text:
Talk:Board game

Miscellaneous
We definitely need to come up with a better classification here, at some point. It's a good start, but games like Abalone and Die Siedler really defy any coarse classification. Perhaps nested classification pages, with games existing on multiple pages? I'm planning on adding entries for a few more games that we play regularly, most of which won't quite fit anywhere in here. Don't take this as anything other than a random thought. :) -- Phil Bordelon

Some useful classifications of games may be: - I agree that the present classification scheme is inadequate, and the article as written is confusing. "Proprietary games" is a ridiculous category, for starters, and the "war game" category has a big description with no examples. I have several suggestions which I will implement as time permits if there are no objections.
 * minimum and maximum number of players
 * whether all information is available to all players
 * whether a random generator (dice, card shuffle, etc.) is used before and/or during play
 * in games that use randomness, whether the players have any control over the outcome of the game. Games for small children that are entirely based on chance include Candy Land, Chutes and Ladders, and Care Bears Warm Feelings.
 * "Proprietary game" is a game protected by a patent in a major market. --Damian Yerrick

 * Right, my point was not that the category is ill-defined, but that it is not very relevant. For example, the proprietaty game Balderdash is almost identical to the non-proprietary game Dictionary or Fictionary.  For 9 out of 10 readers, Balderdash and Dictionary should be in one group, and chess and Abalone in another group.  It would be less useful to have Balderdash and Abalone in one group (proprietary) and chess and Dictionary in another (non-proprietary).  --Karl Juhnke

I suspect that this page has become too cluttered because it is more active than some other pages. If there is a better category, we should offload from this page to that page, and merely link.
 * We should move all word games which merely happen to be board games to the "letter games" page. Anagrams is played without a board and Scrabble is played with a board, but those games bear much greater kinship to each other than either does to chess.
 * We should create a page for "Party Games" that large numbers of people (say 8-15) can play. Charades, Outburst, Trivial Pursuit, Balderdash and so on belong together even though one game has a board, another uses words, another is about guessing, etc.
 * Wargames, if they are not abstract, probably also deserve recognition apart from board games. The attraction of such games has a great deal to do with simulation, and spills over into miniatures games where there might not be a board.  The distinction between a simulation-type wargame and boardgame abstracted from war simulation is fuzzy, of course, but real.  Chess, Stratego, and Risk are all abstract enough to be boardgames, whereas Axis and Allies, Advanced Squad Leader, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, and Flintloque are all more interested in simulation.

That leaves the board game article to deal with
 * two-player games of perfect information (chess, Abalone)
 * two-player games with chance or imperfect information (backgammon, Stratego)
 * mulit-player no-elimination games (Clue, Empire Builder, Settlers of Catan)
 * multi-player elimination games (Diplomacy, Monopoly)

Certainly this outline won't catch all types of games; some board games will fit two categories and some won't fit any. Still, since there must be some grouping, let the grouping be based on the way people tend to think about games when they are considering what to play of an evening.

I am very interested in other opinions, both before and during my re-organization. --Karl Juhnke

I'd say split two-player games with chance or imperfect information into games where imperfect information known by at least one player dominates (Stratego), games where chance dominates (backgammon), and games where neither dominates. I'd also create an additional category for multi-player "games" completely determined by chance, where the players have no control of the outcome. These tend to be played by small children. Examples include Candy Land, Chutes and Ladders, Care Bears Warm Feelings, etc. --Damian Yerrick

 * I agree that children's games deserve their own category. --Karl Juhnke

I Agree with alot of what is said here, It was sort of hard to find the information on some of the games because they are indirectly linked or cluttered and such. Personally, I think they should be sorted by Objective, seeing has how most games do follow common goals. Capture all pieces, Checkmate, highest points, lowest points, reaching the end, etc. Sure, there will be games that don't have a common goal, but there is no way you could make a few all encompassing categories, anyway you look at it. That's one of the great thing about all the games in the world, some of them are truly unique.

By the by, I'd love to help if there is anything I could be handy for, I'm fairly educated in the world of abstract games. (board games and card games), and I have plenty of free time (sorry about all the updates, my connection was being funny) -- Alex Stevens

I think we should stick to categorizing by type, as that more than any other factor is likely to be what the average user wants. The other possible categorizations could be used, but I don't think that the main board game article is the place for them. For instance most people wouldn't care if perfect play was possible in a game, but we should have a page about board games in which perfect play is possible.

On the "propriety" issue, where a game is essentially a propriety version of a classic game we should only list the classic version on this page, with the propriety versions name given only in the particular games page, alternatively it could be given in brackets after the classical games name.

Also "track games", in standard texts I've seen these type of game referred to as "race games", I think we should adopt this title. Also I believe Monopoly should be dropped from this list.

Incidently anyone trying to find information on obscure games, I'd recommend RC Bell's "Board and Table Games from amny Civilizations" (1960) and HJR Murray's "History of Board Games other than Chess" (1952). -- Imran Ghory

-

OK, I have taken the plunge and reorganized the whole page. I have eliminated the category of "proprietary game", and put all the games that were there in other categories. Perhaps more controversially, I have eliminated the category of "race games". My rationale is that when people are interested in playing a game, most probably they want to know something else first, other than that it is a race game. Candy Land, Backgammon, and Careers are all race games of a sort, but are appropriate in very different settings. I submit that backgammon has greater affinity to two-player games than to Candy Land, Careers has more affinity to The Settlers of Catan than to backgammon, etc.

I know that different people will approach the page with different objectives, which means that different categories will interest different people. The historian has a different interest in games than a mathematician, for example. The categorization I settled on is intended to be from the perspective of the gamer. I and a friend (or friends) want to play a game, and I am looking for a game that would be right for the situation.

As always, comments and corrections are welcome. --Karl Juhnke

-

I think we should keep the race game category, as the games are clearly related. For instance players who play Ludo often go onto play Backgammon, which is very similiar in principle. In the same way Ludo is a step up from Snake and Ladders (Chutes and Ladders).

(I haven't played CandyLand or Careers so I can't comment on them)

Also I think we should seperate hidden information and random element game.

Another point Risk isn't a multiplayer elimination games, if played with cards it can just require certain objectives are met.

On a final point, I don't think we should limit games to single categories, if a game fits into two categories then list it under both.

On an extra final point Pachisi isn't a children's game.

--Imran

I moved Pachisi. I see the family resemblance between Ludo and Backgammon, and how learning the mechanics of Ludo would make backgammon easier to learn. I admit that the category of "race games" is a legitimate classification. Yes, the games are clearly related. But even though they are related, I still don't like having the category.

From a gamer's perspective it makes sense to break down games differently. The backgammon player is more likely to enjoy another two-player game of luck+skill than he is to enjoy another race game of almost entirely luck.

I can see some benefit to having games appear under more than one classification, but there is a trade-off involved. Every additional category makes the page more cluttered and difficult to navigate. Where does one draw the line with new categories? For example, if we start categorizing by objective (win the race), shouldn't we also have a new category for "making the most money" games, and "immobilize the opponent" games, etc.?

 * If there are enough in the category (say at least two major established games, and some others) then I think we should add it. Race games and positional games (Halma, Morris) are just as legitimate categories as elimination or war games. --Imran

 * Yes, I agree that they are legitimate categories. We have no dispute there.  My position is that we just because something is a legitimate category doesn't mean we should include it.  I don't think our goal is to classify board games in as many good ways as we can think of, but rather to pick one good way of classifying and stick to it.  By the way, that seems to be the method of all good books on games: not every author classifies the same way, but it is rare (in my experience) to see a game listed in chapter 2 and then cross-indexed in chapter 5. --Karl Juhnke

And then the historian may want to classify based on the date of invetion. "Ancient games", "Games invented in the last fifty years", etc. And the mathematician will want to classify Husker Du (a.k.a. memory a.k.a. concentration) as a game of imperfect information rather than a children's game, etc.

 * Well I wrote the history of board games article, and I don't really feel any need to sort by date, but if I did they could easily fit into that article. The same could apply to any other specialist categorization. --Imran

My preference, therefore, is to do the best we can to avoid listing any game twice. No classification system will be perfect, but a unified system is much to be desired, even if there is more than one principle on which it _could_ be based.

Oh, and as to Risk, I forgot that it has evolved from being a pure elimination game as it was when I first learned it. But it still belongs in the elimination category, because players can be wiped out even when assignment cards are used, and then they may have nothing to do until the next game starts. I will modify the description to include possible elimination. --Karl Juhnke

I have started up a page about classifying games in general; Maybe we can continue this discussion over there if need be. --Fritzlein 16:20 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)

I removed this list from the article:
 * ==European race games==

 * Game of the Goose
 * Tour of Europe
 * Round the World with Nellie Bly
 * Game of Japan
 * The Sun of Brunswick
 * Jeu du Grand-Homme
 * Circle of Knowledge
 * Peter Rabbit's Race Game

I don't think many people would consider "European Race Games" a genre unto itself. If anyone cares to, they could add some of these games to other lists, though they sound pretty obscure to me. —Frecklefoot 13:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * That's because most of them are from the 18th/19th century, while this class of game isn't very common today, it was once very important and many of todays games companies (including Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, and Chad Valley) started out by producing this kind of game. It was also these games that allowed for the first European board game companies to exist as companies in their own right (as opposed to being part of a lithograph/publishing company). Although many of them could be classified as chance games or in a generalized "race game" category, I think they are distinctive enough to qualify for their own category. --Imran 20:12 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I can see your point, Imran. The category is fairly distinctive, especially since the games are seldom played today.  I earlier argued for the page to be grouped from a gamer's point of view, but a class of historical games may deserve its own heading, as the gamer would have no opinion.  My only problem with the list being in the main board game article is a lack of articles behind it.  If each game were backed by good information, as well as the heading having its own article, then I think it would be a fine format for the information, and the best place in Wikipedia for it to appear. --Fritzlein 22:14 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Perhaps a seperate article for the european race games would be more appropriate, as more can probably be said about these games as a genre than could be said about the individual games. --Imran 22:56 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

We have a slight categorization problem here. Several of the games linked under word games and party games do not have a board. Apples to Apples, Taboo, Anagrams, and I think several other games are played with cards and other equipment not including a board.

I see several possible solutions:
 * 1) Do nothing, and let the board games article serve as a catch-all for all games that bear some resemblance to board games.
 * 2) Remove the games that are not board games. For example, under word games we include only word games which are board games too, but delete word games which aren't board games.
 * 3) Remove all party games and word games from this article, and simply leave a link to those other categories.

My personal preference is for the latter option. Let's not try to maintain two lists of word games, one on the word games page and one on the board games page. Instead let's put prominent links to those other pages, and maintain all the links to individual games over there.

Since I don't want to maintain lists in two places, I look for the more compelling category. In my mind, "word game" has a stronger hold over Scrabble than "board game".

It there are no objections, I will implement this proposal when I get around to it. --Fritzlein 20:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know the game PARFUDREZ and I don't think it is a Classic two-player abstract strategy game

 * The only Google hits for PARFUDREZ are for Wikipedia and sites that copy Wikipedia content. I'll remove it. --Zundark 12:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * And yet it seems that an article entitled PARFUDREZ was deleted 18:55, 9 Jun 2004 as being a copyvio. How can this be?  Incidentally I suspect  may be a cache of this article. -Blotwell 01:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Luck in chess
The article states "Some games, such as chess, have no luck involved." This is only true in theory. Chess is a deterministic game, that is the desicion tree for all chess games can be (trivialy) constructed. However to represent the desicion tree more bits than atoms in the universe must be used. Therefore it is not practical to construct. Hence there must be luck involved in playing chess. Søren Olesen (2. nov 2005)

 * Not any more luck than me touching my nose with my index finger. It can't be proved that a bird won't swoop down between the two, or that I'll live long enough to complete the task.  Using your definition, luck becomes a meaningless term.  There is no 'luck' involved in playing chess as most boardgamers define the term.  It's a random element of the game that has the potential to benefit some while hindering others, or only affecting a subset of the total player base.  Chaos is a related but different term, often confused with luck.  Chaos is the inability to predict the flow of the game.  Chess might have chaos, but it certainly doesn't have what most people refer to as luck.  I suppose all multiplayer games have a certain amout of chaos.  Eric Mowrer (2 Nov 2005)
 * What is the difference between luck and random element ? Søren Olesen (3. nov 2005)

 * Søren, the "atoms in the universe" description helps visualize the complexity of chess for sure, but I don't think supports anything on the luck vs. strategy front. Why do you presume that a player needs to render a decision tree or any portion of it in their head in order (or elsewhere) to make a non-luck-based decision?  A decision tree (if complete and followed without mistake) could lead to optimal play in chess.  However, to act strategically does not require full knowledge of optimal actions.  Or do you believe otherwise? --Ds13 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you presume that a player needs to render a decision tree or any portion of it in their head in order (or elsewhere) to make a non-luck-based decision? Because it is the only way to prove that the move was the optimal move. The definition from the article states One way of defining board games are between those based upon luck and strategy. I have showed that it is not possible to play optimally in chess, therefore there must be luck involved. Søren Olesen (3. nov 2005)
 * I disagree. Lack of optimal play does not mean lack of strategic play.  Playing optimally can, sometimes, be proven mathematically and optimal play would appear to be the best strategy if the knowledge (and brainpower or CPU time) is available.  Playing strategically means playing with a plan, and that plan need not be optimal.  In complex games, warfare, business, etc. strategies can rarely be proven to be optimal or not yet the fact that one is following a plan, intending to achieve a goal, means they are playing strategically. --Ds13 16:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ordering of external links
This article is rather vulnerable to link spam. Anybody with board games to sell, or ads that they want readers to see, is tempted to put their own links in the external link-lists at the end of this article.

Just now an editor added a link to the front of the Play online section. There were about a dozen links there already. Why should the new link get to go first? It's true that we don't have a clear guideline for the order of the external links, but it seemed odd to put a new link in front of all the others. I suspected link spam, but I checked the link to make sure. It turned out I was wrong: the new link led to a modest Java chessboard with a couple of unobtrusive Google ads. Nothing horrid.

But still, my intuition is that proud page-owners should get in line. Put new links at the end, please. A link added at the front of a list is a warning sign of spam, and an editor could be forgiven for reverting it without checking. ACW 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Strange sentence
The article contains the following sentence:

 * The rise of computers has also led to a relative decline in the most complicated board games, as they require less space, and are easier to set up and clear away.

I do not understand what it tries to say. Does the sentence mean that computer games have replaced complicated board games, since computer games require less space and are easier to set up and clear away? Or that computerized versions of complicated board games have replaced cardboard versions of complicated board games? Or that people prefer complicated board games to simple board games, since complicated games require less space and are easier to set up and clear away? (Well, at least go and chess are such complicated board games.) Or that computers have somehow affected people so that they want to have things that require more space and are more difficult to set up and clear away? (The last theory would at least explain the popularity of Microsoft products.)Punainen Nörtti 12:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that it meant games like Dungeons and Dragons or large war simulations had declined in popularity since computer games can handle all the bookkeeping details of large simulations. I clarified the sentence like so:
 * The rise of computers has also led to a relative decline in the most complicated board games, as computers require less space, and the games don't have to be set up and cleared away.

Don Kirkby 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I also want to challenge this. Complex games, such as 18xx, Titan, Advanced Civilization, etc, are easier to play on the computer, than in person. That's not a relative decline, that's helpful. Keybounce (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"You Play It"
An anonymous editor added a link to the "Online Play" subsection of the "External Links" section. It feels like a borderline adlink to me. The referenced site seems fairly benign, but it's (free) registration-only, and I could not assess the content without registering. I didn't register.

Probably the link was inserted by people affiliated with the "You Play It" site. This isn't intrinsically bad, I hasten to emphasize, though I was a little put off by the repetition of some ad-like verbiage ("many famous games") from the site's splash page. Despite the phrase "many famous games", the splash page lists only about half a dozen, none of which I had heard of.

So, anyway, I toned down the adspeak a little, and fixed a punctuation error, and left the link in. What should happen next is that some intrepid neutral editor should register at "You Play It" and make sure that everything is on the up-and-up. I'm afraid I'm feeling rather extrepid tonight. ACW 02:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Link spam
My apologies to the good people at azumos online, but it looked like a small site selling board games. It didn't appear to have any features that allow you to play or discuss board games.

What's the etiquette for removing something that looks like link spam? Justify it in the discussion page, or just nuke it and wait for it to come back if it's valid?

Don Kirkby 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

find purely luck based games such as Top Trumps quite boring
I don't quite comprehend how Top Trumps is purely luck. Anybody who has played the game knows that whilst the cards are dealt randomly you will have to use your 'skill' to choose the most appropriate attribute to compare against your opponent. Whilst there is luck on whether or not they have a better card than you, you do have an influence on the outcome of the game by your choices.

Don't particularly care either way whether this stays or not, but I would say a game such as snakes & ladders is a much better example of purely luck-based gaming (unless someone wants to suggest that one can throw a dice with degree of accuracy). ny156uk 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. Good suggestion. —ptk✰fgs 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Game piece (or token or bit)
surely you have missed out "counter". that is a far more common term for a game piece than token or bit, at least where i'm from.

WP:OR on Lucky, Strategy, and Diplomacy Section
I'm not an expert in board games, but this section smacks of WP:OR. It definitely needs sources and to get away from the passive voice. For example the opening sentence: "One way to categorize board games is to distinguish ..." fails to answer the question of 'Who is doing this categorizing?' Burzmali 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

LCD boardgame
The Phillips Entertaible may soon revolutionise board games and make it possible to play a huge number of them at lower costs (lcd-screen only needs to be purchased once). As such, it should be included into the article.

Info on this:
 * info on entertaible by geek.com
 * Phillips's official press release

Thanks KVDP (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know if this should be added to this article, or how it should be brought up if it is to be added. Here are the points that I see for adding/not adding it:
 * For: It is an up-and-coming "board game" technology that has the potential of revolutionizing how board games are played.
 * Against: It isn't out yet, it is from a single company (and could be seen as advertising), and it isn't technically a "board" game.
 * Let's discuss this and see if a consensus develops before we add it. — Val42 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If and when it manages to "revolutionise board games", we could consider adding a link to its existing article. Currently, it seems much less influential than computer game versions of Risk, Monopoly, Settlers, etc. which do not appear in the article. Certes (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mancala is not a race game
Mancala is falsly classified a race game her. The "sowing" of the game pieces (usually seeds) is movement along a circular track, but there is no start, finish etc. Players each own half of the board and the pieces alternate between those halves. No racing invlolved. Mancala is an abstract strategy game with a focus on counting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.24.242 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiangqi in timeline
The timeline claims the first reference to Xiangqi is around 79BC. However, the History of Chess article says Xiangqi arose from Chaturanga after 600AD. Xiangqi entry in time lines either needs to be cited or removed. Readin (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Game history
Taken out of comments embedded in the actual page....

And can we please have some descriptions/definitions of things, instead of just making lists of non-English words? For all I know, these are games where Indians and Iranians throw Sno-Cones at each other. Come on. -SB 15 September 2008

 * Many of these missing citations can be found within H J R Murray 'History of Board Games other than Chess' p 12 to 36 and footnotes to the relevant reports of excavations etc are given there. --Salisbury-99 17 September 2008

 * I think we can all agree that the current history section is atrocious. I started work on completely redoing it at one point, but haven't gotten anywhere to speak of. Anyone who wants to go in and propose a draft, or sections, or whatever should feel free to do so.

 * My main thought is to drop the 'laundry list' completely. A lot of the ancient stuff should go. (At least as long it's here. A separate History of board games article would have room for it all.--that blue link is a redirect to here...) We should demonstrate that the origins of board games are lost in the mists of time, but we don't have to beat people over the head with it. From there we can go on to things a little more relevant to the current perception of board games. A full history needs doing, but for this general article, we need something that's a jumping off point.

 * If we can put together a readable history section, it'll do a lot to make this article something that I won't be embarrassed to see in Wikipedia 0.7, which this just got auto-nominated for. --Rindis (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Based on the above comments, I would like (soon) to temporarily reinstate the comment about many citations available in the Murray book. A precis of those 24 pages, amended where possible by more recent work, should be the guts of the article. Should the citation be to Murray or to the Murray-citation? If to the Murray citation, then what is the advice on where a citation should end? For example should references to Freud's casework be to the notes of the actual case or to the book where it is written about? Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * If you're reading about Freud in Murray, cite Murray (even for a direct quote), if you go find Freud's work and have it in front of you, cite that. Basically, cite what you have. Also, the talk about where info for the article can be found is talking about the article, not the subject of the article, and that's what this talk page is for. A "further reading" section mentioning his work would be fine. (Which I see we already have.)
 * As for citing, use an in-line cite, presumably using the template. give the reference a name (you can see that done in the Senet reference), and then every time you use it again, just give "  ", and it will reference the same footnote. I believe you shouldn't need to give a (same) reference more than once a paragraph. We'll work it out once we start work, but go see WP:CIT and WP:FOOT. ~_^ --Rindis (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

overall
I find the introduction oversimplified and yet there is unnecessary detail. The second sentence is ghastly and meaningless.

I no longer like the sequence of sections. I will be working on a revision asap. Where is the best place to put this for comment and some chance of consensus?
 * Intro

 * Categories

 * Common Terms

 * Timeline (and so able to refer to categories)

 * Alternative Categorisation - Luck, Skill, Strategy

 * Further Reading

 * Links

I would hope that more 'meaningful' pictures could be obtained especially for the top. Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound bad, though I would say 'history' instead of 'timeline'. I think a general prose overview is to be much preferred in such a general article than a list of dates that will make the new reader's eyes skip to the next section (or just glaze over completely. Though, perhaps alternative categorization should be a subsection of 'categories'. Give a way to do it, and then give the alternate methods, instead of coming back to the subject later.
 * What do you think a 'meaningful' picture would be? Not that we can't do better, I just don't know what you have in mind. --Rindis (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I have done a re-sort and chop at my own talk-page. Have a look. (By the way, do you assess that R C Bell is 'notable' or not?). Salisbury-99 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * R. C. Bell sounds like he should be notable, assuming that the books listed are considered authoritative/informative on the subject (which I assume to be the case). But, the best way to be considered notable on Wikipedia is to find outside references that talk about the subject. So, say you find a book about board games that mentions Bell's work. If it also says a couple things about Bell himself, you can put that info on the page, cite it, and do a lot for establishing notability. There's further guidelines for people at WP:BIO, but I don't know much about them.

 * Article: In general, I'm not happy with your version, but it is certainly an improvement (of course, I've put lots of effort into wargaming, and I'm not happy with it). Note that you can make subpages off of your userpage, such as User:Rindis/Sandbox, which is where I store my drafts-to-be-worked-on. I think it might be easier for you to work on drafts that way. Also, it would be best to trim out the administrative stuff like categories in your draft, so that your talk page doesn't get listed at Category:Board games. There's a bunch of niggling grammar problems and the such, but that kind of cleanup can wait until the content is in shape. Comments by section (many of which are coming straight out of the current article...):

 * In the interests of simplicity for the reader, I would still avoid a separate bullet mention of miniatures and RPGs, and their relationship with board wargames. Each bullet point should be a category of board games. We don't have to give all the relationships between various types of tabletop games all at once.

 * I would define boards as rectangular (I can't think of any odd-shaped boards that also aren't quadrilateral anyway.) Also, there are articles for counter (board wargames) and hex map that can be linked to.

 * The history section has become a laundry list of ancient games, and should be more of an overview of 'board games through the ages'. Maybe someday I'll actually get to writing on that. :P

 * Recent changes sounds like it could become an interesting section. I don't know where the pinball stuff is coming from though....

 * Psycology is incomplete. However, it's a subject that hasn't gotten a lot of attention, so I don't know how much can be said. :(

 * Hope that helps some! --Rindis (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ball" board games
Given the advent of Velcro, there are games played on a round, ball-shaped board.

The one I have seen (and used to own before it got lost) was called "O". It had 12, 24, or 30 velcro spaces (depending on the size), and half were covered by each person's pieces. Play was much like checkers -- you jump pieces, but instead of removing them from the game, you took one piece off the top of the stack, and put it underneath your moving stack. A stack with many of your pieces on top was strong (hard to capture), but the only way to get that was to feed into an enemy stack, and then recapture it.

Unlike games where you gain an increasing power overwhelm as you capture more stuff, in this game capturing too much, too quickly will hurt you.

I do not know if there are any other "ball" games like this, but not all board games are on flat boards. Keybounce (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Play Jiroft Board game
We developed the Jiroft game. I placed the direct link in external link section but someone has deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.6.140 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to advertise your board game. Please take a look at WP:ELNO. --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Board Game Geek is the best resource
I don't know why someone removed Board Game Geek from external resources, but it's one of the best resources on the internet about board games and was rightfully linked on this page. I propose to returned it back and will do so if nobody will provide reasonable cont-arguments.

Here's the link to the change that was made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_game&diff=prev&oldid=334178690

--Sergey Chernyshev (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I've restored the link. Presumably the unregistered editor wanted to avoid a long list of fan sites, but BoardGameGeek is as appropriate a link for this article as the Internet Movie Database is for film. EALacey (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kurna myth
Some would-be encyclopedians continue to insert wrong information. These vandals should be banned.

About the Kurna myth:

"According to R. C. Bell, the earliest known board for the game includes diagonal lines and was "cut into the roofing slabs of the temple at Kurna in Egypt" c. 1400 BCE.[10] However, Friedrich Berger writes that some of the diagrams at Qurna include Coptic crosses, making it "doubtful" that the diagrams date to 1400 BCE. Berger concludes, "certainly they cannot be dated."[1]""

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Men%27s_Morris#History

"The Kurna (or Qurna) Temple graffiti were published by Parker in 1909 (although his book dealt with... Ceylon!) and were reproduced, with some slight "improvements", by Murray in his book "A History of Board Games other than Chess" (1952). Since then nobody has seen them! Some archaeologists with an interest in board-game history have tried to find them but found only a few of them, and their conclusion is that they cannot be dated with certainty. One of these designs (reproduced by Parker and, after a drastic simplification, by Murray) appears to be Coptic! Others are better related to Roman board games... None of the so-called "mancala" boards have been observed! All egyptologists say they have never encountered anything like mancala in the rich Egyptian tradition of table games. We cannot relie on such a poor evidence.

''In fact the earliest certain data we have on mancala games come from Axum (Ethiopia) and would date from the 6th-7th century AD. Archaeologists found there, during excavations, some 'gabata' boards made with clay and easy to date with the context. According to Pankhurst and others Ethiopia is likely to be the birthplace of mancalas but this doesn't seem to have happened before the Christian era."''

Source: Thierry Depaulis Paris, France -- Board Game Studies Editor

--93.193.107.236 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

History
I think some clarity is required here especially with respect to the timeline cited. I think that a clearer declaration of what is being used for the timelines. What counts as the game being identified as the game itself. First - the exclusion of Oware / Mancala from the timeline should be clearly stated. Since it is the oldest known game and is in its current form played on a board. Second - Some of the references are from sources that although widely quoted are questionable in view of partiality. (Consider is it likely that a die was invented before a draughts piece) Third - Backgammon according to a book in the 1960s is only about 200 years old the other forms of dice race games only have a tenuous connection to the game. Obviously other than the written records of Go it is difficult when dealing with issues more than ~2500 years ago but some clear indication is needed. (Tetron76 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Luck, strategy and diplomacy
This section makes mainly valid points, but it is the exclusion of various strategies that makes the whole section questionable. It would be possible to add various refs but I am concerned this might be more misleading by giving an implied endorsement. (Tetron76 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

In the picture it says that Damah (Dama?) requires luck as well as strategy. If this is the same game as Dama (Turkish Draughts), I don't see how you can justify it requiring luck at all. Its a perfect information abstract strategy game. Unless someone can cite Damah being different from Dama, I'm going to change it and link it to Turkish Checkers. T0afer (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)T0afer

Pictures
This article has only two pictures depicting modern board games, and neither of them shows the actual board. This article is called "Board game", not "History of board games". J I P | Talk 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. They're great pictures, but they really don't match the amount of weight given in the article text. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will add some pictures of board games. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How abstract is Scrabble?
Well, I didn't think this would require a talk page discussion, but here goes: Scrabble has recently been added to this sentence in the article lead paragraphs: "Their representation of real-life situations can range from having no inherent theme (e.g. checkers, scrabble), to having a specific theme and narrative (e.g. Cluedo)." I reverted it out, and my reversion has been reverted. My reasoning for removing Scrabble from this sentence seems to have been misapprehended. Scrabble is indeed a board game. But here it is being used as an exemplar of a board game that has no "inherent theme" and by implication no "representation of real-life". As I tried to explain in my edit summary, the fact that letters and words are a primary component of this game -- even though they are indeed being used abstractly -- makes this game impinge on "real life" more strongly than, say, checkers; also the game resembles -- by design -- a crossword puzzle, so that in a limited sense Scrabble presents precisely a "representation of real-life". Don't get me wrong: Scrabble is actually pretty abstract. But it is not so utterly abstract that it should serve as a defining exemplar in the lead paragraphs of this article. I am not an edit warrior, so I will not be re-reverting. I will hope my reasoning is solid enough for someone else to bother to fix this. Phil wink (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I didn't read it properly. Scrabble doesn't need to be in the article. Scrabble taken back out. No hard feelings. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

More references needed
I've added some refs and a new market section. I couldn't find numbers for European/German market size, and what I found may suffer from differing definitions of what is a board game market (ex. are card games included or not...), but it's a start. Some sources I found can be used to reference rest of the article, which is mostly unreferenced and seems to suffer from much WP:OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807161116/http://www.mercurians.org/Nov_99/info_networks.html to http://www.mercurians.org/Nov_99/info_networks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160117021100/http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/pdf/2000/200904.pdf to http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/pdf/2000/200904.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601124655/https://www.shutupshow.com:80/post/34426556753/su-sd-present-the-board-game-golden-age to http://www.shutupshow.com/post/34426556753/su-sd-present-the-board-game-golden-age
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105035853/https://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/113_48931.html to http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/113_48931.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918080211/http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Piccione/index.html to http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Piccione/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrejsi.cz/clanky/dama1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shutupshow.com/post/34426556753/su-sd-present-the-board-game-golden-age
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2HEzwndjrVQ
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105041205/http://menstream.pl/wiadomosci-reportaze-i-wywiady/pamietacie-eurobiznes-oto-wielki-powrot-gier-planszowych-dla-ktorych-oni-zarywaja-noce%2C0%2C1288179.html to http://menstream.pl/wiadomosci-reportaze-i-wywiady/pamietacie-eurobiznes-oto-wielki-powrot-gier-planszowych-dla-ktorych-oni-zarywaja-noce%2C0%2C1288179.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221075513/http://www.lpboardgame.com/board-games-simple-chinese-board-game-market-overview/ to http://www.lpboardgame.com/board-games-simple-chinese-board-game-market-overview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510075137/http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/magazine/17-04/mf_settlers?currentPage=all to http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/magazine/17-04/mf_settlers?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Board game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521002940/http://parenting.uwex.edu/parenting-the-preschooler/documents/board_games.pdf to http://parenting.uwex.edu/parenting-the-preschooler/documents/board_games.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Amer
Seda Seda5599 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Tidying up this article
Guys this article is an absolute mess from start to finish. Even in the opening sentence - is a board game necessarily a tabletop game? Both 'Mafia' and 'Sudoku' are listed as samples of different types of board games under the categories heading, neither of which are tabletop games. Also in the lead section, Dungeons and Dragons is listed - undeniably a tabletop game, but to say it's a board game is tenuous at best, apart from the spin off board game version which is not well known.

Further, the categories section is horrendous to look at - perhaps we should consider making a separate list of board game categories?

Over the next while, I'm going to do some serious rearranging of this article, but please talk to me if you think I do something wrong or go too far.

Cheers, Xx78900 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem of definitions is a complex one. For example, the are board games that don't have a board, for example card games, which are classified (for example by Woods in his book on Eurogames, the only in-depth academic study of modern games I am aware of) as board games. You can play some games with an app too. There are party games that blur the line between board and action, consider charades and such. I think role-playing games are not board games, they are a separate type of gaming but both rpgs and board games (which include card games, miniature games, wargames, and such) would fall under tabletop games. But it would be good to double check what, if anything, Woods says on this, IMHO his book is the only one which may contain any academic-level methodology. (If you don't have it, I am reasonably sure it's on lib gen). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here  09:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead section description
Phil_wink Hi Phil, thanks for redacting my line about cards, as I'm really uncertain as to how I want to phrase the section about not requiring a board. However, if you consider games such as One Night Ultimate Werewolf, Coup, or Love Letters, while all of these are card games, they don't play at all like standard card games, and are more similar to board games, particularly Werewolf. Any thoughts about a line explaining what games can be considered 'board games' without the actual inclusion of a board (nor indeed, specifically mentioning cards)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx78900 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 * (For background: I haven't played Werewolf, but I'm slightly familiar with Coup and more so with Love Letters.) The definition of "board game" -- if there ever was, or can be one -- has always been a little fuzzy around the edges. Naturally, the last few decades have only fuzzed it up more. But if the definition is stretched such that Love Letters, which is manifestly a card game, is included, then I don't believe the term has a useful meaning any longer. Just because new card games don't feel like old card games, doesn't make them board games. There are other overarching terms for this kind of category; I think "mind games" is one of the better and more prominent ones (though obviously not unproblematic itself). As you can see from the top of the talk page, a certain Wikipedian community early on sprung for "Board and Table Games".
 * So first, I personally would recommend that the lead paragraph stick to a more central definition, and if liminal cases need to be addressed, then perhaps a separate section below might deal with the fuzzy edges.
 * Second, if I had to provide a principled definition, it would be something in the nature of: "a game in which the discrete positions of pieces relative to each other and/or to a shared matrix, moved and/or placed by chance and/or skill, but not dependent upon physical power or dexterity, determine or at least contribute substantially to the state of gameplay." I mean, that's bloody horrible to read, but I think it's a fairly decent approximation of what a board game is and isn't.
 * But concrete examples might be better. (Another reason that we might want to keep the fuzzy edges out of the lead paragraph -- to do meaningful justice to the liminal examples, they'd probably have to dominate the entire opening!) By my lights, Cribbage is not a board game, even though competing pieces are moved discretely along a board; this is because the pieces do not determine or even contribute to the state of the game... they merely display its results. Pool isn't a board game (though plainly pieces are positioned on a matrix), because dexterity and power are required to move the pieces (and possibly because the movements aren't discrete, but this part of my definition may be the most arguable). Love Letters is not a board game because no relative positions are involved in the game's state. Dominoes, at least the games I've played, does seem to be a board game, because the pieces must be placed on a virtual matrix, and their position relative to each other is significant -- likewise the modern and boardless tile game Carcassonne. But of course "tile" games like Mahjong and Rummikub are really card games played with tiles. It is not clear to me that Dungeons and Dragons is a board game, although it just might be because of the map, and battle-reenactment games on complex hex terrains must surely be. Trivial Pursuit, yes, even though most of the action takes place off the board. Codenames? I say no, as the pieces (though positioned significantly in a matrix) are not mobile and their positions are not significant to the actual state of the game, only to grouping for the readers and obscuring the grouping for the guessers.
 * The best discussion I recall reading (and it's still probably not good enough) is the first chapter of David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games, which is also now back in print. I warmly recommend the whole book, though it is famously underwhelming for just the types of modern games that perhaps you're most interested in.
 * This of course is all just my opinion... my brilliant and (I'll say it) incredibly good-looking opinion. Sorry for the novel, and good luck on the overhaul! Phil wink (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Firstly, thanks for the detailed response, I greatly appreciate the time you've taken to contribute your two cents on my attempt to spruce up this article!
 * Second, I actually agree with everything you're saying - in taking such an issue with the given description as being too rigid, I felt I needed to provide an example of outlying games, and I see now that it's possibly extraneous.
 * Thanks for changing my mind!
 * Xx78900 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Donko
There was a board game in the 19th century called Donko! Not much is known about it since the rules were lost around 1880, but I assure you that it was a thing. It could be played on top of a steamer trunk as well as on a dedicated game board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00sClassicGamerFan (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Insubstantial new paragraph
The newly added paragraph at the end of the lead section has various problems:
 * It makes assertions that are not supported by text in the body of the article, nor (as far as I know) by any of the sources cited in the article:
 * the claim that Monopoly "now looks outdated to most players";
 * the claim that "many modern card games are regarded as part of the board games hobby";
 * the claim that "games like the beautifully-illustrated Wingspan have opened the hobby up to many new players."

 * It uses jargon that is neither defined nor used in the body of the article: "'beer-and-pretzel' and party games, to worker placement or tableau-laying games".
 * It uses puffery: "growing social hobby"; "new themes and mechanics developing all the time"; "something for everyone"; "beautifully-illustrated".

It seems like there might be potential for improving the article by adding more substantial content about the topics that are mentioned. I considered that the paragraph had to be scrapped until that could be done, so I removed it. My removal has been reverted, so I'm coming to this talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Board game


text:
Braveheart

Braveheart is a 1995 American epic historical drama film directed and produced by Mel Gibson, who also portrays its central character, Sir William Wallace, a late-13th century Scottish warrior who led the Scots in the First War of Scottish Independence against King Edward I of England. The film also stars Sophie Marceau, Patrick McGoohan and Catherine McCormack. The story is inspired by Blind Harry's 15th century epic poem The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace and was adapted for the screen by Randall Wallace.

Development on the film initially started at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) when producer Alan Ladd Jr. picked up the project from Wallace, but when MGM was going through new management, Ladd left the studio and took the project with him. Despite initially declining, Gibson eventually decided to direct the film, and to star as Wallace. Braveheart was filmed in Scotland and Ireland from June to October 1994. The film, which was produced by Gibson's Icon Productions and The Ladd Company, was distributed by Paramount Pictures in North America and by 20th Century Fox internationally.

Released on May 24, 1995, Braveheart was a critical and commercial success. The film received praise for its action, drama, and romance, though it was criticized as one of the most historically inaccurate films ever made. At the 68th Academy Awards, the film was nominated for ten Academy Awards and won five, including Best Picture and Best Director for Gibson. A legacy sequel, Robert the Bruce, was released on June 28, 2019, with Angus Macfadyen reprising his role.

Plot
In 1280, Edward I of England, known as "Longshanks", conquers Scotland following the death of the Scots' king, who left no heir. Young William Wallace witnesses the aftermath of Longshanks' execution of several Scottish nobles, then loses his father and brother when they resist the English. He leaves home to be raised by his uncle, Argyll.

Years later, Longshanks grants his noblemen land and privileges in Scotland, including jus primae noctis, while his son marries French princess Isabelle. Meanwhile, a grown Wallace returns home and secretly marries his childhood friend Murron MacClannough. Wallace rescues Murron from an English soldier, but Murron is subsequently captured and executed. In retribution, Wallace and the locals overthrow the English garrison, beginning a rebellion that soon spreads. Longshanks orders his son to stop Wallace while he campaigns in France. Wallace defeats an army sent by the prince at Stirling, then invades England by sacking York. He also meets Robert the Bruce, a contender for the Scottish crown.

After returning to England, Longshanks sends Isabelle to negotiate with Wallace as a distraction from the movement of Longshanks' forces. Meeting Wallace, Isabelle becomes enamored with him and warns him of Longshanks' plans. Wallace faces Longshanks at Falkirk. During the battle, nobles Mornay and Lochlan withdraw, having been bribed by Longshanks, resulting in Wallace's army being overwhelmed. Wallace also discovers Robert the Bruce had joined Longshanks. After helping Wallace escape, Robert vows to not be on the wrong side again. Wallace kills Mornay and Lochlan for their betrayal and foils an assassination plot with Isabelle's help. Wallace and Isabelle spend a night together, while Longshanks' health declines. At a meeting with Robert in Edinburgh, Wallace is captured. Realizing his father's responsibility, Robert disowns him. In England, Wallace is condemned to execution. After a final meeting with Wallace, Isabelle tells Longshanks, who can no longer speak, that his bloodline will end upon his death as she is pregnant with Wallace's child and will ensure that Longshanks' son spends as short a time as possible as monarch. At his execution, Wallace refuses to submit, even while being drawn and quartered. As he is disemboweled alive, the magistrate encourages Wallace to seek mercy and be granted a quick death. The crowd, moved by Wallace’s valor, shout for mercy on his behalf. Mustering the only strength he has left, Wallace instead shouts, "Freedom!" across the square, the dying Longshanks hearing it at his final breath. Before being beheaded, Wallace sees a vision of Murron in the crowd. In the aftermath, Wallace’s body is torn apart with his head being placed on London Bridge and limbs placed as a warning at the four corners of Britain.

In 1314, Robert, now Scotland's king, faces the English at Bannockburn, and implores his men to fight with him as they did with Wallace. After Wallace's sword is thrown to land point-down in the ground, Robert leads the Scots to a final victory.

Cast
In addition, Peter Hanly portrays Prince Edward, while Alun Armstrong and John Murtagh portray duplicitous Scottish lords Mornay and Lochlan, respectively.

Development
Producer Alan Ladd Jr. initially had the project at MGM-Pathé Communications when he picked up the script from Randall Wallace. When Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) was going through new management in 1993, Ladd left the studio and took some of its top properties, including Braveheart. Mel Gibson came across the script and even though he liked it, he initially passed on it. However, the thought of it kept coming back to him, and he ultimately decided to take on the project. Terry Gilliam was offered to direct the film, but he declined. Gibson was initially interested in directing only and considered Brad Pitt in the role of Sir William Wallace, but later reluctantly agreed to play Wallace as well. He also considered Jason Patric for the role. Sean Connery was approached to play King Edward, but he declined due to other commitments. Gibson said that Connery's pronunciation of "Goulash" helped him for the Scottish accent for the film.

Gibson and his production company, Icon Productions, had difficulty raising enough money for the film. Warner Bros. was willing to fund the project on the condition that Gibson sign for another Lethal Weapon sequel, which he refused. Gibson eventually gained enough financing for the film, with Paramount Pictures financing a third of the budget in exchange for North American distribution rights to the film, and 20th Century Fox putting up the other two-thirds in exchange for international distribution rights.

Filming
Principal photography on the film began on June 6, 1994. While the crew spent three weeks shooting on location in Scotland, the major battle scenes were shot in Ireland using members of the Irish Army Reserve as extras. To lower costs, Gibson had the same extras, up to 1,600 in some scenes, portray both armies. The reservists had been given permission to grow beards and swapped their military uniforms for medieval garb. Principal photography ended on October 28, 1994. The film was shot in the anamorphic format with Panavision C- and E-Series lenses. Gibson also later said that while filming a battle scene a horse nearly "killed him" but his stunt double was able to save him as the horse fell.

Gibson had to tone down the film's battle scenes to avoid an NC-17 rating from the MPAA; the final version was rated R for "brutal medieval warfare". Gibson and editor Steven Rosenblum initially had a film at 195 minutes, but Sherry Lansing, who was the head of Paramount at the time, requested Gibson and Rosenblum to cut the film down to 177 minutes. According to Gibson in a 2016 interview with Collider, there is a four-hour version of the film, and he would be interested in reassembling it if both Paramount and Fox are interested.

Soundtrack
The score was composed and conducted by James Horner and performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. It is Horner's second of three collaborations with Mel Gibson as director. The score has gone on to be one of the most commercially successful soundtracks of all time. It received considerable acclaim from film critics and audiences and was nominated for a number of awards, including the Academy Award, Saturn Award, BAFTA Award, and Golden Globe Award.

Release
Braveheart premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on May 18, 1995, and received its wide release in U.S. cinemas six days later.

Home media
Braveheart was released on LaserDisc in both pan and scan and widescreen on March 12, 1996. That same day, it also was made available on VHS in pan and scan only and was re-issued in widescreen on August 27.

The film was released on DVD on August 29, 2000. This edition included the film only in widescreen, a commentary track by Gibson, a behind-the-scenes featurete, along the trailers.

It was released on Blu-ray as part of the Paramount Sapphire Series on September 1, 2009. It included the DVD features along with new bonus material. It was released on 4K UHD Blu-ray as part of the 4K upgrade of the Paramount Sapphire Series on May 15, 2018.

Box office
Braveheart grossed $75.5million domestically (United States and Canada) and $133.5million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $209.0million, against a budget of $72million. It spent nine non-consecutive weeks in the Top 10 at the domestic box office – its first seven weeks, then two more weeks during its fifth month in theatres.

Critical response
Caryn James of The New York Times praised the film, calling it "one of the most spectacular entertainments in years." Roger Ebert gave the film three and a half out of four stars, calling it "An action epic with the spirit of the Hollywood swordplay classics and the grungy ferocity of The Road Warrior." In a positive review, Gene Siskel wrote that "in addition to staging battle scenes well, Gibson also manages to recreate the filth and mood of 700 years ago." Peter Travers of Rolling Stone felt that "though the film dawdles a bit with the shimmery, dappled love stuff involving Wallace with a Scottish peasant and a French princess, the action will pin you to your seat." The depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge was listed by CNN as one of the best battles in cinema history.

Not all reviews were positive, Richard Schickel of Time magazine argued that "everybody knows that a non-blubbering clause is standard in all movie stars' contracts. Too bad there isn't one banning self-indulgence when they direct." Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle felt "at times the film seems an obsessive ode to Mel Gibson machismo." In a 2005 poll by British film magazine Empire, Braveheart was No. 1 on their list of "The Top 10 Worst Pictures to Win Best Picture Oscar". Empire readers had previously voted Braveheart the best film of 1995.

Effect on tourism
The European premiere was on September 3, 1995, in Stirling.

In 1996, the year after the film was released, the annual three-day "Braveheart Conference" at Stirling Castle attracted fans of Braveheart, increasing the conference's attendance to 167,000 from 66,000 in the previous year. In the following year, research on visitors to the Stirling area indicated that 55% of the visitors had seen Braveheart. Of visitors from outside Scotland, 15% of those who saw Braveheart said it influenced their decision to visit the country. Of all visitors who saw Braveheart, 39% said the film influenced in part their decision to visit Stirling, and 19% said the film was one of the main reasons for their visit. In the same year, a tourism report said that the "Braveheart effect" earned Scotland £7 million to £15 million in tourist revenue, and the report led to various national organizations encouraging international film productions to take place in Scotland.

The film generated huge interest in Scotland and in Scottish history, not only around the world, but also in Scotland itself. At a Braveheart Convention in 1997, held in Stirling the day after the Scottish Devolution vote and attended by 200 delegates from around the world, Braveheart author Randall Wallace, Seoras Wallace of the Wallace Clan, Scottish historian David Ross and Bláithín FitzGerald from Ireland gave lectures on various aspects of the film. Several of the actors also attended including James Robinson (Young William), Andrew Weir (Young Hamish), Julie Austin (the young bride) and Mhairi Calvey (Young Murron).

Awards and honors
Braveheart was nominated for many awards during the 1995 awards season, though it was not viewed by many as a major contender to films such as Apollo 13, Il Postino: The Postman, Leaving Las Vegas, Sense and Sensibility, and The Usual Suspects. It wasn't until after the film won the Golden Globe Award for Best Director at the 53rd Golden Globe Awards that it was viewed as a serious Oscar contender.

When the nominations were announced for the 68th Academy Awards, Braveheart received ten Academy Award nominations, and a month later, won five including Best Picture, Best Director for Gibson, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Makeup. Braveheart became the ninth film to win Best Picture with no acting nominations and is one of only four films to win Best Picture without being nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture, the others being The Shape of Water in 2017, Green Book in 2018, and Nomadland in 2020.

The film also won the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay. In 2010, the Independent Film & Television Alliance selected the film as one of the 30 Most Significant Independent Films of the last 30 years

 * American Film Institute lists
 * AFI's 100 Years ... 100 Thrills – No. 91
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers – No. 62

Cultural effects and accusations of Anglophobia
Lin Anderson, author of Braveheart: From Hollywood To Holyrood, credits the film with playing a significant role in affecting the Scottish political landscape in the mid-to-late 1990s. Peter Jackson cited Braveheart as an influence in making the Lord of the Rings film trilogy.

Sections of the English media accused the film of harbouring Anti-English sentiment. The Economist called it "xenophobic", and John Sutherland writing in The Guardian stated that: "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia". In The Times, Colin McArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It's a xenophobic film." Ian Burrell of The Independent has said, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice".

Wallace Monument
In 1997, a 12 ft, 13 t sandstone statue depicting Mel Gibson as William Wallace in Braveheart was placed in the car park of the Wallace Monument near Stirling, Scotland. The statue, which was the work of Tom Church, a monumental mason from Brechin, included the word 'Braveheart' on Wallace's shield. The installation became the cause of much controversy; one local resident stated that it was wrong to "desecrate the main memorial to Wallace with a lump of crap".

In 1998, someone wielding a hammer vandalized the statue's face. After repairs were made, the statue was encased in a cage every night to prevent further vandalism. This only incited more calls for the statue to be removed, as it then appeared that the Gibson/Wallace figure was imprisoned. The statue was described as "among the most loathed pieces of public art in Scotland". In 2008, the statue was returned to its sculptor to make room for a new visitor centre being built at the foot of the Wallace Monument.

Historical inaccuracy
Randall Wallace, who wrote the screenplay, has acknowledged Blind Harry's 15th-century epic poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie as a major inspiration for the film. In defending his script, Randall Wallace has said, "Is Blind Harry true? I don't know. I know that it spoke to my heart and that's what matters to me, that it spoke to my heart." Blind Harry's poem is not regarded as historically accurate, and although some incidents in the film that are not historically accurate are taken from Blind Harry (e.g. the hanging of Scottish nobles at the start), there are large parts that are based neither on history nor Blind Harry (e.g. Wallace's affair with Princess Isabella).

Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film that "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure". It has been described as one of the most historically inaccurate modern films. Sharon Krossa noted that the film contains numerous historical inaccuracies, beginning with the wearing of belted plaid by Wallace and his men. In that period "no Scots [...] wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)." Moreover, when Highlanders finally did begin wearing the belted plaid, it was not "in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film". She compares the inaccuracy to "a film about Colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around." In a previous essay about the film, she wrote, "The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate—in short, just about nothing is accurate." The belted plaid (feileadh mór léine) was not introduced until the 16th century. Peter Traquair has referred to Wallace's "farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (1,000 years too late) running amok in a tartan kilt (500 years too early)." Caroline White of The Times described the film as being made up of a "litany of fibs." Irish historian Seán Duffy remarked that "the battle of Stirling Bridge could have done with a bridge."

In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times. In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit".

In the DVD audio commentary of Braveheart, Mel Gibson acknowledged the historical inaccuracies but defended his choices as director, noting that the way events were portrayed in the film was much more "cinematically compelling" than the historical fact or conventional mythos.

Jus primae noctis
Edward Longshanks is shown invoking Jus primae noctis in the film, allowing the lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity of his serfs' maiden daughters on their wedding nights. Critical medieval scholarship regards this supposed right as a myth: "the simple reason why we are dealing with a myth here rests in the surprising fact that practically all writers who make any such claims have never been able or willing to cite any trustworthy source, if they have any."

Occupation and independence
The film suggests Scotland had been under English occupation for some time, at least during Wallace's childhood, and in the run-up to the Battle of Falkirk Wallace says to the younger Bruce, "[W]e'll have what none of us have ever had before, a country of our own." In fact, Scotland had been invaded by England only the year before Wallace's rebellion; prior to the death of King Alexander III it had been a fully separate kingdom.

Portrayal of William Wallace
As John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett writes, "Because [William] Wallace is one of Scotland's most important national heroes and because he lived in the very distant past, much that is believed about him is probably the stuff of legend. But there is a factual strand that historians agree to", summarized from Scots scholar Matt Ewart:

"Wallace was born into the gentry of Scotland; his father lived until he was 18, his mother until his 24th year; he killed the sheriff of Lanark when he was 27, apparently after the murder of his wife; he led a group of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian; Wallace's reputation as a military leader was ruined in the same year of 1297, leading to his resignation as guardian; he spent several years of exile in France before being captured by the English at Glasgow, this resulting in his trial for treason and his cruel execution."

A. E. Christa Canitz writes about the historical William Wallace further: "[He] was a younger son of the Scottish gentry, usually accompanied by his own chaplain, well-educated, and eventually, having been appointed Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, engaged in diplomatic correspondence with the Hanseatic cities of Lübeck and Hamburg". She finds that in Braveheart, "any hint of his descent from the lowland gentry (i.e., the lesser nobility) is erased, and he is presented as an economically and politically marginalized Highlander and 'a farmer'—as one with the common peasant, and with a strong spiritual connection to the land which he is destined to liberate."

Colin McArthur writes that Braveheart "constructs Wallace as a kind of modern, nationalist guerrilla leader in a period half a millennium before the appearance of nationalism on the historical stage as a concept under which disparate classes and interests might be mobilised within a nation state." Writing about Braveheart's "omissions of verified historical facts", McArthur notes that Wallace made "overtures to Edward I seeking less severe treatment after his defeat at Falkirk", as well as "the well-documented fact of Wallace's having resorted to conscription and his willingness to hang those who refused to serve." Canitz posits that depicting "such lack of class solidarity" as the conscriptions and related hangings "would contaminate the movie's image of Wallace as the morally irreproachable primus inter pares among his peasant fighters."

Portrayal of Isabella of France
Isabella of France is shown having an affair with Wallace after the Battle of Falkirk. She later tells Edward I she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was a product of the affair. In reality, Isabella was around three years old and living in France at the time of the Battle of Falkirk, was not married to Edward II until he was already king, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. The breakdown of the couple's relationship over his liaisons, and the menacing suggestion to a dying Longshanks that she would overthrow and destroy Edward II mirror and foreshadow actual facts; although not until 1326, over 20 years after Wallace's death, Isabella, her son Edward, and her lover Roger Mortimer would invade England to depose - and later allegedly murder - Edward II.

Portrayal of Robert the Bruce
Robert the Bruce did change sides between the Scots loyalists and the English more than once in the earlier stages of the Wars of Scottish Independence, but he probably did not fight on the English side at the Battle of Falkirk (although this claim does appear in a few medieval sources). Later, the Battle of Bannockburn was not a spontaneous battle soon after Wallace's execution; he had already been fighting a guerrilla campaign against the English for eight years. His title before becoming king was Earl of Carrick, not Earl of Bruce. Bruce's father is portrayed as an infirm leper, although it was Bruce himself who allegedly suffered from leprosy in later life. The actual Bruce's machinations around Wallace, rather than the meek idealist in the film, suggests the father-son relationship represent different aspects of the historical Bruce's character. In the film, Bruce's father betrays Wallace to his son's disgust, acknowledging it as the price of his crown, although in real life Wallace was betrayed by the nobleman John de Menteith and delivered to the English.

Portrayal of Longshanks and Prince Edward
The actual Edward I was ruthless and temperamental, but the film exaggerates his negative aspects for effect. Edward enjoyed poetry and harp music, was a devoted and loving husband to his wife Eleanor of Castile, and as a religious man, he gave generously to charity. The film's scene where he scoffs cynically at Isabella for distributing gold to the poor after Wallace refuses it as a bribe would have been unlikely. Furthermore, Edward died almost two years after Wallace's execution, not on the same day.

The depiction of the future Edward II as an effeminate homosexual drew accusations of homophobia against Gibson.

"We cut a scene out, unfortunately ... where you really got to know that character [Edward II] and to understand his plight and his pain ... But it just stopped the film in the first act so much that you thought, 'When's this story going to start?'"

Gibson defended his depiction of Prince Edward as weak and ineffectual, saying:

"I'm just trying to respond to history. You can cite other examples—Alexander the Great, for example, who conquered the entire world, was also a homosexual. But this story isn't about Alexander the Great. It's about Edward II."

In response to Longshanks's murder of the Prince's male lover Phillip, Gibson replied: "The fact that King Edward throws this character out a window has nothing to do with him being gay ... He's terrible to his son, to everybody." Gibson asserted that the reason Longshanks kills his son's lover is that the king is a "psychopath".

Wallace's military campaign
"MacGregors from the next glen" joining Wallace shortly after the action at Lanark is dubious, since it is questionable whether Clan Gregor existed at that stage, and when they did emerge their traditional home was Glen Orchy, some distance from Lanark.

Wallace did win an important victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, but the version in Braveheart is highly inaccurate, as it was filmed without a bridge (and without Andrew Moray, joint commander of the Scots army, who was fatally injured in the battle). Later, Wallace did carry out a large-scale raid into the north of England, but he did not get as far south as York, nor did he kill Longshanks's nephew.

The "Irish conscripts" at the Battle of Falkirk are unhistorical; there were no Irish troops at Falkirk (although many of the English army were, in fact, Welsh).

The two-handed long swords used by Gibson in the film were not in wide use in the period. A one-handed sword and shield would have been more accurate and more efficient, since in the enemy army there were a lot of archers.

Sequel
A sequel, titled Robert the Bruce, was released in 2019. The film continues directly on from Braveheart and follows the widow Moira, portrayed by Anna Hutchison, and her family (portrayed by Gabriel Bateman and Talitha Bateman), who save Robert the Bruce, with Angus Macfadyen reprising his role from Braveheart.

The cast includes Jared Harris, Patrick Fugit, Zach McGowan, Emma Kenney, Diarmaid Murtagh, Seoras Wallace, Shane Coffey, Kevin McNally, and Melora Walters. Richard Gray directed the film, with Macfadyen and Eric Belgau writing the script. Helmer Gray, Macfadyen, Hutchison, Kim Barnard, Nick Farnell, Cameron Nuggent, and Andrew Curry produced the film.

Filming took place in 2019 and was completed with a limited cinematic release the same year.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Braveheart