Jon Compton - editor of F&M on the demise of (board) warga..

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

The Wargamer published an article by Jon Compton - editor of F&M - with
his thoughts on what is wrong with (board) wargames today.

The article can be found here :

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/groping_new_paradigm_1/

Well, it doesn't happen very often, but I almost completely disagree
with everything in that article.

It basically says current boardgame design got stuck in the sixties
with every new game being a variant on hexes, zoc's and crt's. Sheesh,
guess he never heard of BattleCry, Memoir '44, the Columbia block games
or a mildly successfull area-based game like Civilisation ...

Another howler are his ideas on how marketing wargames as being for
"educated" people has actually hurt the hobby. Half the commercials I
see on tv proclaim product X being used only by the smart,
sophisticated, succesfull people of this planet - doesn't seem to hurt
sales of those products to Joe Average though.

I'm looking forward to the next article in the series in which he will
try to formulate a new strategy for boardgame design to combat the
perceived problems as described above. That will make an interesting
read to say the least.

Just proves that you don't have to agree with something to find it
fascinating.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Andy Brown wrote:
> > It basically says current boardgame design got stuck in the sixties
> > with every new game being a variant on hexes, zoc's and crt's.
Sheesh,
> > guess he never heard of BattleCry, Memoir '44, the Columbia block
games
> > or a mildly successfull area-based game like Civilisation ...
>
> Eddie,
>
> I agree with your assessment of the article. I suggest that he's
been
> influenced too much by computer games.
>
> Cardboard games need unit markers big enough to contain unit
information in
> easily readable form (id est "counters") and some form of
movement/location
> system that works without a machine that can define a position in
terms of
> pixels.
>
> You've basically only got two options, an area system or some sort
movement
> grid (which could be hexes, squares or staggered squares but still
has to be
> coarse enough for my pudgy fingers to position the aforementioned
counters
> in such a way that their location on the map is clearly different
from any
> other location that is important to the game.

You hit the nail on the head here - twice.

> With a computer, you can get really imaginitive about how you do this
and
> you can throw in all kinds of fog-of-war routines for good measure.
With a
> boardgame, I suggest that imagination is constrained considerably by
the
> limitations of the "display".

3 in a row - while my critique basically focused on *how* he was wrong,
your's is the first good explanation of *why* he is wrong : "limitatins
inherent of the chosen system"

Now I'm really looking forward to his next article :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

d wrote:
> On 5/02/2005 10:02 AM eddysterckx@hotmail.com said the following:
> > Well, it doesn't happen very often, but I almost completely
disagree
> > with everything in that article.
>
> If we take the general theme of the column -- that for the market to
> grow we need to look past hexes -- then I agree. I think he's
overlooked
> some key titles recently, but on the whole it's a good point.
>
> Let's look at it from the top. I'm not going to compare the industry
to
> computer games -- these are far more flexible -- but I suggest we
look
> at card games. Card games exploded in the 90's to something that was
> completely unheard of due to brilliant innovations like Magic: The
> Gathering. Wargaming needs its Magic: The Gathering, or its Yu Gi Oh,
or
> whatever.
>
> I *think* this is what Compton is trying to say. If not, then he
should
> have.

It's not what I'm reading in the article - the factual
mistakes/ommissions he makes just weaken any point he's trying to make.

> > Another howler are his ideas on how marketing wargames as being for
> > "educated" people has actually hurt the hobby. Half the commercials
I
> > see on tv proclaim product X being used only by the smart,
> > sophisticated, succesfull people of this planet - doesn't seem to
hurt
> > sales of those products to Joe Average though.
>
> I agree with Compton on this point. Sure, other advertising depicts
> successful, intelligent, good looking people using products, but I
see
> wargames as *explicitly* stating a minimum level of intelligence.

Really ? - where ? - I go to a lot of conventions - the guys you meet
there are just your normal average guys with a liking for history and
sometimes with great knowledge about a particular slice of it - that's
it - I only know 1 guy who's a university professor (not Henri A.) and
you couldn't tell he is unless he told you.

> Advertising works by being aspirational, not by being exclusive.

Hm, not in any advertising I've seen for wargames - quite the reverse
actually - wargames are often advertised as "easy to get into", "both
for amateur and grognard", "playable and fast system, not burdened by
too many rules" - the only thing is : the games I see advertised are
exactly the games he fails to mention in his article.

> The only place this really works is in niche areas where you can
happily
> make money catering to a small group of customers.
> I just don't seeing
> it growing, which seems to be the main thrust of Compton's article.

Again, he's looking at the wrong games : Memoir '44 is a hit in every
sense of the word - selling way beyond the traditional grognard market.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Wargamer published an article by Jon Compton - editor of F&M -
with
> his thoughts on what is wrong with (board) wargames today.



to use an analogy, it's like bitching about writing because it still
uses letters.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 5/02/2005 10:02 AM eddysterckx@hotmail.com said the following:
> Well, it doesn't happen very often, but I almost completely disagree
> with everything in that article.

If we take the general theme of the column -- that for the market to
grow we need to look past hexes -- then I agree. I think he's overlooked
some key titles recently, but on the whole it's a good point.

Let's look at it from the top. I'm not going to compare the industry to
computer games -- these are far more flexible -- but I suggest we look
at card games. Card games exploded in the 90's to something that was
completely unheard of due to brilliant innovations like Magic: The
Gathering. Wargaming needs its Magic: The Gathering, or its Yu Gi Oh, or
whatever.

I *think* this is what Compton is trying to say. If not, then he should
have.

> Another howler are his ideas on how marketing wargames as being for
> "educated" people has actually hurt the hobby. Half the commercials I
> see on tv proclaim product X being used only by the smart,
> sophisticated, succesfull people of this planet - doesn't seem to hurt
> sales of those products to Joe Average though.

I agree with Compton on this point. Sure, other advertising depicts
successful, intelligent, good looking people using products, but I see
wargames as *explicitly* stating a minimum level of intelligence.
Advertising works by being aspirational, not by being exclusive.

The only place this really works is in niche areas where you can happily
make money catering to a small group of customers. I just don't seeing
it growing, which seems to be the main thrust of Compton's article.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1107558129.733213.289840@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> Well, it doesn't happen very often, but I almost completely disagree
> with everything in that article.
>
> It basically says current boardgame design got stuck in the sixties
> with every new game being a variant on hexes, zoc's and crt's. Sheesh,
> guess he never heard of BattleCry, Memoir '44, the Columbia block games
> or a mildly successfull area-based game like Civilisation ...

Arguing that designers settled on hexes, ZOCs, and CRTs out of some numb
lack of creativity is like arguing that plumbers are a bunch of dullards
because they rely so heavily on Schedule 40.

Hey, really *innovative* plumbers might install paper soil pipes in my
house and see what happens.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So these Sunnis complain that the [Iraqi] election is illegitimate
because they boycotted it. The obvious comparison is to the child
in the classic definition of *chutzpah*, who kills his parents and
pleads for mercy because he's an orphan."
- James Taranto
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> It basically says current boardgame design got stuck in the sixties
> with every new game being a variant on hexes, zoc's and crt's. Sheesh,
> guess he never heard of BattleCry, Memoir '44, the Columbia block games
> or a mildly successfull area-based game like Civilisation ...

Eddie,

I agree with your assessment of the article. I suggest that he's been
influenced too much by computer games.

Cardboard games need unit markers big enough to contain unit information in
easily readable form (id est "counters") and some form of movement/location
system that works without a machine that can define a position in terms of
pixels.

You've basically only got two options, an area system or some sort movement
grid (which could be hexes, squares or staggered squares but still has to be
coarse enough for my pudgy fingers to position the aforementioned counters
in such a way that their location on the map is clearly different from any
other location that is important to the game.

With a computer, you can get really imaginitive about how you do this and
you can throw in all kinds of fog-of-war routines for good measure. With a
boardgame, I suggest that imagination is constrained considerably by the
limitations of the "display".

Cheers,

Andy
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Let's look at it from the top. I'm not going to compare the industry to
> computer games -- these are far more flexible -- but I suggest we look
> at card games. Card games exploded in the 90's to something that was
> completely unheard of due to brilliant innovations like Magic: The
> Gathering. Wargaming needs its Magic: The Gathering, or its Yu Gi Oh, or
> whatever.

Yeah, but those games are fantasy based.

Avalon Hill did an excellent card-game about squad level combat called Up
Front. It captures the basics of fire and movement very well. Because it
is a card game, however, it is almost impossible to represent the effect of
historical terrain on specific actions. You can use Up Front to recreate a
gliderborne assault by elite paras on a bridge defended by regular troops
armed with rifles and machineguns and maybe even learn a thing or two while
doing it (perhaps "you've got to suppress the machineguns before running
across the bridge"). You cannot recreate the historical battle for Pegasus
Bridge.

Because terrain is not represented in detail, the card game provides no
sense of timing or geography and consequently does not portray the
historical event as well as a game with a map. Additionally, the mechanics
of a card game allow weapon effects to be simulated fairly well relative to
each other but it would be very hard to justify them in absolute scientific
terms. The card game is a good "game", but as a simulation seeking to
challenge the player with military decisions similar to those faced by
real-life commanders in historical situations, it's little better than
bridge or poker. Hexes and counters don't model reality perfectly, but they
do model it better, which is what wargamers look for.

No wargamer is ever going to knock Yugi for holding back his Dark Magician
until the -3 buildings cards have all been played, something that "would
never happen in real life".

Cheers,

Andy
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107558129.733213.289840@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> The Wargamer published an article by Jon Compton - editor of F&M - with
> his thoughts on what is wrong with (board) wargames today.
>
> The article can be found here :
>
> http://www.wargamer.com/articles/groping_new_paradigm_1/

>
> I'm looking forward to the next article in the series in which he will
> try to formulate a new strategy for boardgame design to combat the
> perceived problems as described above. That will make an interesting
> read to say the least.
>

You might have noted that the article was originally published in Against
the Odds magazine (http://www.atomagazine.com/index.html ) at the end of
2003 early 2004 (and is available on magweb). The magazine is dedicated to
broadening wargame design. I can't say that their actual game rules are
that much more innovative than most other contemporary games, but they
certainly are creative with their artwork. As reward for their creativity
they are regularly subjected to whining criticisms that mostly seem to be:
"but its different". (Used Soviet symbols rather than NATO in a Grozny
game, the Suleiman map was drawn to look like a tile mosiac and included
decorative touches, a major river in A Dark and Bloody Ground was
represented by "needlepoint stitching" that looked unlike a river, colors
too dark, too light, etc. Compton certainly has a point that wargamers are
seriously resistant to change.

Mike
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Andy Brown wrote:
> > "but its different". (Used Soviet symbols rather than NATO in a
Grozny
> > game, the Suleiman map was drawn to look like a tile mosiac and
included
> > decorative touches, a major river in A Dark and Bloody Ground was
> > represented by "needlepoint stitching" that looked unlike a river,
colors
> > too dark, too light, etc. Compton certainly has a point that
wargamers
> are
> > seriously resistant to change.
>
> Maybe, but Sov mil symbols look nothing like NATO ones so they've
just added
> an hour or so to the time it takes for the "average gamer" to get
into the
> game. Change is fine as long as it enhances, not obstructs gameplay.
Why
> represent a river as something other than a river? That's not
innovation.
> It's gimmickry, and inappropriate gimmickry at that.

Absolutely correct - I can appreciate great graphics (like the maps
done by Roger McGowan), but they must remain functional and not stand
in the way of the biggest advantage boardgames still have over computer
games (apart from the human opponent) : the fact that you can check the
entire battlefield in one quick glance.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> "but its different". (Used Soviet symbols rather than NATO in a Grozny
> game, the Suleiman map was drawn to look like a tile mosiac and included
> decorative touches, a major river in A Dark and Bloody Ground was
> represented by "needlepoint stitching" that looked unlike a river, colors
> too dark, too light, etc. Compton certainly has a point that wargamers
are
> seriously resistant to change.

Maybe, but Sov mil symbols look nothing like NATO ones so they've just added
an hour or so to the time it takes for the "average gamer" to get into the
game. Change is fine as long as it enhances, not obstructs gameplay. Why
represent a river as something other than a river? That's not innovation.
It's gimmickry, and inappropriate gimmickry at that.

Cheers,

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom