Abstract Concept

"Serious gamers" sometimes look down their noses at party games. Such games are generally so straightforward, so uncomplicated, so basic. But in truth, elegant simplicity can be one of the hardest things to achieve in game design. And perhaps it takes a party game that isn't quite designed right to appreciate the ones that are.

Take Concept. At the core, it's a clue-giving game. Players take turns trying to get any of the other players to guess an answer printed on a randomly dealt card -- anything from a book title to an historical figure or a common household object. You and the guesser score points whenever you're successful; you play around the circle a set number of times, and the player with the most points wins.

The gimmick here is that you give your clues non-verbally, using a large game board. Various icons are arranged on the board, representing various concepts (it's right in the name of the game). Food, land vehicle, fictional character. Basic shapes. Colors. Several dozen icons in all. When you're giving clues, you place markers on different icons to try and establish a relationship that points to the answer you're trying to reach. The markers are color-coded, and you can use this to try to relate "sub-concepts" to each other within the larger umbrella of the answer you're after.

In essence, it's like a game of charades where you don't have to gesture, a game of Pictionary where you don't have to draw, a game of Taboo where you don't have to speak. It's all just about working with your limited pool of icons and figuring out clever ways to link them. It's an interesting take on clue-giving, a sort of grand equalizer where drawing ability, shared personal history, and thinking fast don't really matter.

But it's hard to tell whether this is really a strong idea for a game or not, because there are some strange design decisions that get in the way of the fun. For one, players are supposed to work in pairs when they give clues. It isn't made clear exactly how this is supposed to work. You can't really talk to each other, or everyone else will hear. You're not required to alternate putting clue markers onto the board; one player can just take over the process. You're not on a long-term "team" with your clue-giving partner, because once you're back to guessing, you're an individual just like every other player. This whole "quasi-team" thing simply isn't thought through in the design, or isn't explained properly, or both. It's so murky, I can't even tell what the game designers thought it was meant to accomplish.

There are three difficulty levels of word on each clue card, but the easiest level is so easy that it barely functions as a game. Perhaps this was done so that the game could be played with younger players, but it seemed clear to me that for adults, whatever charms this game might have don't begin to come across until you step up to at least medium.

I'm not sure there are charms there to be found, however. Concept certainly isn't clear or clever enough to dethrone modern party game champs like Codenames or Decrypto. It doesn't even rate as high as an older, simple game like Squint. It comes across as an incomplete game design, a germ of an idea that really isn't being presented in its best form.

I'd give Concept a C. It's possible I'd try it out again if it were ever suggested on a game night. But with so many other party games that have made a bigger impression in my group, I'm doubtful that would ever happen.