It comes up from time to time in discussions about our hobby--will any of the games we're playing now achieve "classic" status? There are commercial classics like Monopoly, Risk, and Scrabble, as well as cultural or timeless classics like Go, Chess, and Poker. That's an awfully high standard for any game to achieve, even ones we think so highly of on our game nights and gamesdays. What does complexity or availability have to do with it? And is the world just so different today that games have a different path to achieve that status?
The conversation is long, but a particularly good one. I think so, anyway. I told my guest, Greg Pettit, afterward that this is just the sort of subject I enjoy tackling in the podcast. Because I always enjoyed reading about it from the likes of Peter Sarrett, Mike Siggins, or Greg Aleknevicus. That's good company to be in!
We go back & forth between philosophical descriptions of classics, and considerations of individual titles. Partway through the show, Greg poses a wonderful question about what games we might put in a 50 or 100-year time capsule, wanting to show future generations how wonderful, entertaining, and creative these games are . . . even if those future people are used to playing virtual reality, holographic, full-sensory "videogames" and zipping around in their flying cars. :-)