demise of board games?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Board Wargame designers, amongst whatever other reasons, generally make board wargames because they DONT have the ability to make computer ones.

Where do you get THIS nonsense?

As far as graphics are concerned, have a chat with Rodger MacGowan. Computers will never match the beauty of hand-drawn counters , illustrations, and maps.

[ravinhood]

Computers will never match the beauty of hand-drawn counters

Never say never.

[pasternakski]

Well, at least like God said when asked if there would ever be an American Pope: "Not in my lifetime."

There's just nothing like unfolding a well done hand-painted map. I have a lot of trouble unfolding computer-generated components ...

[dinsdale]

Why should board games go away when PC games are so often just board games with a bookeeper and dice roller? As "great" as that might be, the downside is that the actual rules are often sheltered from the player. The Operational Art Of War was a classic case of that.

The intimacy of being able to see the entire map, and knowing exactly what the effects of combat-movement-etc are have never, and unless some developers grow some much needed creativity, will not be replicated on the PC.

Aside from that, where's the PC Struggle Of Nations, War And Peace, or even Kingmaker? While the options appear to be WW2 or nothing, then again, board games from other eras are the only outlet.


And did I mention bugs.........[X(]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Online games just take too long and I find there's just too much fussing about "house-rules" for each particular game. It's hard to find a soul that wants to play by the rules that came with the game, never seen so many that want to stack the deck in their favor. lol

I rarely bring up this point but for every great social experience playing a board wargame there is at least one other disaster that turns into arguments or at the very least, a disagreement, over rules interpretation.

This doesn't happen with a computer game. If your argument is "find better people to play games with" then you've hit on another reason I like computer games. I never have to play the same person twice, if I don't want to. Likely with a boardgame, if I'm lucky enough to find someone to play a particular title with in the first place, they are going to be the only one or one of a very few that I can play with at all. So you have to accept the bad. With a Computer you just move on to someone else even if you do get a whiner or something.

If companies keep producing games like the one above, I think board wargaming will survive quite a long time. When you think of the newcomer to wargaming the 12 or 13 year old, something eye-catching, but, easy to play, yet, still takes some time to master are great games to keep the war board gaming genre alive.

For simpler games that can have components like that sure. Easier to attract new people than with mapsheets and cardboard pieces.

@VELDOR

SNIPER AMBUSH (TM) .... Superb A.I. Computer Opponent to Play Against.

Heh, you know that statement "Superb A.I." is going to be a doozy to liveup to. This is one of those games I look forward to, but, that "Superb A.I." sort of has me skeptical.

Though no one has accused me of it yet, I do not wish to hijack threads here, so I'd be happy to discuss this over at my forums if you'd like but the simple answer is look at the name of my company, look at the slogan, now look at the logo. It's all centered around an A.I. theme. I bring some experience and background on the business side of A.I. development that I think will map to wargames better than traditional gaming methods have.

But I've also yet to see anyone advertise a wargame as having a "Crappy A.I. that we made by letting it cheat excessively and hardcoding the game so much that our scripted A.I. still works well on occasion" so I probably wouldn't believe it either.

I'd judge a game first more on the rest of the content and description. For instance I could care less if HOI2 has a "supurb AI" or not, because I'm not interested in playing the game. The stupidest game with the best AI still makes a stupid game.

[EnPeaSea]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
.

Aside from that, where's the PC Struggle Of Nations, War And Peace, or even Kingmaker?

Kingmaker came out for the PC in 1994. [:)]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Why should board games go away when PC games are so often just board games with a bookeeper and dice roller? As "great" as that might be, the downside is that the actual rules are often sheltered from the player. The Operational Art Of War was a classic case of that.

The intimacy of being able to see the entire map, and knowing exactly what the effects of combat-movement-etc are have never, and unless some developers grow some much needed creativity, will not be replicated on the PC.

Aside from that, where's the PC Struggle Of Nations, War And Peace, or even Kingmaker? While the options appear to be WW2 or nothing, then again, board games from other eras are the only outlet.

I just wanted to say that you are so right. This is a huge problem, but not one that can't be overcome, even easily. Again its not a limitation of the technology, its just what developers are doing with it.

I think, perhaps, its because the emphasis is all wrong. Many wargame developers seem to think that "realism" is all important beyond anything else and for all the RTS and other innovative approachs made, game abstractions are still game abstractions and I don't think these games are really anymore realistic in the end and many have come with their changes at too high a price. Some seem to be forgetting why we played wargames in the first place (Well some of us).

Yes history and recreating it plays a part, but more importantly is the strategy. Perhaps I only speak for myself, don't know.

And there is a certain more calculable amount of strategy in turn-based games, in knowing EXACTLY how far you can move, shoot. How much that tree is going to factor into you chances for success in the shot. etc.

I'm not saying computer wargames need to be exact recreations but just that developers need to remember what made them fun. I'm not one for arguing over some trivial historical detail vs the way its implemented in the game. But the "loudest" in the community seem to always have those issues first and foremost on their mind. So countless days/weeks/months get wasted on those details vs what makes the game fun to play in the first place.

Anyway, I've more than said my piece, and it's mostly in regards to the future and not now specifically.

So I leave this debate to the rest of you...

[SemperAugustus]

IMO the main problem with complex board games is the space they require and perhaps the set up time.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: EnPeaSea
Kingmaker came out for the PC in 1994. [:)]

I know, I got it from Underdogs and tried it. It's so hideous and confusing that I'd rather play in my head if the board game wasn't around

Veldor

Good points, I'm not sure it's going to change anytime soon, but you never know. Every once in a while someone comes up with a new paradigm.

I also don't mind games which turn out to be more of the sim than strategy. I can certainly live with not knowing the mechanics if you can play-by-feel, and the feel is right. Close Combat might be a perfect example of that IMHO, it was never necessary to know the mechanics of a morale failure, it was bloody obvious and intuitive [:)]

[gunny]

If you feel strongly about a a board game then its a good idea to occasionally recruit outsiders and get them hooked. Used to play Starfleet Battles religiously for 5 years like it was 'ol guys friday night poker'. And I think in the span of a year or two later all the key players moved on or relocated due to work etc. Haven't cracked that tin box since.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Veldor
So I leave this debate to the rest of you...

Thank you, Mr. Know-it-all.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Veldor
So I leave this debate to the rest of you...

Thank you, Mr. Know-it-all.

Thank you for that compliment Mr. Pasternaksi.

If you are so smart yourself then why are all of your posts in this thread limited to one or two sentences? And mainly attacks on the person posting, in this case myself, instead of any sort of more intellectual response or point-counter point?

I don't think its fair for one person to monopolize any one popular thread. I've faulted others in the past for doing so (Hi Les.) and there-by drowning out others that have equal right to state their own opinions. I abide by the unwritten rules I believe in so as not to be a hypocrite.

But thank you for once again trying to turn everything I say into a negative.

[coregames]

Technology is definitely changing games, but computers are only one element of that change. I strongly believe that board gaming with technological support (such as physical pieces on an editable or changable computer board) will revolutionize gaming, and perhaps help bring back wargaming on a board. Complexity such as odds-figuring, supply, etc... can be kept track of through computer, but as long as the pieces are physical, the experience will have tactile diversity rather than the sameness of pointing and clicking with a mouse. Technologically enhanced board games can retain the social interaction over the board that so many enjoy. Computers can help save board games, not just replace them.

original post from Veldor:

I rarely bring up this point but for every great social experience playing a board wargame there is at least one other disaster that turns into arguments or at the very least, a disagreement, over rules interpretation.

This doesn't happen with a computer game...

Apparently you haven't played games like Heroes of Might and Magic multiplayer... computer gamers get angry when something doesn't go their way too, and if the outlet (even voice, chat, etc...) is there they will express that anger. Only by eliminating any non-game contact can you say this doesn't happen in computer games. If that is really where we are headed, we could eventually all just stay home at our computers, grow pale, maybe evolve larger craniums and smaller weaker legs. Physicality does matter, and I think it's desirable even at the cost of some bickering.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: coregames

Technology is definitely changing games, but computers are only one element of that change. I strongly believe that board gaming with technological support (such as physical pieces on an editable or changable computer board) will revolutionize gaming, and perhaps help bring back wargaming on a board. Complexity such as odds-figuring, supply, etc... can be kept track of through computer, but as long as the pieces are physical, the experience will have tactile diversity rather than the sameness of pointing and clicking with a mouse. Technologically enhanced board games can retain the social interaction over the board that so many enjoy. Computers can help save board games, not just replace them.

ok. But it sounds like your basically agreeing with me. I think its become more a disagreement over what exactly a computer is or will be and what exactly a board game is or will be. But, in a generic sense, what you describe is still Technology replacing what a board game is today.

original post from Veldor:

I rarely bring up this point but for every great social experience playing a board wargame there is at least one other disaster that turns into arguments or at the very least, a disagreement, over rules interpretation.

This doesn't happen with a computer game...

Apparently you haven't played games like Heroes of Might and Magic multiplayer... computer gamers get angry when something doesn't go their way too, and if the outlet (even voice, chat, etc...) is there they will express that anger. Only by eliminating any non-game contact can you say this doesn't happen in computer games. If that is really where we are headed, we could eventually all just stay home at our computers, grow pale, maybe evolve larger craniums and smaller weaker legs. Physicality does matter, and I think it's desirable even at the cost of some bickering.

You missed the greater point here. First, while arguments might happen online, they generally aren't going to be over a dis-agreement in rules, if ever. That is an aspect I never enjoyed and encountered even in tournament play. Heck I've even been accussed of not shuffling my UP FRONT card deck sufficiently after I randomly received multiple wire cards and then won another round (as if that was the only reason any way). I've spent 30 minutes digging through the ASL rulebook over an insignificant dispute in what some modifier should have been.

And, more importantly, if I don't like the bickering of someone I am playing against online.. Then, if all else fails, there is a tiny little button I press and only a few minutes later I have a NEW opponent. How I wish I could do that in some of the boardgames I've played.

Now, in both cases, nothing is like finding a good group where your play-styles and personalities (and hopefully skills) match, but again for the random opponents far easier and efficient to do so on the computer. Which keeps things challenging and unique in their own right.

It's one hell of a lot of effort to find varying opponents for any board game these days. Those lucky enough to have opponents in the first place end up predominately always having that same opponent.

And then, for most skilled gamers, your strategies develop more around how to be good at beating that player than they do around being good at the game itself and beating any player. Etc.

[ravinhood]

The problem I find with online gaming and even PBEM is it's just too easy to "cheat". Whereas face to face, well it's very hard to cheat face to face. Other than hiding the rules or some modifiers in certain situations, face to face gaming is still the best "fair" gaming system around.

When developers can make games "totally" cheat proof, I might consider computer multiplayer gaming more acceptable, but, you can't hardly goto any gaming site, Gamespy, The Zone, back in my day Mplayer, Heatnet, etc. without encountering cheaters and hackers.

Before I even start a PBEM game I get to know my opponent very well over time. I do not accept these fly by wanna play a game players who have no social values at all. I feel if one can take the time to get to know one another, they are less likely to cheat, those that are in a hurry namely RTS players are more likely to cheat.

I played Age of Empires for awhile on The Zone and game after game most often ended up discovering a cheater or someone (the host would drop) if they were losing, causing the whole game to crash.

Found the same experience playing Magic the Gathering when Heatnet had it, if a player was losing, 50% of the time they would drop or just sit there and not make their move/turn and you either had to wait them out to get the win or they would win if you dropped because of what they did.

Stuff such as that has and will be the ruin of online gaming eventually. So, I think board gaming will definitely survive because of the cheat aspects of computer gaming.

It's one reason I like single player computer games so much and banter for better AI's. The AI gets cheats, but, it doesn't cheat you outright as human players will. Of course I would like to see an AI that didn't require cheats, but, for now that's an impossiblity for a decent AI. The higher the difficulty most often the more advantages and handicaps it's gets.

[Veldor]

Ravinwood, those are all excellent points, and them some. But in my experience I have not encountered that nearly as much with computer wargames. I don't even know that I can think of an instance. It is mainly true of the style of games that really do not have boardgame counterparts.

I remember Red Alert and such games online where I was more offended by "rush tactics" where the opposing player didn't even both defending or building up their base at start. But knew you would be so they built nothing but a bunch of soldiers (by clicking as fast as they could) and rush them at you which or course you most often couldn't be prepared for.

How they could find those victories rewarding I don't know. Perhaps they couldn't win any other way.

I'd like to see an independant organization formed to validate certain facts in your online gaming profiles (similiar to what has been done for Ebay or even to an extent certain Dating/Adult site solutions).

If I could "set" my preferences for only validated people above age 18 or whatever a majority of those problems would go away. I'd have to assume well over 50% are kids with nothing better to do or especially those who wouldn't go through a validation process. Perhaps some sork of "feedback" would also be necessary for the validated people.

I'm sure a solution will be found. MMPORG's are getting better and better at dealing with griefers. In the earliest days of UO such a thing didn't even exist. Everyone was so enthralled by the new experience they all played nice. Once boredom sets in...then all hell breaks loose online.

Which is another reason I don't think many online wargamers cheat. People who get bored play wargames just move on to something else. And if your the sort that gets bored by them you probably aren't the sort to be playing them in the first place...

I mean one thing to cheat at a game of C&C that lasts 30 minutes..but cheating at WiTP? What would be the point?

[ravinhood]

but cheating at WiTP? What would be the point?

Because some people live for their name being at the top of the Ladder in ladder setup games.

I remember my first Combat Mission PBEM game, I ask my opponent to set it up and send me the files since it was my first time. He did so, but, didn't tell me anything about the scenario, but, said it was real good and a lot of fun and it was short.

Well after several days of just puttering around, he gave me the "defensive" side, the conflict finally started. I might have had 15 total units and this guy comes pouring through the woods, over the ridge around every flank with at least 4 to 1 odds, tanks, halftracks, crack infantry and I got one MG, and 2 mortars and 12 measly infantry. lol Needless to say it wasn't a very fun and enjoyable experience for me. It's things like that, that doesn't make online playing or some PBEM games worth even trying. And think about newcomers to the field of play, you think it's going to make them want to play "more" games after encountering people such as this? Thank goodness it wasn't a "long" game with lots of purchase points, although I didn't even get to purchase my own units. This was a senario presetup. Obviously a one sided scenario to piss people off. I'm sure he got a big laugh out of it. But, lost a PBEM gamer for life.

The other problem is people say well just blacklist these players, that's fine and dandy, you know how "easy" it is to change your name a 100 times or more online? These people that cheat care not, they made their way up the ladder cheating before, they just change their name and do it all over again.

You're right Veldor we need some form of validation for people, but, validating people by credit card alone is not enough, or even just their name. We need something more akin to poker games online where they have a validation service that takes a bunch of information from you as your S.S. number, DL number and of course name, address phone number, and local bank routing number. Definitely keeps the kiddies out of the games. Unless they steal from their parents I suppose.

We need more of a system like Valve/Steam or Blizzard that bans these IP addresses and CD keys. We need that kind of multiplayer place to go to play games online.

[Zap]

I need to clarify my previous posts. I was thinking in the framework of wargames. The discussion became more inclusive to all types. For me, wargaming on the advanced level(complicated) can only be best enjoyed on the computer despite the above mentioned and universally accepted draw backs. I hope, as time goes forward the list of classic (got to have) games will grow. I will leave that up to all those forces above mentioned like, technology, designers, game companies. Post concerning my above point have explained well, I believe, the positives.
Nothing will be perfect, but prospects of increasing game sales (equals interest) can inspire those invovled to keep the creative juices flowing to make the gaming experience closer to what many want.
I'm not a programmer or designer I'm a player with some knowledge of computers. Just, throwing in my two cents.
The future of advanced wargaming(computer). Will depend on those young 12 and 13 year olds who are inclined to be more intuitive. You known the ones, (they like war history and realism) who are intrigued by chess but want a little to much more. Similar to yourself, remember when?
This type of youth, is presently playing the xbox games, simple boardgames, ect. And will someday go in search of greater hobby challenges. I believe their numbers have not changed in proportion to the population, since I was a kid. What may capture their interest are the present conflicts the US is involved in. So hope for continued interest in the subject.

[ravinhood]

Well where I come from there weren't a lot of kids interested in "wargames" when I was growing up. I can only remember (4) from my Jr. High School and we all got together and played each other from that point until we graduated. Wargaming is just not a big market. It's big enough I suppose for designers to make wargames for a world wide market now, but, compared to RTS/FPS games, wargames are minimal and most likely the lowest on the ladder.

Here's a marketing idea, goto all the grade schools, jr. highs, and high schools and plant fliers or ads on the schools bullentin boards and or kids cars windshields.

I had no idea there was such a thing as board wargaming until a friend of mine brought "Gettysburg" AH to school during our last week of school in the 6th grade and I was intrigued by the counters and map board. That one session lead to buying more wargames and also discovering the world of APBA baseball from my older brother. Now I play OOTPB 6.0 and wargames and strategy games.

FPS/RTS game suck to me though. I think board wargaming (turn based) did that to me though, I'm used to slow, take your time, think all you want to games and when I see a FPS/RTS game, it's just too fast for my type of thinking and playing style of the past. You can't teach an ole dog new tricks.

[Zap]

Yes, Ravinhood, your right that the numbers are not that many. I,m not sure what the estimated number of us are. Matrix Games might have an idea. When I wrote, (in proportion to the population things have not changed since I was a kid) the numbers were not great back then. My brothers and I played RISK but I was the only one who was interested in going into the more advanced wargames. So, I was left to play solitaire wargames for years. It was not until I entered the university that I found a few others to play with. But just like you, others will search them out or someone will introduce them to the games as it happened to you and me. And so their will be others in the future.
I do hope that when these young men play. They will learn some lessons of history. As well as enjoy the games. For example: when I played the Third Reich with friends; the german player took over all of Russia and Eurpoe. The game ended with the half the world in the hands of a dangerous lunatic(Hitler). I thought, "how good that the world did not really fall into his hands." I also considered how good it was to have more just societies fighting to free the world from nazism, fascism, communism, tyrranies, and terroism.