Hot
This week at Cracked LCD, Video Games recieves a letter from his down-at-heel brother, Hobby Games.
I hope that Hobby Games doesn't have to turn to crime or prostitiution to make ends meet. By the sound of his letter, there's a lot of resentment, bittnerness, and veiled desperation.
Funny and sad. I imagine Hobby Games listening to some terrible, doleful college rock from the 90s, and thinking about looking up that girl from high school that he never had the nerve to ask out. He's just gotta lose a few pounds first, and maybe see if he can get a haircut that hides his receding hairline. Maybe his best days are still ahead of him, right?
Right?
You brought up Dana Plato and Night Trap! *scrubs eyeballs with bleach* You should be ashamed sir.
-Will
I guess hobby games is a combination of board games, RPGs, and miniatures games?
That's right Tom. All of those things and "regret".
You brought up Dana Plato and Night Trap! *scrubs eyeballs with bleach* You should be ashamed sir.
It ws either that or CUSTER'S REVENGE, I wasn't sure which was more shameful. But I wasn't about to go the DAIKATANA route.
His best days are still ahead of him, right?
I thought of him as kind of like those guys in Anvil.
Great article Michael.
Oh and about the sausage-finger players... I'd say that the most morbidly obese gamers I met were all videogamers, and not hobby players. There's a big advantage for them in not having to socialize with people, and to avoid going outside to actually meet with others to have fun.
I doubt that hobby games can ever become anywhere close to videogames because of this tendency of people to go for easy solutions. Videogames are easier to grasp with the general public. People were in awe yesterday at work when I showed them the fancy Cosmic Encounter box I had in my backpack for gaming night. They thought I was the alien to be able to grasp "complex" rules like that and to enjoy them. I guess it will be the eternal battle between the young, well-shaped, but less educated brother with his older, more intellectual but less flashy sibling.
Interesting thought milhouse...in that people tend to think video games are easier...but many are just as complicated with as much or more to know than an average board game. My theory is that for some reason people will play a video game and may only understand a little bit at the start...but learn as they go along. When presented with the board though they seem to think they need to know every little thing before they begin. Curious.
Weeks almost has it right, I don't think of the "spectre of the programmer" while playing games when I get a royal flush in video poker, I think about how much the lousy, rotten computer ALWAYS cheats!
Oh another factor... for many people, they will consider before even starting that they will be bad at a board game, that it's not for them. Videogames, you play them in the comfort of your home. Unless you go play multiplayer games, there's no one to make you feel stupid for not playing the game right. I have a friend who once told me that she didn't want to play boardgames with me because she didn't want to feel more stupid than she is. Difficult to bring people out of their comfort zone if they fear they're going to get crushed without even trying first.
So, Mr. Barnes, would it be way off the mark to say your heart's just not in it any more? That Punch-Out!! review was the last thing I read from you in a long while that read like you genuinely enjoyed writing it. This one, well, it basically feels like you're lamenting the fact that you're not just writing about video games. Even the bit at the end about how hobby games are still doing some pretty cool stuff seems pretty obligatory. That used to sound pretty convincing. Now? Not so much.
Well MJ, I have to be honest that I've been a lot more excited about video games lately than board games. Tonight I was more interested in getting home to play NO MORE HEROES than I was finally playing AGE OF CONAN for the first time.
And I do kind of regret not getting into writing about video games sooner- like back when it was kind of in its frontier stage. Too late now, but I am glad to be writing about hobby games and even more glad that people are reading.
But as far as my heart not being into writing about board games, that's not the case. Look no further than last week's TRAIN RAIDER article. That's the most fired-up a board game has gotten me since BSG released.
I do think that I've realized that hobby gaming is on a different trajectory than video games. Video games are cultural, social, and economic force at this point. They are influencers and motivators. They're the most significant advance in entertainment since television. Yeah. That's pretty big. Board games and all...on the sidelines.
It's sad, I think...there's so much that board games can do that video games don't and it's really a shame that more people don't _want_ to experience those things. So it goes, I suppose. But all that doesn't mean I love hobby gaming any less.
Interesting article, but as a LONG time video gamer (Telestar, Intellivision, Nintendo, Sega Genesis, PS1, PS2,XBOX, XBOX 360), I find more satisfaction and excitement from board games. When I told my wife I was selling my 360 she thought that I lost my mind.
I realized, after I rediscovered board games, that VGs were a substitute for not having board game opponents. Now that I have a few groups to play with I've had little desire to play my consoles.
I think that's a GREAT point, Doc...and I think my rising interest in video games is definitely a function of some game group chaos and disorder that's going on around here these days. One of my groups imploded (come to find out you can't have folks that rank gaming over socializing and folks that rank socializing over gaming in the same room for long), my other group lost its main place to play, and various ad hoc get-togethers haven't been materializing like they used to.
AT AGF, I never even thought about playing video games because I was engaged in hobby games 12-14 hours a day. There was always someone to play with, and always something to play.
I think this gets at why video games have blown hobby games out of the water...it's hard to consistently get four or five adults together for a 5-6-7 hour evening of board gaming unless you've got them all committed to doing it regularly. But I can go play ADVANCE WARS: DAYS OF RUIN for 20 minutes pretty much any time I want. And I can go online and play against a live player if I want to. It's a logistical thing, and I think that makes a big difference. A video game is simply easier to play and get the most out of- and you can do it alone.
But it is a different kind of satisfaction, and a different kind of excitement. And it can't approach the human element that board games offer, no argument there. But like last night, I had to set aside an entire evening away from home, eat a hastily cobbled-together dinner after work, drive 45 minutes to somebody's house, stay there for six hours, and then drive another 45 minutes home. So I spent eight hours to play a couple of board games. The amount of aggregate time that took for all of us to get together is kind of ridiculous when you think about it. And that doesn't account for everybody spending time to read the AoC rulebook and learn to play. With that in mind, is it any wonder that people are more inclined to turn on the 360 and play a video game for an hour or two before bed?
So in the end, I kind of wonder if the physicality, the actual processes required to play hobby games, may be their biggest liability. The rise in popularity of online board gaming services like Brettspielwelt, Vassal, Cyberboard, et. al. I think attests to that, and the fact that more people are probably playing stuff like the more complex wargames there instead of face to face is significant. But people are also playing Eurogames online more. It does make me wonder if that may be the future of board gaming, for it to go completely digital and slough off the cardboard yoke. Maybe that sounds like heresy to a lot of people, but I think it could be what saves the hobby in the end.
For example, my pal Will Kenyon loves TI3. He probably plays it once a week, but he's got a regular group that's all into it and they're able to support the game regularly. But he also plays 3-4 games _at a time_ online. He's lucky that he can play it F2F so much, but he plays three and four times as many games online. People like online gaming, so it stands to reason that if games like TI3 were released and promoted as online gaming options, they may reach an entirely new audience. One that won't buy a boxed board game.
You're absolutely right about the convenience of video games, Michael. It's hard to get people to get together for that kind of gaming. It's also hard to find people you like gaming with. I've got 1 friend who lives nearby that I can game with - and he has 3 kids - whereas I used to have 3-4 guys I could play Descent with.
Last month after visiting my brother, my wife said I could get an Xbox 360 so we could play online together, which totally blew me away. Then some unforeseen medical expenses kind of put that idea on the back burner for a long while. But your post about trading for a 360 has me looking at my game shelf with a lot of unplayed games on it I could probably sell ...
It's why I've been trading so heavily for video games lately. I can sit here with a pile of board games on my shelf that I rarely play, that other people I know own, or that I probably won't play ever again or I can exchange them for video games that I'll keep in a library and play fairly regularly. I turn on the DS at least once a day. I've got such a backlog of DS games alone that I could theoretically never buy another one and have something new and awesome to play for the next three years. And they all fit in the box the DSi came in, along with the console, my headphones, and the charger. Tiny footprint compared to the 10-15 games I've traded to get that stuff.
It does tie into my "buy less, play what you own" mantra. I definitely want to hold on to the games I play all the time or that I truly love, and I will. But even stuff I really like that I rarely play...I'd rather pass that on to somebody else and get a video game that I can play whenever I want. No more waiting for Billy Motion to free up some time so we can play TIDE OF IRON.
BLACK OPS for a 360...anybody? Anybody?
Yeah, I've got the entire Descent collection sitting on my shelf, and I haven't played it for about a year. It'd probably break my heart to get rid of it, but I'm not sure I really foresee myself getting another full group of people playing it again.
But what if FFG released a fully supported, turn-based, online version of the game? You'd probably be playing it all the time, wouldn't you? I know I would.
I totally would. That would be the most awesome thing ever. Actually, there was a project that had the OK from FFG, but then FFG pulled the plug. Maybe that means they have a version in the works? It also sucks that the online Talisman got snuffed too.
I wish FFG would push itself more in that route. I heard they were doing Wings of War and Tide of Iron for Xbox Live Arcade, but haven't heard any news on that recently. I would play a lot of FFG games a lot of the time if they had online versions.
See, I think the online gaming services are a great example of a place where board game companies COULD be expanding to but aren't, at least not on the scale that they should be. But more than that, I think game companies really should be figuring out ways to get stuff online and playable by anybody with a PC, Mac, or game console. It's the difference between a design reaching 5,000 people and 5 _million_ people.
The Wii, for example...it's _ridiculous_ that games like CARCASSONNE and SETTLERS aren't available as WiiWare with online play. And a game like DESCENT would have a huge player base on Xbox Live. I know people that would buy a 360 just to play it, if it existed.
Days of Wonder has a huge success with its online TICKET TO RIDE service. A lot of games are being translated to iPhone apps. Zooloretto is coming out on the DS, Knizia has that DS thing somewhere in development. Folks, this is the future. All it takes is some freaking ambition.
I know that this stuff costs money to develop. But come on, if fans can come up with Vassal modules for free, then why can't a company with finances behind it do something similar? I'd understand if some serious programming and AI were involved. But we're talking about importing artwork and making Java/Flash playble versions of these games with online multiplayer. I'm not a programmer, but I know that's a snap in most instances.
If I were Rio Grande Games, I'd be actively licensing out almost every single title to an iPhone apps developer or casual games publishers. If I were Fantasy Flight, I'd be putting online versions of almost every game up at Fantasyflightgames.com, using the registration code model that DoW has used to great success.
I hate to say it, but the days of cardboard gaming may be winding down. It's time for board games to transcend the material medium and start migrating elsewhere.
Yeah, that Settlers and Carcassone are on Xbox Live but not WiiWare boggles my mind. It doesn't need waggle folks, just import it. I guarantee you that you have more Wii owners in your player base than 360 owners. Ticket to Ride should TOTALLY be on WiiWare, as well as the more common games like Uno, Monopoly and Scrabble.
Maybe FFG has just sunk too much money into that Midnight movie?
*Sigh*...yeah, that might be the case. I'll reserve comment until I see it, but the trailer doesn't promise much. It looks very...SciFi channel-ish. I bet it was a blast to make though, but most movies are at that level of production.
_I_ would play TICKET TO RIDE on WiiWare. I don't even like the game, but I can see it being kind of fun for a 15 minute time killer.
HEY THAT'S MY FISH did turn up on WiiWare, but that one...nope, won't do it.
Alright, I slam FFG too much for the movie, but I can see that if FFG were going to do online games, they would be highly polished and look very good. Maybe it's not the movie that sucks up resources, it's just the time to do it. ... Or it's the European comics ...
I play online shooters and co-op games for the 360 over Live with a fairly regular group of guys. I met them through www.agerocks.com about 2 years ago and have spent probably 3 to 4 hours a week gaming with them since. Last night we tried out the new Magic the Gathering game, a 4-player duel. Just talking it up while waiting for your turn to come around...it came very close to feeling like regular boardgaming. Two of us had never even played the game before, and with the tutorials were all able to jump in with just a few minutes of prep.
The boardgames I like offer a slower pace and fewer demands than the frantic video games I usually play. They let me kick back with friends while the game acts as the social glue. I think video implementations are the future. I'll miss the physicality of interacting with the playing pieces, but it's a worthy sacrifice for the conveniences the medium offers.
Last night we talked about how Wizards should develop a D&D game engine for Xbox Live. You know, a mapper, character management system, and user-friendly versions of the books. Adventures would be downloadable content at $5 to $8 dollars a shot. I mean, we already have the headsets and cameras are available.
Does Rio Grande own the electronic rights to any of their games? I have a feeling they may not. I have ZOOLORETTO on my iPod touch (I know, I know, mock me), and it has the ABACUS logo on the initial screen, but Rio Grande is not mentioned.
Well I won't argue that playing board games in person is a more satisfying experience for social reasons and the tactile experience of interacting with the pieces. But when you've got family and friends scattered around the country, stuff like Xbox Live is a great way to still "hang out."
I mean, we already have the headsets and cameras are available.
Technology like this is why "electronic assisted board gaming" is going to be the future. You can have all the tabletalk, all the eye contact, all the elements of a F2F game...but without the difficulty of meeting up, leaving home, and other logistical considerations.
Does Rio Grande own the electronic rights to any of their games? I have a feeling they may not. I have ZOOLORETTO on my iPod touch (I know, I know, mock me), and it has the ABACUS logo on the initial screen, but Rio Grande is not mentioned.
I wonder how many board game publishers outside of FFG, who I'm sure thought about this ahead of time, have even considered this in any of their legal paperwork. I mean, when you sign a contract for RGG to produce your game, is "electronic rights" ever even mentioned in the document? Or is it pretty much the equivalent of a handshake deal?
Well I won't argue that playing board games in person is a more satisfying experience for social reasons and the tactile experience of interacting with the pieces. But when you've got family and friends scattered around the country, stuff like Xbox Live is a great way to still "hang out."
See, that's another benefit. If there were an easily accesible and available way for real-time online boardgaming, I'd be playing games with you guys as much as the people I live close to. I'd be able to play ROMMEL IN THE DESERT with my buddy Peter out in California. Sure, you can do some of that PBEM and on Vassal, but it's not the same as having a professional implementation with a well-developed user interface and full support.
Re: Licensing to consoles or other virtual mediums.
If the game is licensed from another company, like many Rio Grande titles, and some of mine, you do not get the electronic rights - they remain with the original license holders. I guess you could try to finagle it into your contract but chances are it won't happen (especially when dealing with large companies like Kosmos, Amigo, etc.
When I do an original game I do hold the electronic rights. But after that....
...it ain't easy to get a developer interested in your games to develop. Plus I have been approached by at least 3 dozen people wanting to develop certain games into certain electronic versions - and 99% of them fall through for all kinds of reasons.
So while I'm sure most if not all board game companies would like to license their games to virtual mediums, it's just not that easy to have it happen no matter how much it is desired.
Sounds pretty awful to me. Dune, BSG, Magic Realm, FoD, TotAN, these games are triumphs because of the limitations of the medium, not in spite of them. It's the creator clashing with those constraints that makes any form of creative expression enjoyable. Did video games get better as the technology got more advanced? Fuck no. They've gotten to the point where the game has to play sidekick to the stories (if they can even be called that) and graphical presentation. No, it wasn't until designers started taking steps backwards that video games got good again.
I like where this discussion has gone. As I sit here and look at my shelf, there are at least 4 titles that immediately come to mind which I bought just so I could play them online/PBEM. Here I Stand, Wilderness War, Magic Realm and Successors. Because of online play, I've gotten in way more plays of each of those games that I ever dreamed of. While I don't think online play will ever totally replace cardboard or face to face gaming, it will certainly broaden the audience. A great online version of BSG, Descent or Arkham Horror would almost make me get an X-Box 360 by itself. But the more likely scenario in my mind is the board gaming explodes on devices like the DSi or iPhone. Imagine riding the bus during rush hour and playing Ghost Stories online (with cool animations and a top notch interface). That would kick ass.
-Will
Sounds like an excellent opportunity for a start-up company then: a video game developer that specializes in porting board games. And like Bulwyf said, selling it for iphone/ipod touch would be an ingenious idea (pun intended).
I can't believe how many people here are supporting this idea of board games moving online: I play board games because it gives me and my friends a frame that we socialize around. Maybe I'm old school, but headphones and videos of each other does not give the same experience, no way. And a big part of the appeal of board games that no one has mentioned so far, surprisingly, is their tactility. Clicking some dudes on a screen feels different from picking them up with your own hands and putting them right in your opponent's territory.
I would also have zero desire for some online Ticket to Ride implementation, because pretty much the only reason I still own Ticket to Ride is that it's one of very few that my parents enjoy playing with us. They don't want to play it online, my friends don't want to play it when any other better game is available, and I certainly have no desire to play against some faceless stranger. Back to stuff you can't do except in person: with my old Euro gaming group, the first time we played Ticket to Ride with five players (i.e. lots of blocking), multiple people were throwing shit across the room in anger. Can't replicate that with headphones.
I like playing board games online, and to be honest, that format has been a fucking godsend for wargamers. But, at the same time, I'm really not that interested in slick, professional online versions of games. I like good ol' VASSAL and cyberboard, warts and all. Yes, they're pretty rudimentary, but that drag n' drop interface at least gives you a pretty decent board game feel.
Slick, glossy UIs, animations, automation? Fuck, doesn't anyone want to use their goddamn imagination anymore? Do we need computers to "assist" every single aspect of our lives? It's not enough that we'll soon be living in a world without record stores, newsstands, libraries, and movie theatres? We can't keep this one simple little indulgence in the corporeal realm?
Taking this idea to its logical extreme, we don't really even need games at all, do we? We could just invent a machine that directly stimulates the same pleasure centers of the brain that playing games does. Think of the possibilities; we wouldn't need to pay designers for their ideas, wouldn't need publishers to create the digital media, wouldn't even need other players.
mjl, dragonstout, good to see some anti-technology anger coming up in this post; it was a rather distressing love-fest until then. I'll grant that more people would be playing "these games of ours" (sorry Barnes, "hobby games") if there were online/XBOX/Wii versions, but that's hardly to say that more people would be playing boardgames. I heartily second those who insist on the face-to-face experience. When you look at the forms of entertainment made possible by technology and industrialization, complex boardgames comprise one of the very few media which must be experienced communally. Anyone can listen to the radio, watch a movie, play a video game on their own, but boardgames insist you take you pleasure in the company of others. And as someone who doesn't even really like talking on the phone, webcams and headsets are not solutions but illusions. I treasure boardgames because they are not some medium through which you experience other people (directly, as a telephone, etc., or through mimesis, as in a movie) but something a group of people participates in. Video games = atomized, individualized society, Board games = brotherly, communal society.
So that's my rant.
Zev- thanks for your insight, it's rare that we groundlings really get a peek inside what actually goes on in the business. As always, we really appreciate having you around.
Dune, BSG, Magic Realm, FoD, TotAN, these games are triumphs because of the limitations of the medium, not in spite of them. It's the creator clashing with those constraints that makes any form of creative expression enjoyable.
Huh...that's a good point, and I agree mostly with the sentiment. But I think what I'm really trying to get at is more from a financial angle, that we wouldn't have limitations on the logistical production of board games. A digital version of a board game could have 50,000 pieces and a board the size of Kansas. And designers could design with that in mind.
I do agree that having to work within the confines and parameters of a medium is really what can create greatness...but are we reaching a point where those confines and parameters are too tight? What would a Corey Koniescka, a Christian Petersen, or an EON do with a larger palette not restrained by production limitations?
All of this does sort of call into question some interesting things along the digital divide. At which point we call a digital version of a board game a video game. EUROPA UNIVERSALIS, for example, is pretty much a board game. But it has WAY more complexity made possible by all of the math and statistics being back-ended and hidden. It's definitely a video game. Yet, any board gamer will recognize board game mechanics and concepts. It's a gray area, and I think in coming years it's going to get even hazier. That may be for good or ill, we'll have to wait and see.
I can't believe how many people here are supporting this idea of board games moving online: I play board games because it gives me and my friends a frame that we socialize around. Maybe I'm old school, but headphones and videos of each other does not give the same experience, no way. And a big part of the appeal of board games that no one has mentioned so far, surprisingly, is their tactility. Clicking some dudes on a screen feels different from picking them up with your own hands and putting them right in your opponent's territory.
See, I do agree with this. If you go back to Cracked LCD #2 that's exactly what it was about. However, in two years I've been thinking a lot about it and I wonder if these kinds of attitudes are going to be regarded as outdated and quaint in 20 years. Will there be a generation of hobby gamers that shuns tactility for greater ability to actually play?
I never said I preferred digital versions to the real deal. Just saying I wish there were more digital versions to play with the people I can't play with face-to-face. Playing with Joe Schmoe is not as fun as playing with my brother.
They're regarded as quaint now, and I don't give a shit. BOOKS are going to be regarded as quaint in a few years. Newspapers, radio, and television pretty much already are. Is this what we really want?
Nobody remembers the simple joy of leaving the house to go rent a movie from a video store? Nobody's going to miss that ritual of debating which movie to get, recommending things to the other customers, chatting with the clerk, or the responsiblity you had to the people waiting for you at home to pick a good picture? Do we have to sacrifice everything that engenders any spirit of community for convenience and saving time?
Thanks MJL: why should I CARE if people think what I love is quaint? I mean, most people think most of the greatest movies of all time are quaint. All those Val Lewton horror pictures? Average person would think they're outdated as hell.
Now, the problem is that there's really a very good reason why we should care about people thinking things are quaint, and that's that if EVERYONE thought those Lewton movies were outdated, they'd never have appeared on DVD and we never could have owned them. And the same goes for board games. But I think there will always be nerds with old-timey taste, so I don't worry about it too much. Look at the renaissance in classic comic strip reprints right now.
if EVERYONE thought those Lewton movies were outdated, they'd never have appeared on DVD and we never could have owned them.
And nobody would have liked DRAG ME TO HELL, which was a Val Lewton movie with Sam Raimi comedy.
I definitely agree with you guys, if there's anybody that doesn't give a flying fuck what people think about what is quaint or not it's me. Great games, like great movies or books, transcend what people think is current or modern. Greatness means something is timeless.
However, the point I'm trying to make is that some of our attitudes- including my own- may be keeping hobby games from evolving and moving forward. And part of where that potential could be is in having a game like TI3 become popular and culturally present beyond a small group of hobbyists. I'm totally in concurrence with y'all about how games do different things, how face to face gaming could never be replaced, and how there is a physical presence and tactility that should be preserved with board games. But I think if we hold on to that stuff so much that it keeps us from what could be a possible future where we're playing great games _more_ and with _more people_, then we're hurting rather than helping.
For example, when I was with Cisco one of the main things I was writing about in RFPs/RFIs and so one was TelePresence. The first time I sat in on a TelePresence meeting, the first thing I thought was "this would be awesome for board games". You sit in a room with two or three HDTVs that curve around to give you a sense of peripheral vision. All the people in your room look at all the people in another room which could be anywhere in the world, and it really is like being in the same room with everybody else. Now, if there were a way to combine that with the physical element of board gaming, you could game with anyone in the world. If the tech were made accessible and affordable, then we could be playing games together rather than just shooting the shit with each other here at F:AT. It would be revolutionary, and it would change the way we play games. and it would get us to play more. The great games we love would be played more often, and with a wider range of people. Is that bad? Of course not. But getting to that point, if it's even theoretically possible, may one day require us (myself included) to get over some of the luddism.
if EVERYONE thought those Lewton movies were outdated, they'd never have appeared on DVD and we never could have owned them.
I don't know, I think a game like War for Edadh is definitely pushing the hobby gaming in a new direction, especially if they get their "brotherhood" campaign system up and running. But that's using online to augment the FtF experience, not replace it. And, I mean, don't get me wrong, I like having the option of playing my games online, and I do wish more publishers had the same attitude GMT do about it. I'm just saying, once you start moving hobby games down that road, you know it's only a matter of time before they end up as just another video game genre. Maybe that's just swell with folks, and it's probably where the money is, but you can damn well count me out.
And why do we always assume that cultural presence outside the current niche is a good thing? You think there are too many Talisman clones now? Is there any reason to believe that problem wouldn't get much, much worse if hobby games ever got a little mainstream success? It happens with every other form of media, why should board games be any different?
Again, what makes you so sure more is automatically better? Euros and CCGs allowed us to play more games with more people, too. Was that worth some of the less favorable effects they had on the hobby? Yes, it absolutely would be cool to be able to game with you boys on a regular basis. On the other hand, if that opens up the possibilty that the shit shooting goes away to make more time for THE GAMES, I'm not sure it's worth it.
Well, if EVERYONE had any sense, NOBODY would have liked Drag Me to Hell.
The thing is though, they already are. TI3 on the computer already exists. Master of Orion, Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations, etc, etc. That's what they are.
Now you can argue whether "MoO is TI3 on the computer" or "TI3 is MoO as a boardgame" but it's all irrelevant. The experience is already there. It's just been modified and "enhanced" to take advantage of the greater complexity a computer affords you. For most game types, you can find an analogue on the computer already. People are already exposed to these game types.
The boardgame medium relies on social interaction and on the interesting mechanics designers use to keep the boardgames system simple. That's also, in some ways, it's weakness.
While it would be nice to be able to play my favorite boardgames more, it just wouldn't convey the real experience without my friends around the table.
For new players, it's not about convincing them that a boardgame can deliver experience X, it's about convincing them just to play boardgames in the first place.
Guys, this is really an awesome discussion...I really appreciate hearing you guys' thoughts on it and I'm enjoying weighing out your arguments and comparing them to my own. This is good stuff, and this is why I love F:AT. I think it really shows _that we all love games_ first and foremost and I think that's great.
I don't know, I think a game like War for Edadh is definitely pushing the hobby gaming in a new direction, especially if they get their "brotherhood" campaign system up and running. But that's using online to augment the FtF experience, not replace it.
It may be that the future really is in figuring out ways to augment F2F gaming with technology, not replace it. The thing is, it's been done (cue Branham talking about STAR SAGA) and it's being done with all the online tools to facilitate D&D and RPG games. But it could go further. Even SPACE ALERT uses a CD in a fairly original way to enrich the boardgaming experience. I wonder if a physical board game that really integrates with technological elements- a PC, internet, an iPhone, whatever- could do something really interesting.
once you start moving hobby games down that road, you know it's only a matter of time before they end up as just another video game genre. Maybe that's just swell with folks, and it's probably where the money is, but you can damn well count me out.
That's what I was talking about, at what point does a board game stop being a board game and it turns into a video game? I agree with you though, there are things that are distinctly board game that could be lost. But I also believe that it's possible to play board games electronically and capture the key elements we're talking about. 10 years ago, I don't think it was. But more and more, I think it is.
And why do we always assume that cultural presence outside the current niche is a good thing? You think there are too many Talisman clones now? Is there any reason to believe that problem wouldn't get much, much worse if hobby games ever got a little mainstream success? It happens with every other form of media, why should board games be any different?
That's a good point too, with a bigger market comes a greater product dilution and repetition- we see that now in board games as it is, and it's a tiny market. The reality of it is, beyond all this theoretical discussion, is that most of the subject matter and processes of board games _still_ wouldn't appeal to a larger audience even with electronic implementation.
Well, if EVERYONE had any sense, NOBODY would have liked Drag Me to Hell.
Really? I saw it friday night and I really enjoyed it- like I said, it felt VERY much like a Val Lewton/Jacques Tourneur picture but with Raimi's physical comedy. I thought it worked well, and it's the only horror picture in recent years that actually had atmosphere, taste, and class. My only real complaint about it is that it's too close to NIGHT OF THE DEMON for comfort. I mean, it's really close to NIGHT OF THE DEMON. The Karswell figure turns out to be a good guy, but there's an awful lot of similiarities.
TI3 on the computer already exists. Master of Orion, Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations, etc, etc. That's what they are.
That's true, but I'd argue that those games are vastly more complex (particularly GalCiv) and the kind of experience they offer is different because there are fewer limitations. This goes back to what MJ was saying about working within limitations, and it does demonstrate that a concept like TI3 that isn't bound to them may as well be one of those games.
The boardgame medium relies on social interaction and on the interesting mechanics designers use to keep the boardgames system simple. That's also, in some ways, it's weakness.
I think this is a breakthrough in this discussion, you've really kind of summed up the whole of both parts of the argument. Well said.
For new players, it's not about convincing them that a boardgame can deliver experience X, it's about convincing them just to play boardgames in the first place.
But don't you agree that getting your non-hobbyist friends to sit down and play a game of CATAN on Xbox Live is easier than getting them to play it on the tabletop? Maybe I'm thinking about it like a bait and switch- "hey guys, let's play this video game!". Which turns out, really, to be a board game.
You know, I've been mulling this over in my head for awhile now (since halfway through writing my last post actually) and trying to figure it out.
And I think, in a way, you may be right. Boardgames seem, to me, to be in the same place video games were like 10-15 years ago when I was young. It wasn't "cool". Tons of people played them, but god forbid you admit to doing it publicly. It was like Masturbation or something.
But here we still are, with videogames having emerged, grown and even gone mainstream and boardgames, which predate them by ages, still linger in obscurity. Beyond the classics that is. And that may be the issue.
It all comes down to image and the ability to play them I think.
Boardgames aren't "cool" and when people think of them, they think of either like Chess (too hard, for nerds) or Monopoly (stupid and easy, for kids and creepy Leave-It-To-Beaver families). It's a bad rep.
Compounding this is the fact that even IF you secretly wanted to play them, who would you play them WITH? I stopped playing boardgames for like 10 years because both my brother and my dad hated them, so I had no one to play with. So I played videogames till I hit college and met a bunch of friends who, we all eventually figured out, also liked boardgames.
Something like Catan on X-Box or whatever could easily solve this. Not by replacing boardgames, but by improving their image. By giving people an easy outlet to play boardgames while simultaneously showing people "Hey, they can be fun!".
The easier you make it for people to play, the more people will play and the more people you will get who realise they actually LIKE playing boardgames. And maybe sometimes instead of a Halo-party (where you get like 12 people over for 6 vs 6 CTF via LAN) people have a Catan party (where you bust out Settlers and a few beers).
Improving the image is _definitely_ a consideration, and I think that electronic implementations could go a long way to making board gaming look like something youthful, current, and relevant to the lives of people who aren't 45-year old Randy Newman look-a-likes with a lot of mentions of Thoughthammer.com on their credit card statements.
The image of boardgaming is _crap_, like you said, and it's self-perpeutating when you've got a bunch of people involved in the hobby who actively look down their noses at video games and wilfully stick to this "These Games of Ours" elitist attitude.
How can anyone in the mainstream not look at board games as something enjoyed by deadbeat losers just short of model train aficinados or "Rod and Tod" Presbyterian nerdlingers? Long ago, I wrote an article here called "And We Don't Care About the Young Folks" that was all about this and about how frustrated I am with the fact that the hobby not only perpetuates its own stereotypes but it fucking WALLOWS in them and assumes that it's everybody else that's wrong.
And see the "who are you going to play them with" is a big issue, I think, and a huge barrier to entry. I used to sell games to this guy who had no one to play with. I invited him a couple of times to come to our group, but he could never make it. So he'd buy DESCENT and do I don't know what with it. But if he could buy DESCENT and get a code to play a professionally made online version at the FFG website...I bet he'd have a different opinion on this electronic implementation issue.
It goes back to the idea that when you have people to play with, it's a lot easier to be into the hobby. There may very well be a lot of people out there that would really get into DESCENT but don't have access to game groups. Or maybe they don't want to be caught dead near a bunch of 45 year old ne'er-do-wells chittering on about "mechanics" and "elegance". Or maybe they're not aware of the game because "gaming" to them is primarily an electronic concept.
So Shryke, I think you hit on something- that electronic versions of board games could be used to make board games accessible, and to show people that it's fun. That it's something you can do and not feel like a sad sack loser.
You know the best example of that? WORLD OF WARCRAFT. How many millions of people play that? And what percentage of those people wouldn't be caught dead near a 20-sided dice? My boss plays WoW. And you'd never know it. It's culturally sanctioned as "cool" (to an extent), and it's accepted to talk about nerd-ass shit like night elves, magic swords, and orcs. It's made gaming concepts mainstream that previously existed primariliy in niche RPGs (electronic and paper). In 1990, I never would have guessed that something called WRATH OF THE LICH KING would sell millions of copies _in any format_.
By the same token though, WoW didn't make D&D cool. It didn't make Warhammer nerds not nerds anymore.
There's not very much bleeding over into other types of games.
As I said before, it's about convincing people just to play boardgames. You can convince them that RPGs are cool, that Empire Building is cool, that Stats and Loot and Bosses aer cool, but if you want them to play a BOARDGAME of those kind of things, you've got to also convince them that boardgames are cool too.
So, to sum up, your boardgame-as-a-videogame needs to be first and foremost a BOARDGAME. It needs to stick close to it's heritage, as it were. If you want to improve boardgamings image, your program must remind the player that "You can have this exact same experience over a kitchen table with your buddies".
If it doesn't do that, if it strays too far and becomes a videogame rather then just a boardgame-on-a-computer, then your not really doing much for boardgaming. The good will won't find it's way back to the original product, because the original product won't deliver the experience the player fell in love with.
Agreed- an electronic board game needs stuff to remind the player that it's a board game. It has to remain a board game first and foremost, even if the board and interface between players is virtual. It sounds stupid as anything, but even like in MONTJOIE, that PC version of JOAN OF ARC, it's meaningful that it shows actual cards, dice, and the board is depicted graphically as being on a tabletop. Even though MARIO PARTY 8 was crap, I liked that you had to shake the Wiimote to roll the dice (since it's basically a roll-and-move board game).
Mario Party 8 is like playing a game with all your friends, except some Analysis Paralysis dipshit showed up too and is making you wait 5 minutes between everyones turn while he tries to decide whether to roll his dice with the left or the right hand.
That's basically me in a nutshell.
Improving the image is _definitely_ a consideration, and I think that electronic implementations could go a long way to making board gaming look like something youthful, current, and relevant to the lives of people who aren't 45-year old Randy Newman look-a-likes with a lot of mentions of Thoughthammer.com on their credit card statements.
It's a nice thought, man, but I really think we'll see 90-minute Civ before we see this happen. It could happen with electronic implementation maybe, but probably not until video board games get to the point that they're practically indistinguishable from plain ol' video games. People are just too damned impatient these days. Hell, it's getting tough to get your average video gamer to sit through a 15-second "loading" screen anymore, let alone a turn-based video game of any kind. More accessible? Sure. Accessible to the point it'll make much difference? I doubt it.
Besides, I don't really think these things are associated with 45 year-old beard & bellies as closely as you assume. I'm not sure people are aware of them enough to make that association. I think the worst assumption people make about hobby games is simply that they're boring, and given how badly people want that instant gratification from their entertainment, I'm not sure it's an image you'll ever be able to successfully combat.
It goes back to the idea that when you have people to play with, it's a lot easier to be into the hobby. There may very well be a lot of people out there that would really get into DESCENT but don't have access to game groups.
And this is an area where the industry has failed miserably. There's no good reason, in the age of the internet, for a publisher not to have a "find a group" feature on their website that they promote heavily. Same goes for the FLGS. They should be incentivizing players to start game clubs and get other people involved with their games. Blizzard does it with WoW, and I hear they're doing OK these days.
I thought it worked well, and it's the only horror picture in recent years that actually had atmosphere, taste, and class.
Oh my god, taste and class? Seriously? They should've just called that picture Did I Get Any in my Mouth? That was half of the movie, getting gross stuff to come out of the old lady's mouth and into Alison Lohman's. Even that I wouldn't have minded, but the thing was basically a demonstration of every single cheap, lame, manipulative, played-out horror movie gag known to man.
@Barnes
Mario Party isn't about the board, it's about the minigames. The board is more-or-less just a vehicle for determining which minigames get played, by assigning teams based on the squares the players land on.
Anyway, Mario Party 8 features some good twists on the board layout, with the Pirate board seemingly particularly fair.
I do feel guilty playing it when I could be playing a board game, though.
Man, and the M:tG XBLArcade game just game out yesterday. Pretty fun, actually. i haven't played Magic in 15 years