normally don't complain about them either.
This version does not glorify cigarette smoking. It is historical reality that, in 1897, tobacco was the “poor man’s crop” and allowed many independent farmers to live dignified lives. There are very good discussions to be had about that. But this game does not shine a spotlight on cigarette smoking in the way that the old game shone a spotlight on slaves on cargo ships and working plantations. Big difference.
@@ShelfStories Moreover, literally nobody is complaining about "tobacco and cancer in 1897" in this new version. It's the kind of "logical arguments" some people do to complain about the acknowledgement of moral issues in games or media, but it fails because it creates a supposedly "infinite slippery slope" that is non-existent. Slavery in Puerto Rico during colonial times is an issue to address. Tobacco in 1897 is not. Because nobody is complaining about it. The same way same-sex marriage creates some imaginary "future problems" about it, like "yeah what if people then want to marry their dogs ha? HA? what about TAHT?"
@@pablogfmovil We'll see what happens in 20 years I suppose. Anyway, thank you both for making my point.
@@MurrRockstroh Nothing is gonna happen in 20 years. We are not proving your point, because we are not offended at anything. We just disagree with your point of view. Some things deserve to be readapted, like a game about slavery, because enough people expressed their concerns about it. Literally nobody is complaining about your imaginary problem of "evil tobacco". If enough people had also expressed concerns about it, well, it would have merited another look, maybe in ten years we would have another theme again. That's how humanity makes progress, by agreeing to things and evolving. I'm not saying there isn't an issue of people overreacting to "offensive things". Those people exist. But having a new edition of a game decades after the original established a certain unquestionable controversy, that's not overreacting. That's the market adjusting to healthy changes in society. You are free not to buy the new edition if you don't like it. I haven't bought the old one, this one I may give it a try 🤷
People can save their money and just swap out the brown tokens....that would run you a few dollars. This is just a cash grab
Only if people want what they're selling, which is far more than a different set of tokens. -WEM
Seriously??? It’s a game… a game. I bet you guys are the life of the party… lol. Get over yourselves.
Good start, but preference would be to stop selling the RACIST SLAVE TRADING game. Apathy or obliviousness is never a reason to condone racism.
It is probably worse to now have a Racist original version and a new nonracist version.
I'm not sure what you mean. You'd rather have only the original Puerto Rico without also having Puerto Rico 1897? Am I misunderstanding you? -WEM
@@boardgamegeek Releasing a new version without denouncing the old version is akin to creating water fountains for those who want equality and keeping the old way for those that dont. You lend credence to the argument that the company only created the "new version " for show so they can appear progressive. In reality they also still make money off the racist version. Its facetious .
For instance, say you have a policy where black people arent allowed on your golf field. But then you start a new policy that says that black people are allowed every other tuesdya and during certain org events (this actually happened to me when i worked as a marketing director for a nonprofit renting the facility).
We backed out of the event because their "comparomise" wasn't enough. It pushed the idea even further actually.
@@nathanmichael167 I have repeatedly denounced the old version in my videos. Ravensberger agrees, they stand by my denunciation, and they will no longer print the old version. It’s all the new version moving forward. They cannot make all the millions of old copies wink out of existence. But they refuse to stand by them. Good enough for me.
@@ShelfStories This is awesome news to hear. From the video, it sounded like the old version was still going to be in print.
I remember when i first got into gaming i grabbed this game on a recommendation and because of its BGG status and first played it at thanksgiving dinner. My grandmother wanted to know why we were playing a game about the same slavery her grandmother was locked into. It was embarrassing. I had no answers. It never fathomed to me that a game would even think as a cool idea.
It's great to hear that it will no longer be in print.