And before you go back to pick that bone, no, I'm not saying that cooperation is exclusive to Eurogames. We agree that it's not, by now.

"the only thing that links it to one is the lack of conflict among players (and that common flaw that the theme has little to do with the game)"

So you just said it yourself.

No conflict among players, mechanic over theme... we could argue that those are the main characteristics of a Eurogame. Plus it's cooperative, its design is simple enough, it sort of works as a collecting resources/ammassing points game and its designer is one of the most famous names associated with Eurogames in the field. The only Ameritrash element I can see in Hanabi is the high (or higher than most) randomness, everything else looks like Euro to me.

I can't dispute that Ameritrash has the shiny design that gets you into the mood of the game if you like that kind of full-immersion experience, but I suppose it all boils down to whether you prefer your game experience to be inside your head, at least partly, or fully on the board. Eurogames (not all of them, as not all Ameritrash are full of complicated miniatures and overly detailed elements) give you a mechanic that you can build upon in your head, Ameritrash give you a whole world to play in... but it's all said and done, too much visual input and less imagination. It rather depends on personal taste, I dare say, and I'm obviously more for the minimalist side.

Ok, yes, not specific, but more widely spread in Eurogames than in Ameritrash, I think we can agree on that. And after all, nothing is really specific to a genre or the other, these days. Not anymore.

I didn't say that cooperation is limited to Eurogames, but one thing is a competitive game that makes use of cooperation to spice things up because cooperation is in the basics of human interaction. A game where good teamwork is the biggest achievement you can get is quite another. Bang is not a cooperative game. It involves cooperation to some degree, sure, because there are sides that compete against each other and players on the same side can (should) cooperate to win, but that's exactly my point: they choose to work together only to win over someone else, it's still pure competition. And it's good, I'm not saying it's not, but cooperation is not the aim of the game, it's just something that comes out of it naturally. Good, again.

When I say cooperative game, however, I mean team against the board, I mean working together to solve a common problem, not to beat a common enemy and then form new alliances right after because the deed is done and on we go. I love that, but if it's cooperation that I'm seeking, I'd sure take Hanabi over Bang anytime.

I'm the wrong person to defend Eurogames, I like conflict in games most of the time (or human interaction, if you wish), but I'm also a big lover of coop games and those are mainly a Euro thing. How do you justify that?

If I have to put in a good word for Eurogames, I'd say I'll probably always prefer them to Ameritrash when it comes to design. Meaning looks and materials used. I'm not a huge Carcassonne player, to mention one, but you can't beat Meeples when it comes to pawns, c'mon: simple and effective. Not to mention, less detailed means reusable and fit to almost any situation.