Cracked LCD's Game of the Year 2010 Hot

Seeing as how I've not yet be able to get in a game of Labyrinth, I'll tentatively say you didn't totally blow it by having Ravenloft where it is.

You had me at all your picks(Except Earth reborn, it's the only one I haven't played as of yet) except for Labyrinth. I would just never put a 2 Player as a game of the year. They just never get played around here. No matter how genius it is. It just has to accommodate at least 3-4 players. 2 Player games seem an antiquated an idea as a duel or wrestling match.

Two's a bromance, more than 2 is a party...I game to party.

The new format is excellent and the consideration you gave each title is perfect. The format also breaks away from similar lists done by others. Nicely done. 'Course the Runewars fans will be pissed ;)... I think it could have eked out an honourable mention. For me that was the big FFG game this year that had merit.

For me the big dud (after an initial good first games) was Magical Athelete. Greatly greatly overrated (in the sense the fun of discovery of character powers wears off fast, fast, fast) and I usually love those kinds of games and still love the art. Neverthless, it seems to have been highly enjoyed by the majority its great that Zman took such an 'obscure' title and put it out.

I'd agree that RUNEWARS was definitely the one big FFG release worth looking at this year, although I think it really, really needs a SHATTERED EMPIRE-like expansion to fine-tune it and bring out its best. I still think it's sort of a kitchen sink design, I hate that it doesn't support 5-6 players, and it's just not there for $100 but it was a good game, if not a great one.

I would be into a SHATTERED EMPIRE-type expansion. In fact,given how FFG given how FFG usually operates, it's strange they haven't worked out/ announced an expansion for this one yet...

The 2-player thing, Chapel... hey if TS can be No. 1 of all the games listed at TOS (not that anyone cares about those ratings)... why not a 2-player for gotY?

Pretty much what I expected, apart from innovation which came out of nowhere as I don't even remember it being reviewed or mentioned anywhere (I thought Nemo's War would take that slot, but then maybe it is technically excluded by being officially a 2009 release).

I reviewed INNOVATION very favorably in a Review Rodeo over the summer, I think. There was some balking. OMG, it's pretty abstract. THAT'S NOT AT ENOUGH FOR ME OH NOES!!! I've played it several times and every time I'm sort of blown away by it. It's an incredibly smart, tight design with a huge amount of weirdness and craziness. It's high-level in terms of theme, but it totally works. It's also very interactive, kind of nasty sometimes, and it really does impart a sense of progress over time. I love it. Why don't I own a copy of it though, I feel dumb for that.

NEMO'S WAR would have been close to GOTY if it were a 2010 game.

What?!? I'm dumbfounded.

I could not be more surprised.
Thanks man. Just for that I'm treating you to a half eaten can of refried beans.

Steve"and maybe a claymato"Avery

Merchans and Marauders better get a look in 2011 :) It is a damn fun game.

Good mix of games. Something for ever taste around here. I predict my most played game in 2011 will be Labyrinth (even if I don't include solo plays). Labyrinth isn't a game for everyone but it's the game I've been most iching to play again. On my New Years resolution list will be to play High Frontier and Merchants and Marauders.

Quite a reasonable choice. Even though I haven't played Labrynth yet, I know people that have and I'm really looking forward to it.

Maybe the GOTY calendar should run Oct-Sept? That way latecomers get a better chance at being properly evaluated.

Tim

You do have a problem with Nemo's War and Earth Reborn and the timing criteria for game releases for GOTY. Late year releases may slip through, or not get played enough to be deemed ready for the status of GOTY. Both could beat Labyrinth, but were nudged out for various reasons. I feel that you should allow late year or submarine releases to slip through to the next year's judging if you don't feel you are able to judge them adequately for this year, or consider them this year if you missed them the previous year.

Totally agree with Barnes here - I received Labyrinth for Xmas from the wife and played it yesterday with my wargaming buddy. Loved it! Sign of a great game for me - if I "think" about the game for days after. I have done nothing but re-run our play through my head - things I did right or wrong. That for me is a sign of a good game.

Agree with an earlier comment on Merchants and Marauders - played that Tuesday night and it is what Blackbeard should have been. (And it's another Z-Man game.) Anxious to see others thoughts and comments on the game. It's really good.

Steve G.

Had Labyrinth been chosen for its gameplay or mechanics that would be one thing. To say that dealing with a sensitive and important topical issue is a plus is also reasonable. The fact that it screws up how it handles that issue by dealing with it in a thoroughly one-sided and shallow manner is the negative check-mark that should keep it away from any top spot.

Yes its a controversial subject but in approaching it they deliberately chose the least controversial and most palatable approach for their target market, at the expense of both reality as a conflict sim or an "examination of our history and culture". They had a chance to make a more complex and nuanced game and passed it up for a guaranteed increase in sales. A fair business decision but one that should have cost them more with critics.

A lot of people seem to write criticism of Labyrinth of as the views of left-winger, anti-war activists but any political realist with a reasonably deep understanding of the terrorism field should have problems with its approach and bias.

Again, this isn't criticism of it as a fun game and if it had been selected for that reason, fair enough. To highlight its political relevance as its charm point though....

It's nice when 4 of the games Barnes and many of us were most anticipating (Labyrinth, Earth Reborn, High Frontier and Castle Ravenloft) made the top 6 games of the years. See http://www.gameshark.com/features/749/p_0/Cracked-LCD-163-Anticipation--.htm The only game on the most aniticipated that wasn't a remake or not out yet that failed to make the top 6 games of the year is Civilization. Is Civilization going to end up being one of the big disappointments of 2010 or will it be the Conan of the year?

Here, here! Even if I was rather quiet (unusually so for me), Steve's Averyfest this past year was the highlight of the gaming year. He is a blast to game with, generous beyond belief....he deserves some sort of award.

Thanks, Steve, for a great year!

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/594871/flawed-simulation-of-a-conflict-thats- difficult-to

This thread does a fine job of elaborating at length why Labyrinth is a problematic choice for me--I just don't think it does all that good a job of simulating what it is supposed to simulate, and I don't think the gameplay is interesting enough to compensate for that. Labyrinth strikes me as a game that seems important in the way that some of the Academy Award winning films seem important, but in retrospect really aren't. I don't think it is half as engaging as Washington's War, and there were other wargames as well that I preferred, from both large publishers and small.

Brannagyn, you've mentioned the same thing about Labyrinth's politics twice now... What do you think the correct politics of the game should have been, and whatever that answer is, what makes your interpretation of the events more accurate? I haven't read enough about it to have a good idea what the slant of the game is, so I'm not asking in terms of being contentious... You may well be right. But for example, it's one thing for people to say things like, "President Bush/President Obama is evil/wrong/a liar, etc.!" and another for people to actually back that up with anything substantive. I hear the former a lot, and the latter rarely. So what's your take on the politics of the game, already? It may be better suited to a thread of its own as opposed to starting some political thing here (and maybe it's already been discussed in Trash Talk and I've missed it), but I'd like to hear it, anyway.

Innovation may be a highly abstracted card game, but it's great for what it is. Very interactive with a lot of direct conflict and a cool tech tree development scheme.

Gru- "wishes he had a cool sig line idea like the mighty Steve Avery" -dunza

Hey thanks man. I just appreciate the leap of faith you took to come down. Anyway, I contribute nothing. I rock the boat now and then, and add BS to the evergrowing pile.

Ubarose and the people who work behind the scenes (MadDog,Juniper..) are the people who deserve thanks. This is the best site on internet for discussion of AT gaming. They have done an outstanding job of allowing everyone their voice while still maintaining great and interesting content.Views have grown more moderate (Euro-y) but that can be expected with the influx of people.

If you're wondering why I'm posting a cum-ba-yah feel good message instead of stirring up a total shitstorm-blame it being the new year. I'm going to resist my impish urges. There is definately some hot opinons flying back in forth through. All it would take is a match...

Steve"likes to play with fire"Avery

Because of all the chatter about Ravenloft, I went to a buddy's house and played a couple of 2-player scenarios again last night. I now stand corrected, partially. I still think it's nowhere near the top of the pile, but it's a solid design and a decent time. Still don't like things about it, and there was always that "Wow, this is neat. Now when do I get to play D&D Fantasy Adventure Boardgame again?" feeling going on behind the curtain of my mind.

I think there's a lot of merit to it, but there's so many other light dungeoncrawls that outshine it that I find it hard to justify it. The one thing they got so right that it's ridiculous was the scripted critters. It's way better than Dungeon Twister 2's scripted foe cards, and it's just about as slick a way of getting rid of the one v. all system as I've ever seen.

Still, it's easily whooped on by other games, and I can't see it in the top spot. Good call relegating it to the cheap seats.

Labrynth seems to be pretty neat, but I'm not a huge fan of CDGs to begin with after playing Twilight Struggle several times. It's a matter of taste, I know, so it is what it is. I'm still a little salty that Cyclades didn't make it to your top 5 because I really think it's one of the more fun games that was released in "twenty ought ten", but again, tastes.

Guess I'm off to do my Top 10 list... ;)

This is a response to Grudunza about my dislike for Labyrinth’s inaccurate handling of its theme and missed opportunities (not its virtues as a fun, light game based loosely in reality). Fair warning, skip everything below if you couldn’t care less.

Its major flaws can probably be reduced to three key areas:

* Promoting the US policy in the Middle East as aimed primarily at nation-building or responding to terrorism
* Conflating all opposition to the US in the Middle-East (in fact all militancy by Muslim groups whether driven by nationalism, socio-political ideology or religion) as part of a coordinated entity
* Vastly overstating the threat of WMDs

It also has promotes numerous minor myths such as Saddam’s support for jihadi groups.

It also falls ridiculously short in its failure to highlight the importance of the management of propaganda, domestic opinion and local tension as vital elements in initiating, sustaining and disengaging from low-level military conflict.

It similarly overlooks the role of the intelligence services and special forces as proactive rather than reactive forces, but this is a minor gripe based on my own interests.

At its heart, its cards are based on a reading of events that is lockstep with the views of the US military and the pro-invasion politicians of the period. As such they present a worldview that is not even in line with what such people themselves stated as beliefs but rather the message they sold to the mainstream media.

An example is the game’s use of Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya rather than the Islamic Courts Union as representative of Muslim influence in Somalia. The former was practically nonexistent during the ‘War on terror’, having been displaced by the far more moderate ICU. This latter group was also the first group in Somalia to take successful action against the pirate cartels and it was only when they were unfairly lumped into the Islamist militant catch-all net and targeted by the US that piracy began to revive. Which, in turn, gives lie to the ‘Piracy’ card and its inference that piracy provided financial support for Somali Islamists.

The use of cards such as ‘Special forces”, ‘Predator drones’, ‘Mossad’ and ‘Enhanced measures’ all reference tactics that had a dramatic effect on direct and indirect support for both secular and non-secular militant groups and have arguably (even in the direct words of many US military commanders) done far more to promote future terrorism than address it. The failure to account for blowback as an inherent aspect of every tactical choice overlooks both vital strategic and moral questions about counter-terror campaigns.

The pattern is repeated in countless other cards such as ‘Detainee releases’, ‘Loose nukes’ or ‘Hamas elected’, which are each either disingenuous, exaggerated or inaccurate about what they convey. It doesn’t even come across as though they were using US military personnel as sources for their views as such people would almost certainly have provided a far deeper and more nuanced understanding of the factors at play. Instead they seem to have simply read through and parroted the mainstream US media coverage of the time (which is < mainstream international coverage < independent media coverage < open source intelligence < expert opinion). As I said above, this may have been for marketing reasons and I can’t fault them for that. The simpler, more palatable and less confusing view sold well during the actual events and it’s likely to make them more money than a game with the depth required to accurately depict the levels of action or moral choices involved at political, military, economic and social levels.

I realize I’m likely to be far more critical of it than the average player but I can also see the potential for a really good game to be made on the theme that could work as a very deep, grand strategy game and also educate people about the causes, intricacies and effects of the past and ongoing conflicts of the last decade. As you may have guessed, claiming that Labyrinth has already done this…..bothers me.

Bran, you just don't get it brother. LABYRINTH is not intended to be a simulation and it is also evidence of how authorship exists in game design. It's not "fair and balanced" nor is it intended to be an inclusive, comprehensive examination of its subject. It's one guy's take on it, told through the gaming medium. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. I don't agree with a lot of his assumptions and I think some things, like overstating the WMD thing, are ridiculous in the real world. But that's the point- this is his perspective on it, and it's NOT A FUCKING SIMULATION. It's actually high level and fairly abstract when you break down. Hell, most of the game is hugely hypothetical anyway.

To fault it for not having YOUR viewpoint is just silly. That's like watching Sean Hannity and getting upset that he doesn't represent a liberal viewpoint. Ruhnke has his opinions and observations, and that's what the game is. You don't have to like them to have fun with the game or to get a big picture understanding of events and circumstances.

Seriously man, if you're expecting a board game to get into the level of detail you're talking about and at an accuracy level you're talking about...give up board gaming, because it ain't going to happen.

Frankly, some of what you're talking about in your last post is just laughable and blows WAY over the top of what the scope, scale, and agenda of this game is. It's like some dude that runs a bean farm comign on here and getting into all this crap about why BOHNANZA doesn't accurately depict how bean farming works or how the bean types are misvalued based on current market data.

This is a much better objection:

Labyrinth strikes me as a game that seems important in the way that some of the Academy Award winning films seem important, but in retrospect really aren't. I don't think it is half as engaging as Washington's War, and there were other wargames as well that I preferred, from both large publishers and small.

I can see where you're coming from with that, and it may be that in 10 years it's _not_ as important as it is right now. I think that could happen, it all depends on events much larger than the game itself and also how it ages over time. But for 2010, I think it's the top game, no doubt. I find it much more engaging than WW if only because I've played plenty of games with that subject matter.

I'm sad to say that with the exception of Incursion, I've not played a single game mentioned in this article. 2010 has been a lackluster year in gaming for me for a million different reasons. Aside from LCG boosters I've hardly bought any games this year. Until last week. Coolstuffinc had a sale going that I couldn't resist with Ravenloft going for 32 bucks or so, Merchants and Marauders for 35, etc. So I snapped up a few games, much to the missus' chagrin.

The big difference between the box that arrived a few days ago and boxes of christmas past was pretty obvious upon opening it. There were titles from Z-Man, Asmodee, GMT, Flying Frog, Privateer, and WOTC. And one teeny little AGOT LCG booster from FFG. In orders past the lions share of titles would have been from FFG with a few other publishers sprinkled here and there. I think this speaks volumes for the games released in 2010. Lots of other companies have stepped up big time this year in terms of producing and releasing the kinds of games I'm interested in. This isn't a jab at FFG either; I'm just really stoked that there's quite a few more girls at the dance, and that some of them are cheap dates. I look forward to trying out the hits of 2010 in 2011.

Great critique, Brannagyn. I wouldn't doubt that the designers based their ideas on mainstream press coverage, since that's the path of least resistance and likely the quickest way to move a game like Labyrinth from concept to execution. Would that we could see more games that provide a "far deeper and more nuanced" approach to this kind of subject matter.

That being said, the fact that Labyrinth has provoked your particular response (i.e., thoughtful instead of knee-jerk) is, I think, exactly the kind of positive side effect that Michael means when he talks about the game's ability to "ignite passionate debate and create meaningful conversation." I agree with most of your criticisms about the game's handling of its subject; the more those things get discussed, the more encouraged future game designers will be to delve deeper in their research.

The perspective doesn't matter... you can still appreciate something for what it is.

I firmly believe 100% that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, alone. When Oliver Stone's movie came out, I was all gung ho like everyone else that it must be a vast conspiracy, and after seeing the movie I wanted to delve more into that so I went to my local library to find more books about it. I went to the shelf where all of the JFK assassination stuff was, and every single conspiracy book was checked out. Because of the movie... duh. The only book remaining was one that said that Oswald did it. And I very begrudgingly checked out that book and read it. And I became absolutely convinced that it was far more accurate than the conspiracies and showed so much overwhelming actual evidence for Oswald's guilt, and just made so much more sense. (And that was an old book from the 70's which is far less comprehensive than Vincent Bugliosi's more recent book, Case Closed.)

But here's the point I'm getting at... I still think that "JFK" is a great movie, and I still appreciate it very much for what it is. I just happen to view it now as a fictional look at the many conspiracies surrounding the assassination. But I still think it was very cleverly put together and well scripted and acted and directed, and I'm happy to watch it again (I've seen it twice since the first time). So in the same way, you can disagree with the viewpoint of a book or a movie or a song or a game like Labyrinth and still very much appreciate it for the work that it is and for the viewpoint that it has.

Brannagyn thanks for the detailed comments on Labyrinth. I have my own areas of disagreement with how the game portrays things, but overall I think it does a very good job. I'm curious, you said you really enjoy Washington's War. Do you think it does a better job simulating the American Revolution then Labyrinth does with "the war on terror"? I've never played Washington's War, but I have played We The People. It's even more of a broadbursh treatment of its subject then Labyrinth. Do you disagree or do you simply cut it more slack since it's not portraying current events?

Well, I just got Labyrinth in a math trade over at BGG---so I'm going to try it out soon. Despite original misgivings (knowing people at 9/11, etc...I really want to try it out now.

As far as Brannagyn's comments --- I have to agree with Barnes, etc. I'm an historian --- but I never, ever hold up games or wargames up to some standard of historical "reality". It sucks the fun out of everything...it is like watching a Bond flick with engineers when Q is handing out unbelievable devices.

Look at Twilight Struggle---it is based upon a notion that the designer himself admits is flawed in historical perspective...domino theory. So WHAT. Also so what that the Soviets seem stronger in the game...it is evocative of the era, though, that's for sure. I think that's what Labyrinth has going for it, too, from what I've read.

This conversation has become pretty weird.

1/ Do we just enjoy a great game and not give a shit about historical context and whether or not it's entirely fictionalized. (that's me)

2/ Do we give a shit about historical context but only a bit, ie: we could disagree with their moral assessment, their interpretation of events but still enjoy the process.

3/ Do we take a stand and say "wait a minute, I really dislike where the designer is coming from and find his stance unconscionable, I cannot in good faith play this game.

Stance 3 is NOT hypocritical because the same dude plays Nazi's in world war 2 games. Because that's just a tactical exercise, where as the card driven wargames can be flat out wrong in their interpretation of far reaching political events. The big argument in a world war 2 games is usually something like; "That tank should have more armour and this machine guns distance is wrong"... pure math bullshit. There's a lot of flaws in Here I Stand for example, it does decrease the enjoyment for me somewhat, and also shows a bias on the part of the designer that borders on naive. For me that is why the "post post Tolkien" games kick the shit out of games like Twilight Struggle, because not only do I almost always disagree with the designer's approach, but on top of that the material is not nearly as interesting to Canadians (both Labyrinth and Twilight Struggle are far more interesting to American's), and if I really want to explore these topics I think that playing a card driven game is close to the worst way I can think of. After four games of TS I've learned nothing new or interesting, except that the game is ok and I'd rather play a different two player game.

I think that games set in a fantasy of sci-fi setting, or any fantastical (read NOT necessarily fantasy) setting are automatically more interesting to me than anything from the real world for the same reason I hate political music.

They date poorly. Fantastical settings can serve as universal settings, regardless of what country your from, regardless of what race you are, what year you were born or what political leaning you have. They can metaphorize anything from any time and no one has to feel like they've been left out because the situation is such that it can be applied across borders. Game trying to represent history have that caveat attached to them all the time.

When Neil Young sings "four dead in Ohio" you have to know that at some point no one will know what he's talking about anymore because the analogy is unforgiving and trapped in time. Use something more durable, something that anyone can use, something universal.

I don't have the game, so I'm not precisely sure what's meant by 'vastly overstating the threat of WMDs' means here. Having said that, whether it's 'true' or not, any game that purports to play out the GWOT without a player having a reasonable chance of setting off some WMDs in a Western nation would entirely miss the point.

So in the same way, you can disagree with the viewpoint of a book or a movie or a song or a game like Labyrinth and still very much appreciate it for the work that it is and for the viewpoint that it has.

This is exactly why, aside from the outstanding design work and great gameplay, that it's my GotY. That we're having this kind of discussion about a game is testament to its value and its uniqueness among other hobby games. We don't talk like this about ARKHAM HORROR.

When Neil Young sings "four dead in Ohio" you have to know that at some point no one will know what he's talking about anymore because the analogy is unforgiving and trapped in time. Use something more durable, something that anyone can use, something universal.

So...following your reasoning, if he instead sang "Four elves dead in Rivendell", that becomes something universal and timeless? That's just ludicrous.

The sentiment of that song remains, as well as its historical context and its value as political dissent. The currency of it has changed and you're right that awareness of its meaning might fade over time, but it doesn't make it any less powerful or relevant. Now, its power is as a time capsule of that era and how the events at Kent State were reflected in popular culture. That still means a lot more than some fantasy drivel.

If you don't think that when we read the stories of Sisyphus or Jesus or Saturn that they don't carry with them more weight in meaning then the historical conflicts of their respective times then I'm not sure what to say.

Name the historical conflicts of their times and what they represented then...?...

Sure Neil couldn't sing "four elves dead" because that sounds silly. I hope you didn't really think I meant the comparison that directly. But when Leonard Cohen does an anti war song or a protest song he hides it in biblical imagery, using greek myths and natural metaphors to get the point across. He never mentions a specific time, or at least not nearly as much as a Neil Young would and Cohen is the better songwriter for it.

It's like the Taoists would say, or any good religious thinker for that matter. If you want your audience to have a revelation (a real revelation) you can't tell them the truth, you have to tell them something that let's them find it on their own.

Which is why indirect reference is always preferable to me.

OK, I see what you're saying a little more clearly now...the Leonard Cohen thing brought it home.

I'd LOVE, and I mean _LOVE_ to see a game that uses a fantasy or SF theme to illuminate or satirize real world politics or social issues. Unfortunately, I don't think the medium has evolved to that point so what we have are more literal representations of things.

There's no reason a game couldn't leverage fantasy material in a _literate_ way to make the most of metaphor. But so far, I don't know that any designer has even really attempted that. Instead, it's "wow, you roll a die at this monster card and then you get a +1 sword". It's shallow, and four decades into what is roughly the hobby medium and it's not really evolved any further.

So oddly JJ, I find myself more or less agreeing with you on this point. But I would still argue that LABYRINTH being specifically about current geopolitical attitudes, situations, and events is one of its greatest strengths. But it's more "historical fiction" than "documentary".

I usually want to play games that allow me to venture from the here and now. Labyrinth just doesn't interest me because of the theme. Usually a strong theme is what draws me to a game, but in this case it pushes me away. If I want reality I turn on the 'bad' news and ponder all the crapholes the world is in in so many different ways. So, at the moment, Labyrinth doesn't stand a chance at being my GOTY. For others, maybe it is the perfect escape or perfect dose of reality for them.

There's no reason a game couldn't leverage fantasy material in a _literate_ way to make the most of metaphor. But so far, I don't know that any designer has even really attempted that.

There's no example I can think of unfortunately. If you don't know of one then I'm not going to find it. Which is too bad.. but I can hope. I'm still willing to give Labyrinth a chance if only the material wasn't so American and removed from my personal environment I would have bought it by now.

See, and that's an interesting objection to the game as well- that it's an "American" game. I think that's totally accurate. It's an American POV, 100%. I haven't really heard from any Canadians, Europeans, Australians or whoever and what they think about the game yet. That will be interesting, and it could indicate that the game has more limited global appeal.

But there again...that the game has a "National" identity is signficant...

I finally tried High Frontier last night. That could have been my vote for game of the year, except that the rulebook is in desperate need of an index, and the front end of the game is bogged down with a boring eurogame auction. Once players actually leave Low Earth Orbit, the game becomes remarkable, but getting there is a long, tedious slog.

Lets just review what you said about it Barnes,

“dense, authorial take on the geopolitical, military, and religious conflict that all of us have watched unfold over the past ten years. It’s a gaming examination of our history, culture, and times”

“offering players not only gameplay innovation but also a distinct viewpoint and insight”

“creates meaningful conversation about the real world, and presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the history of the world we currently live in”

To raise all these things points and then claim that its accuracy is utterly irrelevant is foolish. When it gives a wholly one-sided version of history it is no more than propaganda and creates meaningful debate only to the same extent that shows like 24 provide debate by being hopelessly biased and slightly racist but ‘entertaining’ takes on the subject by people who care far more about being popular than delivering any meaningful message.

I don’t fault it for not sharing my viewpoint, I fault it for easily verifiable inaccuracy, something that the designers have claimed they have made efforts to convey and something that tends to be quite an important element for many historical wargamers (please don’t suggest that the GMT crowd who helped with the development and playtesting of the game do not get frequently pedantic about historical accuracy).

“an important game that goes beyond just being “fun” or “cool”. It is those things, but it is also reaching for something more.”

Believe me, the game does not fill me with a foaming fury, I can still play it and enjoy it as a light game. It’s the fact hat it had the opportunity to be something more, to educate, to shine a light on current events and that it failed to do so that annoys me and yes, I cut it less slack for choosing to portray a conflict in which innocent people, whole families, children are still being killed regularly as ‘collateral damage’. Choosing a sensitive theme brings with it an implied willingness to accept a higher level of criticism.

Seriously man, if you're expecting a board game to get into the level of detail you're talking about and at an accuracy level you're talking about ...give up board gaming

I’d counter that if you think its not easily possible to do a better, more relevant and far more educational game on the subject you should give up reviewing but I’ll put it down to entrenchment rather than a firmly held belief.

Simply by having a score to represent local resentment and anger towards controversial tactics such as ‘Predator Strikes’ or ‘Enhanced interrogation’ would have added a tactical tradeoff that more accurately represents real-world considerations in low-intensity conflict. The carrot or stick approach is reflected in Labyrinth in relation to the international community but it has far more relevance in its application to local populaces.

Economic considerations of the full range of resources, not just oil fields, but also gas pipelines, rare earth minerals, etc. would also incredibly easy to factor in (especially if you use each regions projected future values for real-estate) and would have been quite useful in showing the ‘coincidence’ of the various theatres of the war on terror taking place in the areas with the most long-term strategic land value.

There’s a fun game to be had in playing out the actual strategic choices that drove the conflicts of the past decade and at some point such a game will be made. Labyrinth wasn’t the first and given that it isn’t broaching new subject matter I don’t think it needs any hype for doing so in a simplistic fashion.

That said, I don’t expect you to revise your opinion and state that Labyrinth is not nearly as relevant or daring as it had the potential to be. If it was relevant for you then it’s a perfectly reasonable choice and, as I said way up above, if you were speaking about it purely as a light, fun game I would have raised any major objections.

Jeez, despite the length of the above posts, going on about this game ad nauseum is not something I'm really interested in doing. For what its worth, this is one of those 'non-American' viewpoints you haven't heard from ;)

Oh Man..Brannagyn is going to make me stop reading these threads. I call it the BGG effect.

Steve"seriously"Avery

Mission accomplished.

THIS GAME IS INACCURATE IT WILL BURN

Yeah, and I'm a little pissed about the other choices, too:

1. High Frontier is absolutely flawed because it doesn't take into account the location of the planets in question, the fact that better, more advanced propulsion exists, and the launch-weight-to-fuel ratio is bollocksed. It's obviously the author's agenda to get people to make mistakes next time a Mars launch is pending. It will cost lives.

2. Earth Reborn is obviously not possible because zombies aren't real.

3. Alien Frontiers doesn't specifically talk of the timeframe of the game, thus we can only assume that this is based in the present day. Therefore, this is totally unrealistic because we have no spaceship fleets to deploy, and the spaceships obviously cannot simply be repurposed by rolling a simple die. Such bollocks.

4. Wizards did a disservice to the D&D brand by making Castle Ravenloft. There's no Dungeons in the game (technically, it's a crypt) and Vampires are not equal to Dragons. Wizards should've created a new brand for that continuity, C&V (Crypts and Vampires). In fact, I'm not even sure that Vampires are real, and it's obviously a weak attempt to crush Christian values by introducing Vampires to people that may otherwise have never heard of them. Shame on Wizards, the fucking heathens.

5. Innovation will be taken out of print because it's clear that the game isn't really an innovation, it's a blend of things seen in other games since Nine Men's Morris, Chess, Go, Othello, and other games. That's not innovation, that's plagerism. They should be sued.

Michael, you're obviously not smart enough to figure all of this out, so perhaps someone who actually knows a little bit about the real world and how it works should take your spot. How do I get a hold of Bill Abner?

Oh, and by the way, you could've just foregone reading all of that and just read this:
"Branagyn, you're a fucking asshat. It's a game. If you want reality when it comes to terrorism, head to boot camp and go play in the dunes. Or, just blow yourself up while yelling 'LALALALALALALALA' and do the world a favor."

Jesus Murphy....

I think that there is a major disconnect between simulation and game. A good example of this is Paths of Glory, it is a great game, full of tension and resource management, but no one in their right mind would say it is anywhere near an accurate simulation of WW1.

PoG is popular because it is fun to play and has a theme (well, at least for me).

Focusing on the perceived lack of simulation of Labyrinth and criticizing it for that, is pointless. I really don't care if it is an 'American' game or not (whatever the fuck that is). I care if it is fun to play, isn't broken and has a bit of atmosphere...and so should you.

There are plenty of sites where you can criticize it from the perspective of a simulation but an AT site is not one of them.

Brannagyn, I totally get what you're saying: a game shouldn't be considered great (or important) largely because it makes a political statement if that statement is stupid, or misguided, or a false representation, or unnecessarily simplistic and one-sided. And especially not if the statement propagandizes a sensitive issue (or, perhaps in the case of Labyrinth, uses propaganda as its source material). Frankly, I see no real difference between your critique of Labyrinth and Michael's critique of Saving Private Ryan that I've seen him make in the forums, so I don't get why he dismisses your point. Now, I don't fall in line with your viewpoint -- I game for fun and for fun only -- but I get why someone who takes issue with how history (or, in this case, the times we live in) is being presented in a game would consider Labyrinth to be less than GOTY material.

Michael, I haven't played any of the games on your list, but you do a good job "selling" them. I'll only ever have a chance to try, at most, one or two of them, but I'm now interested in all of them.

As an aside to a few of you, quit being assholes. It seriously makes for horrible reading to those of us who don't feel the need to constantly piss on differing opinions. Just because you're occasionally being direct assholes instead of wholly passive-aggressive assholes doesn't mean you're not derailing good discussion. The only difference between what you're doing and what the guys who you complain about at BGG do is that you write fuck and cunt more.

I should clarify, the aside I gave above applies less to this thread and more to the way a lot of discussions at F:AT are going. It's probably misplaced in this thread, but superflynt's last post is the kind of thing I was referring to, so I figured I might as well make that comment now while I'm posting since I rarely do.

I'd prefer any reply someone has to give to that to send it to me via PM. I don't want to derail Michael's thread with it.

"High Frontier is absolutely flawed..."

What??!!! I was planning on using it to build a rocket ship in my backyard!

I guess the closest we've seen is in BSG, but that's only because the show had so many of those elements in it. That's part of what made the first season so great. If you're really looking for a game to do that effectively I think you're probably barking up the wrong tree. The hobby is to far removed from mainstream culture to have enough relevance, and also because most people just want to have fun playing games.

Brannigyn - you're a fucking dickhead so how about heading back to BGG and hangout with your similars. I'm not even going to bother reading your posts again after this second srticle you have grafitti'd as that time will be better spent poking sticks in my shit.

WTF are people being such assholes to Brannagyn. Dude, it's not about accuracy in games, everyone who's all "Bohnanza not accurate about bean farming, durr", it's about accuracy in a game that is being PRAISED for its theme, as well as the fact that a game that takes on a sensitive theme about people dying RIGHT NOW is more accountable than Castle Ravenloft. Yeah, the game "provokes discussion", only in that it provokes discussion about how wrong-headed it is, which any idiot game can do. I haven't seen a whole lot of discussion about how accurate it is, or about how it elucidates aspects of the war.

I definitely see Labyrinth as GotY material, having played it three times now. It sticks with you, even though none of the three games have been all that close and although it pisses me off quite regularly. Even as I rant about "chancy" this or "overly restrictive cardplay" that, I recognize how clever the design choices are.

Ravenloft really impresses me. It's a game that's better than it really had to be, frankly, to sell. I worry some that the gameplay will get thin because of the limited monster options imposed by the reliance on miniatures, but there's no doubt in my mind that WotC really tried and succeeded at the goal of making an accessible, mainstream dungeon crawler.

I'm hoping Barnes is right about Earth Reborn because my copy's coming midweek.

Brannigyn - you're a fucking dickhead so how about heading back to BGG and hangout with your similars. I'm not even going to bother reading your posts again after this second srticle you have grafitti'd as that time will be better spent poking sticks in my shit.

Really? That's were you're going now. Oooh a different opinion, send 'em back to the place we constantly bitch about having "hive mind."

I thought theme mattered. And when that theme is clearly intended to be a fairly "real-world" scenario (as opposed to Zombies or alien games), it seems perfectly reasonable to criticize it or praise it along those lines as part and parcel of the package.

I've no problem with different opinions (because that's just what this, and every other similar, site is - just opinions), just the way they are fucking presented or expressed. People want to get arrogant and personal then I've got no problems joining in - fuck them all.

@ Southerman

Sorry Tom, but I have to say that the "fucking dickhead" statement is a bit over the line. I think what we have going on here is a little intellectual sparring by mutual consent.

Aye: Bad Tom. But it sounds as if Lightning has the elements that drew me to High Frontier. It explores a theme and includes so much detail of that topic that it invites exploration of that topic.

And CIVIL discussion.

Brannigyn's discourses seem reasonably toned, if mired in details that I don't have the background to comprehend.

What Brannigyn has said is fine. He has just harped on it a bit too much, made his posts a bit too long and just wouldn't let it drop and kept Barnesing (my new FAT word for someone who had an interesting point but just going on and on about it after everyone else had moved on).

Here's the boggle, folks:

There's a difference between THEME and ACCURATE PORTRAYAL. Space Hulk drips theme like pus from Elvis' penis, but is it an accurate depiction of intergalactic war, and what alien species will look like? How about Claustrophobia? Been expanding underground for a while without running into demons, we have.

So, how is it that Twilight Struggle, where you can develop space-based lasercannons, is lauded for its accurate depiction of the events of the cold war? How is it that you can trigger a total global thermonuclear war by simply performing a couple of black ops?

So, perhaps I'm overreacting because of the fact that Labrynth has been mired by people not "agreeing with the designer's political afflictions" but at the end of the day, if the game is solid, has a theme that carries strong and bright, and is FUN, then it really doesn't matter if it's an uber-realistic part of history. Mike pointed out that the game was big on theme and sparks a lot of debate. It does, and it is. Whether or not it's true to history is absolutely irrelevant because anyone with a modicum of sense knows that the winner of the war tends to write the history thereof, so who knows how accurate it is? Or will be? And again, how does it matter? It's not meant to be a counterterror simulator; it's meant to be a game that has a theme that's closely related to real-world themes, not necessarily real-world EVENTS.

Twilight Struggle got away with a lot because he had ~30 years of hindsight to develop a narrative with, and it's clear that this is a best-guess attempt at making a believable theme.

Nitpick away.

Yes, but he was Barnesing with Barnes, so expect they were both enjoying themselves immensely. If this trend continues I may have to implement nested comments, although I rather not as I find them confusing.

tl;dr

That's just dandy if you're a fucking 5 year-old reading The Lorax, but when you get older, you're supposed to start challenging yourself. That means reading/watching/playing/listening to things precisely because they don't speak to your entrenched cultural or political understandings.

If I'm reading Solzhenitsyn right now (and I am), how the hell am I better served as a reader with everything dressed up in some nondescript fantasy drivel so as not to offend my non-Russian, non-Christian sensibilities? Yeah, it'd be easier not to have to constantly look things up that would have been common knowledge to his readers, but aren't to me, but it wouldn't do SFA to give me a better understanding of life in Stalinist Russia.

Any adult or even teenage American that can't at least pick up on the fact that the song is about a violent clash between authorities and antiwar protesters is simply 100% culturally and historically illiterate.

Give me one good reason why Young should have made the lyrics less relevant to the event he was actually protesting in order to make the song communicable to shallow, ignorant, apathetic dumbasses 40 years down the line.

Yes, something like Rage Against the Machine with "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" perhaps. Or maybe System of a Down with "War! Fuck the System! Fuck the System!" That sure sounds like fucking progress to me. Those lyrics certainly encapsulate everything Young was expressing in "Ohio," and they are universal, and they will be so in 40 years.

And yes, those lyrics are going to have to do, because if your stupid little ass can't pick up a Kent State reference, you sure as shit ain't reading Greek mythology or the Bible.

Also, I'm completely dismissing Leonard Cohen's music simply because he is Canadian and I'm not. Apparently, that's now a legitimate basis for writing off whatever particular voice or viewpoint you like.

I was sick of Brannigyn and his posts in the other GotY article before he started in this article, but since I'm not bothering reading anything of his anymore I now won't get pissed off by him - problem solved.
If only life could be that simple on other boardgame sites.

I'm with Southernman. Next Brannigyn or anyone wants to do a verbal circle jerk they can get a room. I especially loath the air of authority and armchair intellectualism that comes from those BS sessions.

Just replace "Meaning in Boardgames" with 'The physics of lightsabers" or the "Geneology of Furries"

I'm not as vitrolic about it but if I want to read pages of BS I'll log on to the Geek.

Steve"plays board games not mind games"Avery

He fucking dick then bullshit!

Maybe Ruhnke was aiming to stir the pot a bit with Labyrinth, get folks thinking and talking about a subject which is still a bit surreal. He has certainly accomplished that here and on BGG. A lot of it rubs folks the wrong way, one way or the other. I don't know of many boardgames that evoke that kind of emotion.

If he was aiming to stir the pot he would have picked one of the myriad options for making it slightly less palatable for Western audiences.

A it is Labyrinth offers up a much opportunity for discourse as a shop bearing a big "No dogs or Jews!" sign.
"Hey, don't you think your sign might be a little offensive?"
"Its for the discourse, now get the hell out of my shop Jew-lover!"

It's disappointing that the level of put down here is so risible and self-defeating, whether Mumu chiming in with otherwise vacuous comments that only prolong the very discussion he's asking others to drop, or Avery alluding to circle jerks without seeming to realise how much better it applies to the ego-pleasuring engaged in by people who enjoy mutually reinforced viewpoints.

It is amusing to see how difficult it seems to be for such people to avoid reading and replying to posts they claim to have no interest in.

I didn't post here to make you feel inferior about a subject you're unfamiliar with, nor to see you fall flat on your face trying to insult me. There are at least 4 or 5 criticism of why Labyrinth is an unworthy GotY up above, none of them include it not being fun, it "not being a simulation" or a failure to share my particular perspective.

Thankfully a few have managed to get the point I was trying to make. If the rest can't overcome their own egos or their irritation with me to discuss either that game or another, they should at least try to make more intelligent/amusing insults. And, if you've complained about the length of my posts and nonetheless read this far.....yes, you are a moron.

MJ, I'm happy to see you posting again, especially to call me out. Let me say this; nobody reads Celine because they want to know about the politics in France circa 1910-1950, they read him because he has something above and beyond that time period to say. So yes, it is true that we should challenge ourselves to learn more, but we don't do it for the historical lessons (we read history books for that), we do it because the artist has something to say that goes beyond their socio/political environment that makes it worth learning about their society. If you mean to tell me that the author of Labyrinth is equal to Gogol or Dostoyevsky then I must apologize. But to laud a game for it's political merits alone, without some kind of art attached to it, seems foolish to me. The environment is just that... incidental.

... and if you think this is an intellectual circle jerk then take a good look. I hope it stays with you.

All this debate and there's still confusion about Labyrinth due to the frequent mentions of Greek myth and 'it would be better with a fantasy theme' comments in the posts above. So let's settle this once and for all: does it or does it not feature a Minotaur? (Yes, I know that's Crete, I'm not the one calling it Greek. . . . See? even more confusion...) :D

Seriously though, the only person who's going to say the game accurately depicts his political opinion is the designer. No one else is going to have an identical take on it. Brannagyn has said that he's annoyed by it's avoidable inaccuracies and failure to educate, but still enjoysit as a light game. So I wonder why GMT and the designer made the decisions they did, if such inaccuracies were avoidable. If only there were some designers notes: unfortunately http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/ kris_hall_volko_ruhnke_and_labyrinth/ times out, and no doubt will continue to do so until the TOSborg assimilation is complete. Has anyone read anything about this? Perhaps they left out some of the things he mentions because they wanted a light game?

The other aspect is the obvious Twilight Struggle : Labyrinth comparison. How different is it? What does it add that makes it worth getting if you already have TS? From what I've read it still appears that TS is the best of these games.

Damn, should have left the smiley out, it's a too obvious giveaway. Please uba can we preview or edit these article posts at some point in the future?

There are. They are in the playbook which comes with the game. You can also download it (and the rules) from GMT's website.

Ok, here's where are you starting to overstate your point Brannagyn. Which part of Labyrinth is like comparing Jews to dogs exactly? Which part is even offensive at all to you? It is not 100% accurate portrayal of history (nor should it be or there wouldn't be any point in playing it). That doesn't necessarily make it offensive. Memoir '44 and ASL are both extremely inaccurate in their own ways. Do they provoke discussion in the same manner as anti-semitism? Do you think Al Qaeda gets unfairly painted in the game? Are you Chirac's nephew? Was it rude not to use a better picture of KSM for his card?

Ok, you don't like a lot of things about the game. We get it. But the whole "this is just like hating Jews" is a bit.......nuts.

Just as well that is not at all the point I was making. I do it again with smaller words if you like.

Okay, I'm being facetious, I know smaller words wouldn't help.

The point I was trying to make is that while some people have said the game promotes discussion about a Controversial topic, anyone who actually criticises it's handling of that topic seems to get simply shouted down by either people who couldn't care less about any message it might have or, and there are quite a few, those who very much like the message it sends. Biased pronouncements do not make a good basis for establishing dialogue and bear in mind, this isn't a point raised out of the blue by me but a rebuttal of one of the reasons for Barnes chose this game and which others have since echoed.

No need to use smaller words. You're point was clear. As for the new point your making, I've criticized some of the ways the game handles it's topic and I've been one of it's most vocal fans. So I guess you're point is just wrong regardless of what size words you use to make it.

Since you want to talk about ant-semtism (correction, it just slips out whether you meant to or not), just curious what makes this game any worse of an offender then any World War II game which doesn't include the holocaust (which would be all of them as far as I'm aware)?

What, if any, historical games meet the standard of accuracy you've set for Labyrinth?

Okay, I'm being facetious, I know smaller words wouldn't help.

No, you are not being facetious, you are, again, being supercilious and insulting to anyone who disagrees with you. It is this aspect of your online persona that is so annoying to people around here. I don't care what you think about Labyrinth but if you are going to behave like that, people will have zero respect for your point of view.

Should you need help in understanding your innate ability to come across as arrogant, I am sure people here can recommend plenty of self help websites/books to assist you. Or just take a deep breath before you post.

I don't know. He's starting to grow on me.

dan da wrote: "There are. They are in the playbook which comes with the game. You can also download it (and the rules) from GMT's website."
Where? Because I'd already looked and it's not on the game page (http://www.gmtgames.com/p-294-labyrinth.aspx) or in the Living-Rules (http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTLivingRules.aspx) under "H-L" .

Chape wrote: "He's starting to grow on me."
Because you're homesick for TOS?

If nothing else, he adds color to this otherwise homogenized TOS-off...

Yeah, if "Elitist Shit Stain" is a color.

Sometimes a shit stain is preferable to jizz stains left over after a circle jerk.

One of the many lessons you've learnt at BGG?

Any gaming sage advice I give predates BGG, F:AT, and you, kiddo.

Too many local gamers that I know are EuroGamers, and the ones who prefer AmeriTrash are often too broke/cheap to buy their own games, so I usually don't get to play new AmeriTrash games unless I buy them myself. So I usually study a lot of comments, reviews, and ratings both here and at TOS before I buy a game. I also go with my gut instinct, which is often accurate when it comes to games. So I can't keep up with the Cult of the New, and am probably unqualified to express an opinion about game of the year.

But I'm very opinionated, so I'm really, really surprised by the arbitrary selection of Labyrinth as the Game of the Year. My impression was that it was a fiddly design that was clearly based on Twilight Struggle, only less fun. Am I wrong? The war on terror theme is an interesting one, but Game of the Year should be the best game, not just the most provocative theme. It would be like choosing Album of the Year based on cover art, or Movie of the Year based on genre.

I'm also surprised that the discussion has skipped over this, but the selection of Labyrinth brings us back to the question of whether a game can be art. Or should be art. While I believe that it's possible for a game to be art, that is beside the point. First and foremost, a game should be entertaining, because playing a game is supposed to be fun. It's entirely possible that a derivative design like Labyrinth can be entertaining, but I think it should be better than the original or at least display some innovation to be worthy of Game of the Year.

Of all of the games that got a mention in the article, I've only played two: Death Angel and High Frontier. Both games really impressed me, in very different ways. High Frontier took a complex topic and really dug into it. The board is wonderful, but the rule book is a nightmare. Fortunately, the game was relatively easy to learn, thanks to helpful and experienced opponents, but also because I already had a decent layman's grasp of most of the concepts in the game. High Frontier is an absolutely ambitious design, but ultimately I felt that the first hour of the game is mired in a boring and unthematic auction game.

Death Angel really should have been Game of the Year. Plenty of FAT:ties have tried it and praised it, so it certainly would have been a reasonable pick. More importantly, the game is an amazing design that delivers exciting games and surprising replay value in such a small package. And it defeats every single criticism leveled at Fantasy Flight Games in recent years. The size and price are very reasonable, though the components are of very decent quality. The design is fresh, containing some very interesting innovations that eliminate the need for either a board or figures. It manages to do everything Space Hulk does, only better, and for 25% of the price and 5% of the space or setup time. I feel that the primary reason that Death Angel barely even got a mention in the article was due to the bad feelings between Michael Barnes and Christian Petersen.

I generally try to stay out of political/historical discussions cause like some others here, I don't really give a hot fuck about games being anything more than an enjoyable experience. Sometimes learning something, say the order of battle for the Tet offensive, can be an enjoyable experience, but generally speaking I'm all about drinking some beers, killing some goblins and not giving a fuck about all the little green orphans I'm leaving behind.

That said, I'm way more with Brannagyn on this one overall. First of all, his dickily aggressive posting style fits in fine here, most of you are just getting all butt hurt cause he doesn't agree with you, not that he's somehow being more of a condescending dick than a great many regulars here.

Second, I believe the point he's trying to make (and maybe I'm wrong, but then this is the point I'm making) is that you can't praise a game for being "more than a game" due to the setting/theme/history/whatever and not be willing to look at the accuracy/bias of those elements. If the game is great because it's a really fun game, that's a fine and reasonable position to take, and the accuracy becomes largely irrelevant. If however, a significant portion of the praise for a game comes from a perceived sense of there being "more" to it due to the subject matter, then the portrayal of said subject matter becomes highly relevant. Fortress: America is clearly not an accurate game, but no one claims that it's quality is derived from anything more than the fun you get out of it so no one cares that the senario presented is totally ridiculous.

If Barnes wants to say it's GotY because it's awesome fun, interesting mechanically and with a theme that is enjoyably tied to the rules, then any discussion of the actual politics and history being depicted is a moot point. But if Barnes, or anyone else, wants to go on about the importance of the game as a meaningful part of the dialog/experience of the setting it depicts, then discussion of how well it represents that is the whole fucking point of it being "more than a game" no matter if you think it's the most perfect portrayal ever or if you think it's totally made up fairytale bullshit.

Oh, I forgot to add that I have yet to play it and my opinion on this is totally theoretical, rather than being based on my own feelings of how well the game depicts anything.

I don't know, I've played Death Angel quite a few times now (all solo, I should point out), and while it's an interesting little game, it has absolutely nothing to recommend it over a good 3-4 of the wargames I've played that were released this year, most notably Washington's War. There is some tension in Death Angel, but the decision tree is ultimately sort of straitjacketed by the arbitrarily limited move/attack/support model. Put that up against a tactical card-based wargame like Frontline D-Day, and the gameplay ends up feeling pretty shallow and limited, even if the decisions are tough on any given turn.

I really don't care if it is an 'American' game or not (whatever the fuck that is).

If your American then that makes sense. The last thing my city needs is another musician who thinks he's an expert on American Foreign Policy. Actually it may be the last thing Canada in general needs. You can't throw a stone up here without hitting some fuck who thinks they're experts on American foreign affairs ("and do me a favor Barton, throw it hard!")... hell it looks like we have a few in this thread even.

In all honesty I was sick to death of hearing armchair political experts talk about American foreign policy long before 911 and I'm even more sick of it now. First, I have no voting power or say in anything that happens there at all. Second, I've read from both Fisk and Chomsky that to stay "up to date" on what's happening and properly informed they read something along the lines of 20-30 newspapers and 10-15 magazines each day.

I will never put the effort in to be properly informed. I know that. To understand and appreciate this material would take a lot of work studying a conflict that really gives me no reason to care since there's nothing I can do. It seems to me that if someone wants to seem smart around the office the first thing they can do is start spouting opinions on American foreign policy. Even here in Canada. But none of these people know anything about any other countries policies whatsoever. With so much American culture every where I look I really don't think I will be served well by learning even more about a country that in general doesn't even know I exist or what a Prime Minister is.

I remember a South Korean newspaper from several years ago when Jean Chretin was our PM and it had a picture of several international leaders on the cover. Including Bill Clinton standing next to Jean. In the caption underneath it said "and pictured next to Bill Clinton is an unidentified person"... that's our Country.

Our leader is an unidentified person....

I've gotta say, as someone who kind of hangs around on the periphery of this site, that I can't believe the amount of energy and consternation being given to this GOTY question. Really, who gives a shit? Does it really change anything about the games or the hobby whether one game wins over the others and for what reasons? Give it to Dixit for all I care.

I think it's ridiculous to try to congeal all of the opinions on one site into a consensus for GOTY anyway. The best you can do is have the moderators or editors come up with a list of games or a GOTY that represents the staff's (such as it is) opinions of the year. Instead we have an attempt to land on a single game based on the views of people who, at least by gaming nature, are conflict oriented and relatively antagonistic. And who, apparently, are not above the NERD RAGE that populates other sites. It ain't gonna work.

Barnes has full license to give his opinion because it's his column. His list is not some definitive representation of all of Ameritrash, it's representative of HIM. If he wants to give it to Labyrinth because of the "importance" of the game, great. I don't even care if his reasons are flawed. You all need to recognize that Barnes is at once an Ameritrash, Euro (good ones), and War gamer. F:AT maybe has different criteria for what makes up GOTY, but you can't have a flawed process and then make such a big fucking deal about it.

clockwirk, it's kind of the point of this site to discuss the merits of board games. The debate here did turn out to be pretty stupid in general, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be held.

Don't get me wrong, Schweig. I'm all for all kinds of discussion and debate around here. I find more substance here than anywhere else, frankly. My problem mainly is the degree to which people around here are getting their panties in a knot over which game wins GOTY as if it actually mattered. Debate the AT credentials of Runewars, debate the historical accuracy of Labyrinth, Debate whether Cyclades is a Euro or not... just don't let F:AT implode (IS F:AT IMPLODING????) because of a meaningless and arbitrary distinction.

I think most F:AT users would agree that the discussion has gone a little too far over the top by at least one participant, especially for this issue. I mean, we all laugh and make fun of the Spiel de Jarhes and the Golden Geeks (or whatever) every year, and then come here and have a fucking conniption over the F:AT GOTY. Give me a break.

Can we start a slow clap, have a group hug, and then carry clockwirk off the field?

F..A...T...F...A..T...F...A..T..F.A.T.F.A.T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;D

I'd agree with you clockwork, but even over in the other GotY thread we were discussing the merits of one new AT game and a user came on and tried to rip into us. Odd because we were comparing one AT game against a few other AT games (ALL _AT_ GAME TALK), yet we were lambasted that ER should have to be 'defended' or whatever.

I think there's a lot of folks around here didn't get what they want for Christmas and have their panties in a bind. Otherwise, I can't explain some of the venom a few users seem to have spewed lately.

Holidays bring out the best in everyone.

It's like a F:AT Friday Freakout, but for the whole year.

As a factory employee, I agree with Brannagyn. That's why I refuse to play Factory Fun. It's just so unlike my experience in the factory that I can't even open the box. And don't even get me started on Last Night on Earth.

I'm just kidding, and I'm starting to agree a little bit with B-dog. This has also got me thinking about how a lot of Robert Heinlein's fiction that seemed especially fascist was written that way to please John Campbell, supposedly.

Actually, like Clockwirk sort of implies, fuck GotY.

I'll be happy to get Earth Reborn this week and just play a game where I won't have to contemplate the scientific inaccuracy/impossibilty of the zombie apocalypse and instead just kick somebody's ass.

If you DO want to contemplate how fast it would take the zombies to take over from a scientific perspective, there's always this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8206280.stm

The article says "Professor Robert Smith? (the question mark is part of his surname and not a typographical mistake)". And? we're? supposed? to? take ?this? guy? seriously??

Ha ha, I missed that somehow. It's probably so people won't confuse him with the singer for The Cure.

Robert Smith?! THE Robert Smith?

Well, um, if you put it that way...

Anyhow, I just thought it was cool that two universities, Ottawa & Carleton, would create a scientific model for a zombie plague (don't know how complex it was, but have a feeling it's online). Nobody says you have to take it seriously ;) the whole thing is kinda ameritrash, is all.

FTR, I'm not having any conniption about GotY. That's Michael's call, his column, and every member here has the right to post a blog or article about their pick for GotY.

What I had a problem with was the fact that Branny decided to show up in 2 threads and start being a bit of an ass in regard to Michael's response. I'm fine with the guy (or gal) spouting off about how wrong LabbyWoT is. That's the point of the site. I was fine with his response to Schweig about his point of view on the politics of the game. That's all well and good. The problem was when he started telling Michael he was a disingenuous shill who obviously is too entrenched in American political views (essentially) to "get it".

That's going too far with it. Michael tried to explain his side, and got scrotumpunched. That's not cool. Not that I'm a MB defender, it's just that it was an unfair kick and I think there's not time enough in the day for taking pot shots.

Line up everybody. I'm dispensing chill pills.

First off, GotY, as I said in the other thread, is really just something to start conversations and sort of gauge where the year in gaming went. It's not that serious, really. That being said, I feel like I have a mandate through my column to sign off on what I feel are the top games of the year. You might disagree. And that's totally OK, everybody has their own GotY and the point is that we now compare notes. Not bitch and whine over somebody else's pick. It's funny how serious some people take this stuff.

Second, Brannygn. I think he's completely over the top and overstating his position- not because he's "wrong" per se, but because he's missing the point that LABRYINTH is a game, not a simulation. And I think he's also missed the point that a big part of why it's such a great example of MATURE, EVOLUTIONARY game design is because it has a distinct, authorial viewpoint and it is NOT just an objective simulation or representation of facts. Like I said, it's a "gaming examination of our times". And part of this is the representation of the Pro-US, WMDs are everywhere attitude that supports US interference in the affairs of Muslim nations. But seriously, if you want to fault the game on something, fault on the fact that it almost completely ignores the fact that US oil fortunes are every bit a part of the War on Terror as this idiotic concept of the white knight US democratizing the Muslim world. There is almost nothing in the game depicting how US corporate interests are as much an influencer of foreign policy as this notion of revenge for 9/11 or the vaunted pie-in-the-sky that is "defending the free world". I think it's reprehensible to ignore that. But I also expect that anyone smart enough to pick up and play the game is going to understand that it's a subjective viewpoint and does not represent "fact". Because it's a _game_. It's fiction. But it does represent real-world things, and there are real-world things we can learn from it.

Anyway, I like Brannygn whether I agree with him or not. He comes on here, says what he feels, backs it up, and doesn't really fucking care what anyone else thinks. As far as I'm aware, that's the spirit of F:AT if ever there were one. Yeah, he's full of shit. But god damn, at least he lays it out there. I'm glad he's around, a little tension has been missing from this place for a while.

I'm _glad_ that we're arguing about it. I think I've always managed to pick GotY titles that have sparked some controversy. For me, it's not just about the game that was the most fun. It's about picking the game that was the most forward-thinking, progressive, and _interesting_. It's not an "arbitrary" pick at all, and I'm kind of shocked that Shell claims that it is given all I've written about this game already.

The game doesn't have to be a 100% accurate, 1:1 simulation to do what it does. That's just fucking silly to suggest. It's like a war movie...inevitably, there is a political viewpoint in all war films. And that's part of the genre, nobody wants to see an impartial war picture that treats both sides fairly and without partisanship or perspective. Plus, with LABYRINTH, we're getting into a game that is about ideological, social, and religious conflict- and not something like HERE I STAND, where we've had hundreds of years to analyze and reframe the events and the shakedown of effects has really long since passed, it's a current conflict of this nature so stakes are higher and opinions are hotter. I think it's gutsy and provocative to do a game like this instead of trotting out dusty old conflicts or fantasy fare.

Adjunct to all of the political discussion emerges much more interesting questions about the medium...what can games actually do with this sort of material? Are gamers willing to confront attitudes and ideas that differ from their own in a game? Where do gamers draw the line in terms of how much of the author they want in their games?

DEATH ANGEL, for example, doesn't get into these kinds of questions. That's not a fault of that game because it's just not its agenda. But it does indicate that LABRYINTH is a higher kind of design work beyond the "it's really fun" paradigm.

As for DEATH ANGEL, I did mention it in the article after the runners-up. In fact, I mentioned it here too, suggesting that I'd like to see FFG do more games like it. But it's definitely not a GotY quality release. It's a very, very good game and probably the best title FFG released this year, but I'd recommend my GotY and the five runners-up over it, easily. It doesn't have anything to do with "bad blood", that's silly.

And I think he's also missed the point that a big part of why it's such a great example of MATURE, EVOLUTIONARY game design is because it has a distinct, authorial viewpoint and it is NOT just an objective simulation or representation of facts.

This is a great point and one that I think some people (myself included) sort of glossed over or missed (or you're a shitty writer and didn't make clear enough Ha!) in being at the root of why you feel it was an "important" game. Any serious film student or historian has seen Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, they are hugely important films yet are completely full of shit when it comes to the accuracy of the material being presented.

I think the real big issue here is one that has been discussed a whole lot more when it comes to video games; can games be art or are they just entertainment? So far I'd say we have widely accepted that games can be more than just entertainment, but only when they are viewed as some sort of history lesson through simulation. So when the question of does this particular game transcend "fun" into something more comes up, people tend to look at it only through the lens of "if it's more than just a game, it needs to be damn accurate history" because that is the only way to reach beyond fun as far as most people can conceive.

I suppose this like a variation of the annual controversy over Time magazine's selection of Man of the Year. People tend to interpret Man of the Year as meaning Best Person of the Year, when the award is actually for the Most Important Person of the Year. But it feels wrong for Game of the Year to mean Most Important or Most Controversial Game of the Year. People don't play games based on importance or controversy, they play games for fun.

Good point about BoaN and TotW- _amazing_ films, but totally full of shit. Yet they're entertaining, masterfully created, and hugely important and influential regardless of what you think about the ideologies and politics therein.

This idea that the history has to be "damn accurate" is facetious though. It's laughable to me when the armchair historians start trotting out their lists of why movies like BRAVEHEART are historically inaccurate. Only someone that doesn't understand drama or the film medium would fail to understand that sometimes accuracy doesn't make for great moviemaking. SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN would be other examples where historical accuracy takes a back seat to directorial perspective and dramatic license. Games should be assumed to operate at the same level.

Years ago, I was in a film class taught by this amazing guy that looked and acted just like Martin Scorcese. He was semi-reknowned for this journal article written in the 1980s about how RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK had all of these political agendas including several marked messages about Reagan-era foreign policy. I thought it was film school bullshit. But when I read the paper and thought about it, I really saw what he was getting at, and it really opened my eyes to how even the most base "entertainment" can have political ideas and speak about the times they're created in. Anyone can look at RAIDERS and see how it's about pre-emptively rescuing Jewish artifacts and heritage from the disaster of WWII and the Nazis. But it's trickier to look at it and see how the famous scene with Indy versus the swordsmen is a precursor to the current conflict between Islam and the West. But it's clearly there, if you choose to see it.

Mediums bear meaning. You can say "it's just fun" all you want, but you're kidding yourself. Even the fact that Eurogames are so tied to impressing authority, work, and communal success means something. And it means something that so many Eurogames neglect the dirty side of their subjects, like slavery and feudalism. It's not academic bullshit, and it's not fun murder to point out these things- it's a way we can look at games on a higher level, and hopefully elevate the ability of the hobby to communicate effectively.

Mediums bear meaning. You can say "it's just fun" all you want, but you're kidding yourself. Even the fact that Eurogames are so tied to impressing authority, work, and communal success means something. And it means something that so many Eurogames neglect the dirty side of their subjects, like slavery and feudalism. It's not academic bullshit, and it's not fun murder to point out these things- it's a way we can look at games on a higher level, and hopefully elevate the ability of the hobby to communicate effectively.

That's a good point, Barnes. At the very least, the specific games that we choose to play say a lot about us as people.

People don't play games based on importance or controversy, they play games for fun.

That's an unfortunate and very limiting attitude. If this were the case in books, film, and music, we'd never have:

- Most of the films of Stanley Kubrick and definitely no Andrei Tarkovsky
- MOBY-DICK, THE SCARLET LETTER, or the works of Thomas Pynchon
- Anything recorded by The Velvet Underground, John Cage, or Steve Reich and no "Trout Mask Replica", CRASS, or Einsturzende Neubauten.

This "it's all just for fun" attitude is a very infantile way to look at any medium, and it's one that gets grown out of eventually. Rock n' roll was considered to be kid's music up until the 1960s. Theater was considered low art until people started realizing that Shakespeare wasn't just trash, lowbrow drama. Science Fiction was considered pulp trash until serious writers started working in the genre and writing world-class ficiton that transcended the "robots and spaceships" onus.

So yeah, you can play games just for shits and giggles, but as long as the attitude stays at that level then I guess we can look forward to more TALISMAN clones, more redundant DoaM games, and more repetion across the board. Why bother doing something higher or more progressive when you're just trying to entertain people who just want to have fun? Further, why bother buying hobby games when you can accomplish the base goal ("have fun") with a deck of standard playing cards or a checkerboard?

I thought the undercurrent in that scene was that Harrison Ford was sick and didn't feel like sword fighting that day. Sometimes a webley revolver is just a webley revolver.

Regarding Labyrinth, I think part of what has gotten the opinion fires stoked is that people seem to be confusing "full of shit" and "not completely accurate" as if they are one and the same thing. They are not. The burden of proof should be much higher for the former, but I guess someone just has to say something along the lines of "this game is obviously, laughably, avoidably innacurate in its depiction of world events" and then leave it at that without explaining any further. For my part I think the game largely gets what it included correct, but left a lot out.

I've asked a few times if any of the critics decrying the lack of "accuracy" could offer up a historical game that IS accurate. Nobody has. Is any game about WWII that doesn't tackle the 12 million people killed in German concentration camps obviously, laughably, and avoidably innaccurate? If so, I guess every WWII published so far is full of shit.

That could be a legitimate point of view for someone to hold, but if so I don't see why they would get into historical games. They'd just read books or do archeological research or something where they wouldn't go so stressed out. But unless someone is a professional troll, you'd have to assume they actually like SOME games if they come on sites devoted to board games. And they wouldn't even have picked up Labyrinth unless historical/wargaming appealled to them. So when they throw it down in disgust and lambast the designer for spewing propoganda I'm left wondering what games DO meet their accuracy standard. ???

As far as Michael's question about any sci-fi fantasy game that tackled real world social issues. You might try looking at 4th Reich by Task Force Games or X-Men alert. The X-men are all about tackling real world social issues. There's probably a Captain Planet game out there somewhere too :)

Its not a medium though -its a game.

Art is a medium.
Music is a medium.
Language is a medium.

As an artist I can try to blur the definations but using strange choices for my art (such as cheetos- or handguns or whatever.)
If you make a game for the message then it is no longer a game.

Stop confusing the two.

Steve"its all about the fun"Avery

Har har, smart ass!

I meant to address BSG since somebody up there brought it up. That's a good example, although you're right that the subtexts were present in the source material. Nonetheless, as I said in my review, it's a game that gets into "real" psychology, interpersonal relationships, and issues of paranoia and suspicion. That's much cooler than plastic miniatures and flavor text, and it imparts MUCH more _theme_ and not just setting or window dressing.

You're dead right Dan- no "historical" game is really accurate. And I find it funny that HERE I STAND, which is ultimately about much bigger issues than LABYRINTH, is never raked over the coals for its inaccuracies or choices in depiction.

Dan, the weapon Indy used to blast the two swordsman was not a Webley. It was a Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector 2.

Later, in Crystal Skull and Last Crusade, it was a Webley Mark 4.

Smell the thick irony about a discussion on the merits of historical accuracy? ;)

Sorry, Mark 6. Fucking Romans...

I think it is difficult, unless the author says this is about blah, for any consumer of a "medium" to really pinpoint what is coincidence versus intention. Great art/movies/books seem to become "great" (a word I like to use hesitantly because it is often oversued) because the interpretation is vague and it can mean much to many people. Similar stuff happens in therapy where any behavior can be pathologized --- it is easy to put meaning on something in retrospect, that is what the human brain is designed to do and what our natural predilictions are: find meaning, find patterns. The works become great because they allow the individual to find their own meaning....which is somewhat odd because to do so they can't have a well-defined meaning.

As I was. Thanks for the correction. I know he's used a variety of handguns throughout the movies. I wasn't sure on the Webley in that scene but decided to take a stab. He's also used a Hi-Power and a 1911. Probably a few others too. There's the real story that is getting lost in all this GotY discussion. This is the centenial year of the greatest handgun ever made! The cult of the new can kiss John Moses Browning's ass.

Here's how I know games are as much an art medium as oil on canvas or film: Android. The game itself is mediocre at best, but the "experience" is what draws one in. Just as a movie allows you to suspend disbelief to enjoy it, so too do games. Tales of the Arabian Nights is also just as much a medium for a story to evolve as any book one could read, but in games, the narrative is a "choose your own adventure". Each experience unique, engaging, and your own. How is that not an artist's medium?

If you watch a film or read a book, there's characters, a plot, and a narrative. In games, there's characters, plots, and narratives. Similar? I'd say yes, and more so because you are interacting with the medium more than simply passively watching a film. At least with a book your imagination is engaged, creating the scenes in your head, so really, games are more like a book than film. Is not literature art?

In short, games are art just as books are art.

Yeah, it's weird to me that Steve doesn't see that games are a _COMMUNICATIVE MEDIUM_ considering that they're creative, authored, bear meaning, and represent perspective. BUt Steve is more of a "strictly for fun" gamer, so I guess that makes sense.

One of the chief reasons- if not _the_ reason- that games and game playing is so regularly shit on by the larger culture is because of the assumption that all games, whether it's CHUTES AND LADDERS or ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER, are considered to be meaningless, frivolous ways to kill time without any kind of cultural or social value. Yet even Mancala and Chess have social meanings. I think it's incredibly ignorant to reduce games and gaming down to "just fun". I think it discredits games like ANDROID, LABYRINTH, and so on.

If anything, games are much more participatory medium than art, music, or film. Because we engage in their creation, we're not just observing and interpreting.

Seriously thoughm, if you're playing hobby games just to have a good time, you're wasting time, money, and energy. Just buy a $5 deck of cards with some cheap poker chips and there's infinite, meaningless fun right there. You can even pretend the poker chips are plastic warriors and come up with a clever card-based combat system, if that's what floats your boat.

Hey, I told you that idea in confidence!

My wife bought me the Penguin Book of Card Games by David Parlett (designer of Tortoise and Hare, as well as numerous card games like Ninety-Nine). He says something to very similar effect, that card games are a distinct cultural artifact, as much as music and dancing. We even make those assumptions in the hobby, saying that games have a "German" feel or an "American" feel. Tons of European countries have their own design ethos that we all recognize, be they Italian, French, or even Czech.

So I agree that it's pretty myopic to say that games are merely fun. They absolutely are fun (and if a game isn't fun to play in some respect, it's probably failed), but they are also cultural artifacts, and they can express ideas that are much bigger then just pastimes. How we spend our free time says more about us than what we do with most of the rest of our lives.

I feel like we have come around full circle in just a few years, when EuroGamers were being pretentious about playing serious, mature games that were (somewhat) based on historical economic models. AmeriTrash games were dismissed as immature, for their fantastic settings and toy-like components. EuroGames were supposedly good for you, like brocoli or the New York Times crossword puzzle.

Fun is the minimum standard for a good game in my book. I don't care how important or controversial a game is, if it isn't fun, it isn't going to get played, and thus only barely qualifies as a game in a technical sense. Let's talk replay value. Is anybody here repeatedly playing a game that isn't fun, but simply because it's important or controversial?

Absolutely, a game has to be fun for it to work and there is definitely space for "dumb fun" games, no doubt. But to dismiss talking about games on a higher level than "gee, this is fun" as pretentious is just as bad as Joe Sixpack turning out in droves to see idiotic, lowbrow comedies while more high-minded fare languishes at the box office. Seriously, if the only benefit from playing games is "having fun", do something else. There's more things out there way more "fun" at a base level than a stinking board game. You really could get just as much out of CHUTES AND LADDERS at that point as you could from a hobby game.

It gets to the point where, when you've been doing this for so long and you've seen most of what's out there that you want something more. You start wanting games to affect you the same way a great record or a great film does. Not just "tee hee, fun". At least for me. Way back when I first started writing about games for Boulder, the first "fan letter" I ever got was for my review there of ATTIKA. The writer was really excited that I was writing about the game from a more experiential level that was closer to a film or music review and that I was appraising it as a creative piece, not just a "gee, a fun board game" perspective. That was the first time I realized that I was doing something a little different than most other games writers. As years have gone by, I've come to realize that we're undercutting the value and power of games when we just write them off as fun.

I do agree- if it's not fun and it's not entertaining, it fails. But a game like LABYRINTH _is_ fun, and _is_ entertaining. That makes it an effective example of the medium, and as I said it's a much more evolutionary product than even something like EARTH REBORN.

HIGH FRONTIER is another game that aspires to more, and that's why it was a runner-up. It _almost_ won, but I think the topic is something that is far less relevant or meaningful to most of the population.

I'm an academic, so I'm surrounded by people finding meaning in everything (you have to get a job, fill a c.v., write a dissertation--so you now almost make shit up...gotta love (hate?!) postmodernism) that I'm skeptical of the "board games as art" approach. That's probably why I trend towards Steve's "games are fun" approach.

Alot of it, like the article finding deep meaning in Raiders of the Lost Ark...most of the time, it is a load of horse shit, pure and simple. I'm sickened by the pretentious crap that passes for "intellectual" thought by looking through a program at almost any social science or humanities conference.

Also, Barnes, how does fan mail regarding a board game review compare to the letters to the editor that I read in the back of comics when I was a kid---letters that were so effusive with deep, intellectual insights into a race between Superman and Flash.

That said, I do think it is valuable and worthwhile to study things like sports, food, entertainment, games, and pop culture. What a culture eats, drinks, and how it lives says a lot. The rise of modern country music in the US, for example, is worth noting and studying--not to find deep meaning in Garth Brooks' lyrics--but put in the context to understand why it was attractive, etc. (Future historians won't look that much at board games of the early 21st century, I'd be willing to bet...but a lot will be written about video gaming b/c of the huge impact it has had).

Boardgames differ in their attempts at creating--or being--art because they are by definition interactive experiences. Therefore they are subject to the artistic merit and creativity of those that participate in them.

This inhibits their ability to stand alone as "true" art. A movie or book may be open to interpretation, but as a finished work it stands alone...no amount of screaming at the screen "DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR, JETHRO!" won't change the outcome of the film (nor the ultimate grisly fate of said Jethro.)

So you could, say, sit down to a group of gamers dedicated to consuming something like ANDROID as art, willing to approach it from the thematic underpinnings and mechanisms. Or, you could have some people who don't have that eye for such and blunder through the game, drinking beer, starting fights, and giving Floyd mechanical wedgies. To the eye of an evaluator, what is the game's worth as art, if you have to consider both approaches, both perspectives?

There is an art to creating boardgames. But because the ultimate clay is left in the hands of those who play them, it would be nearly impossible to quantify the artistic merit of a game, beyond its particular innovations in terms of mechanics or theme.

Jethro would (perhaps) benefit from this:

(description taken from wikipedia)

Kinoautomat (1967) was the world's first interactive movie,conceived by Radúz ?in?era for the Czechoslovak Pavilion at Expo '67 in Montreal. At nine points during the film the action stops,and a moderator appears on stage to ask the audience to choose between two scenes; following an audience vote, the chosen scene is played. The film is a black comedy, opening with a flash-forward to a scene in which Petr Novák's apartment is in flames. No matter what choices are made, the end result is the burning building, making the film—as ?in?era intended—a satire of democracy.

Speaking of Android, one user at BGG rated it a 10, even though she had no intention of ever playing her copy. She called it an important cultural artifact or some such. I can't look up the exact comment right now, because TOS is down for maintenance, but I remember that most of her favorite games were abstracts like Shogi and Go.

And speaking of Shogi, the traditional Shogi board is a hollow wooden stand, designed to produce a pleasing sound when pieces are moved. That feels potentially relevant to this discussion.

Wow.

Oh Barnes, you've become one of those tedious hipsters, that can only have fun if it's ironic and in air quotes.

Don't misread me there, chief. Games are supposed to be fun, I like to play games because they're fun, and I think the #1 reason you should play games is to have fun. But my point is that if all you're getting out of it is simple fun- and not quality time spent with friends and family, experiencing a great design, or doing something that makes you think- then you literally may as well play CHUTES AND LADDERS. No exceptions. And that's not to disparage CHUTES AND LADDERS, which can probably be pretty fun in the right circumstances and the right people.

When it comes down to it, if you're into this construct of "hobby gaming" and all you're looking for is mindless fun, then you're kind of kidding yourself about what it is. Even the simplest hobby games are still, as was recently noted here in our forums, beyond the ken of most folks unaware of the ability of games to communicate more and engage the player more than something like CHUTES AND LADDERS.

Gamers only want cultural, artistic, and social acceptance of their medium so long as it's not held to serious cultural, artistic, or social standards. Suggest that legitimacy for games might carry some moral or artistic responsibility on the part of game designers, and suddenly they're just frivolous entertainment and fuck you for not getting it.

Almost no serious literary critic would accept The Da Vinci Code as being art, but Assassin's Creed? Hell yeah! Didn't you notice that some of the characters do bad things for noble reasons? That's some deep philosophical shit right there. So what if the writing in most of these things would barely pass muster in a lousy made-for-cable movie? They make bajillions of dollars and look really pretty, which is always a good indicator of artistic merit, isn't it?

And if games have social value, then it stands to reason that certain games might have negative social value, doesn't it? Maybe that means the constant fetishization of sociopathic behavior in video games actually does have potentially negative social consequences. Maybe that means the gaming community banding together to defend disgusting, juvenile trash like Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, and Operation: Pedopriest isn't such a great idea.

The larger culture doesn't expect jack shit from games because gamers don't, but at least the "just for fun" folks are being honest about it. It's the "games as art" crowd who undermine the medium's legitimacy by continually fawning over the artistic and social bare ass minimum and wondering why the Ebert's and Thompson's of the world aren't too impressed.

Okay, I'm with you there. I'm not interested in just any old fun game, I prefer something more, like quality interaction, a great design, or something that makes me think. As long as it isn't a tedious amount of thought, like those work-in-a-box/spreadsheet Euros. And adding to the above list, I enjoy games with well-realized and enjoyable themes. For example, Shadowfist wasn't really much more than multi-player Magic combined with Cosmic Encounter. But the novel Hong Kong action movie theme, mixed in with some other cool themes, made for a very fun theme that was supported by good artwork more than any specific mechanics.

"HIGH FRONTIER is another game that aspires to more, and that's why it was a runner-up. It _almost_ won, but I think the topic is something that is far less relevant or meaningful to most of the population."
I think that aspiring to the stars absolutely trumps killing people on either side of the conflict. Fuck, I'd personally love to get off this rock and chill in a biodome on Mars with a couple buddies and a yearly shipment of "Cult of the New" backordered games. As long as there's Tastykakes and ample pussy, I'm all in. But I digress...

Art is observed and defined by the viewer, though, wouldn't you say? I look at the "Jesus Statue Made Of Feces" and think, "What the fuck is that guy on about?" where some people think it's deeply impacting art of a high order. Some people don't get Warhol. Some people think punk is just people making shitty music for dope fiends.

At the end of the day, it takes all types. I play games for fun, not their intrinsic "art" value, but that in no way reduces that artistic value of a game. Take Runebound, for instance. It has original artwork, hand drawn or digitally illustrated, it has sculpture, and it has written stories within. How the fuck can any objective person not see that as art, if not in its totality, than each of its individual components? Is there something intrinsically more valuable, artistically, of a sculpture of fruit in a bowl than there is of small warriors, armed for battle?

I'm in the Avery 'I play for fun' club. I can honestly say I've never though of games as an art or similar medium and even after thinking about it the last few hours I still can't think of any like that.
Sure - they have to interest me for me to get fun out of playing them, although a lot of that comes with the other people involved, but I can be interested in kicking a rugby ball or bowling a cricket ball and have fun from that but I don't think of those as art or similar.

Maybe I'm just not looking at it in the same depth as others here, after all the definition of art (and acceptance of) varies all over the world.

A game is just a game to me, to provide some type of entertainment - a challenge, some fun - can't say much more, sorry.

Wow. F:AT arguing about games as Art. It brings a tear to my eye, like a proud father. *sniff*

By this logic, Tic-Tac-Toe is art if the grid is superimposed over a print of the Mona Lisa.

Two dudes playing Chess with an exquisitely sculpted set of pieces, and two guys playing Chess with rocks on lines they drew in the dirt are playing identical games. Just sticking a game and art together doesn't make the game art, or the art a game.

I'm not sure what definition of art you could possibly have that includes Runebound's illustrations and miniatures that doesn't basically amount to "anything that's creative or expressive."

If that's your definition, then sure, Runebound is art, and its individual components are as well. Then again, pro wrestling, Jerky Boys records, and the flip books I drew on my high school textbooks are art, too, so maybe a somewhat loftier definition is in order.

[Fuck, I'd personally love to get off this rock and chill in a biodome on Mars with a couple buddies and a yearly shipment of "Cult of the New" backordered games. As long as there's Tastykakes and ample pussy, I'm all in. But I digress... ]

Don't forget the yuengling and peanut chews!

As an art school casualty, which makes me even less of an authority, I'd say yes, every human expression can be raised to an artform: eg. Howard Cosell, Carl Sagan, The winner of the annual Nanaimo Bathtub Race, Charles Schultz, Hannibal Barca, Troy Hurtubise, etc.

So why not games? Ever wonder where your $60 GMT game's worth is? It's not in the heavy paper map and cardboard chits.

Games is for fun. And so is art.

Yeah, Labyrinth promotes discourse....

Set aside the fact that this thread would probably never have evolved in this direction if I hadn't have been such an arrogant, obstinate ass and you can still see how much 'discussion' it generates. Nobody cares an ounce about    The broader message which is probably one of the reasons I can enjoy playing it with others, they invariably couldn't care less about it's ulterior commentary.

Compare that to the earlier 'War on Terror'. Far less factually accurate (though possibly more so in a broader sense) but I argue that it made people think FAR more about the subject by using humour to engage them more deeply in a weighty topic.

This is why even as art Labyrinth fails miserably, it's derivative, unoriginal and fails to provide choices that challenge preconceptions, something it could have easily done were it not peddling the most marketable format possible. As a visual medium it would be nothing more than a badly flawed documentary or  John Wayne's 'Green Berets'.

It's notching there haven't been several other entries in it's field, Lightning tWoT, One More Barrel and the Battle for Baghdad all represent the conflict in their own ways and all come with their inaccuracies. The latter two have a far, far stronger claim to being thought-provoking games than LtWoT.

Games dealing with terrorism as a subject stretch back at least as far as the Battle for Algiers which decades ago set a high standard for giving insight into asymmetrical conflict and the political considerations involved. Truly a valiant, last minute hail-mary effort but the need to open LtWoT up for artistic consideration shows how little it deserves it's recognition based upon other considerations.

As for games in general as art, that's equally self-evident. Roger Ebert really shot himself in the foot when he argued that video-games would never be art and all the arguments used against him are equally applicable to boardgames. Whether their innate visual art (where abstracts often shine and where physic components can very definitely be art in the Sam way as any painting or sculpture) or the ability to provide thought-provoking choices (where games deeper thematic and sim games excel) or a pure visceral and emotional experience (even AT, if even by accident).

A certain amount of intention to achieve a particular goal is needed on the part of the designer though or you end up with Tracy Emin level nonsense. So far, I think very few designers set out with any artistic goals in mind and instead understandably focus purely on fun, popularity and profitability as driving concerns. Given that boardgames are far more of a niche medium than videogames its unlikely that we'll see that change anytime soon.

It is all in the intention. If a shoe is used to walk in then it is a shoe. If I put that same shoe in a gallery with the sole purpose of admiring the asthetics of it or as a statement on realism then it is art.

Games are for entertainment.

Steve"Why can't I quit this thread"Avery

i get it.

Games is for fun. And so is art.

Probably the best and most important point here. Art, unfortunately, bears a social stigma of self-importance and po-faced seriousness. Yet, if you've ever been to a Matthew Barney, Damien Hirst, or Jeff Koons show or really looked at Dali, Duchamp, or Warhol you'll see that there's plenty of _fun_ there. It's OK to laugh at art and have fun. Sometimes, you're even supposed to.

I'd probably classify games in with folk art. The larger definition of art includes, the use of skill, creativity and imagination to create a shared experience. Folk art expresses cultural identity by conveying shared community values and aesthetics.

Players use skill, creativity and imagination to create a shared experience when playing games, and the games we play express our cultural (or perhaps sub-cultural) identity, and convey our shared community values and aesthetics.

Michael Barnes wrote: "Art, unfortunately, bears a social stigma of self-importance and po-faced seriousness."
Just like Euros?

The physical components are not the game. Whether or not they are art is irrelevant, as they exist separate and apart from the game, and vice versa.

A trip to the grocery store can provide thought-provoking choices, too. Fucking provides a visual and emotional experience. Doesn't mean either one is art.

I'd love to carry on [choke .. cough ... bullshit] but The Longest Day just started on TV and that's a no brainer for us jobless bums.

Steve:
Games are for entertainment. True.
So are movies, books, paintings, porn, poetry. There's this big thing called an Entertainment Industry.

And one can write critical analysis of these other things. Consider Val Lewton films. These were expressly shot as B-pictures to fill out a double features. He was given a budget, and a lurid title, and told to put together a picture. That's it, the entire existence is a title.

And yet, you could write volumes and volumes just on "Curse of the Cat People." (I was working as a projectionist while the Telotte was writing "Dreams into Darkness", and got to see most of these movies. )

It took a second, but I have finally uncovered MJL's secret identity. MJL is actually Grumpy Smurf.

Games are art
"I hate art"
Games are fun
"I hate fun"

;)

Chapel said: ...
Wow. F:AT arguing about games as Art, again. It brings a tear to my eye, like a proud father. *sniff*

ftfy

Interesting discussion turn... I've yet to play LtWoT so it is hard to comment on it specifically. I think in general the only thing I really disagree with is Michael's notion that if you playing for fun isn't worthwhile, in and of itself. Lots of people put posters of famous *ART* on their walls, in their office etc., not because they appreciate the brush strokes or the meaning the artist was trying to convey but simply because "they like it." Enjoyment of art is almost an entirely different beast than the creation of art. Heck criticism is an art form, no? No less so than the choices each individual makes. The 'just for fun' wing to me, is a perfectly valid wing. I don't think it is necessary to have to "get" art/games/music/shoes at a higher level. If one does, great, but as noted art is fun too, and appreciating it *at that level* is perfectly reasonable, IMO.

WTF? Screw art or having fun... you guys don't play board games to GET LAID??!!! Works every time, most of the time.

I'm not sure he made that comment. He actually agreed just above that both art and games are meant for fun. Of course, a lot of art is aimed at the exact opposite, moving you toward dark, desolate or very uncomfortable areas, helping to understand or come to terms with such feelings/issues and providing the opposition that helps throw lighter works into perspective.

Games like Dixit are great examples of the distinctive forms boardgames can enter as an artistic (rather than educational or socio-political) medium. For those who haven't played it involves searching for alternate interpretations of slightly abstract and absurd pictures encouraging players to challenge their own understanding of art, something that probably wouldn't happen simply by observing the pictures alone. It doesn't state this as a goal or objective anywhere though, its just something that happens consecutively while you're having fun. In his review of the game Robert Florence, the sarcastic and earthy host of Downtime Town (and now appearing in the tv show 'Burnistoun' which you should check out) appeared genuinely moved by it. Maybe not Schindler's List moved, but enough to act as a testament to the potential of games to do so.

Art:

Kitsch:

Art:

Kitsch

Why does pic No. 4 qualify as kitsch exactly? No 2 is obvious. KItsch was also the ameritrash award (since removed at the top of the other thread).

Speaking of art and R Florence - his review of Space Hulk is hard to beat.

Brenda Brathwaite's Train is the 'game' I think of whenever I hear about games as art... I am always suprised that people who have apparently 'played' it didn't catch on before they are informed midway that it's about the Holocaust. I imagine it can be quite a horrible (at the same time informative experiecne), if you think the whole time you are really playing 'a game'.

#4 might be an interesting design, like a chair for example. But creating a board game isn't art. Handicraft tends to get confused with art, because artisans are close to distinction. Regardless, crafting a board game is no different than crafting a shoe for example. As Avery has said, both have a different intended purpose than art. Additionally, mass production usually disqualifies an item from being art.

Someone should have told that to Shakespeare and Mozart. I'm sure they would have been happy to stop before their work got mass produced around the world and sullied their good name.

Composing a play or symphony is art. Making a film based on somebody else's work or directing an orchestra isn't necessarily. Burning a CD or tracing the Mona Lisa certainly isn't.

The point you're making is unclear. Can you clarify where exactly the above Train fits into this? Do you consider it art by virtue of being unique rather than mass-produced? Why then say immediately after, that creating a board game isn't art? If you're talking about the purely physical act of assembling the components, I think you'll find others have been arguing more toward the mental creation of the design and components rather than the manual labor involved.

Also, regarding the two pictures you labeled as Art/kitsch, I think you'll find that the upper is merely a reproduction of a popular format known as 'Melodials Chabanais', a form of daguerreotype from the 1870's which showed prostitutes popular among the young musicians of Paris and where little more than saucy postcards. Man-ray's later appropriation of it was a deliberate nod toward the kitsch of his childhood and he replied to early criticism of its roots by saying it was "just a bit of fun". The children meanwhile are from an early series by Anne Geddes that represented the 'Flower Children', also known as the Lost Generation' of 1940's England, in which many urban children were sent to stay in the countryside during the blitz, where they had to work in the fields gathering fruit crops and where thousands died from TB. Former British PM Margaret Thatcher, herself one of the original flower children, was said to have been moved to tears, for the first time publicly, when she saw this very piece.

;)

Funny you should ask this, because I'm sure you did as much "research" about Train as you did about Man Ray and Geddes' flower babies, while contemplating your reply. Or maybe not, because it seems like your research consists of pulling tales out of your arse, like:

;)

I wouldn't bother using the emoji until you know what they mean, you'll only do yourself an injury. Obviously winking's not enough for some people. Congratulations on the non-answer though.

I wouldn't bother answering a question from someone trying to pull my leg.

I'm beginning to think you disregarded the wink, thought "By jove! That couldn't possibly be true", went off to fact-check and then got annoyed when the little ;) resurfaced in your mind and you said "Ohh, that's what it means."

The questions before the nonsense were sincere though. Apologies for the unappreciated light-heartedness. (Lack of a wink)

An irony smilie isn't a good indicator of irony, because it's ambiguous itself. Next time you have a stab at irony I recommend putting the give-away into the text itself.

Anyway, the reason why Train is art is simply because Train isn't a board game. There are no victory conditions for example. The point of the game is to evoke an emotional response from the players, other than fun or entertainment. What makes Train interesting isn't how it plays, but how (differently) people react to it. It is thereby similar to Malevich's Black Square for example, which isn't a great painting either, aesthetically, but achieved artistic merit by the way it was represented.

Now, I do believe that a game like Labyrinth goes beyond the notion of "games are for fun" and that this is a good thing. (I'm a wargamer myself.) But that doesn't make it art.

Anyway, this serious talk is no fun and I'm having enough of it.

That's not your leg, Schweig...well, in the common sense, anyhow. I suspect the appropriate smiley is probably...
:o

Why would anyone pull on that other limb? That hurts, man.

I was just reading recently about one of my favorite films, ED WOOD, and how some of the peripheral people depicted in the movie had complained that it wasn't accurate in some ways. But I know that Tim Burton's objective was to create a film "in the spirit" of Ed Wood, and not necessarily entirely faithful to his life, and I think he did that very well. It was an entertaining film by a competent director about an incompetent director who made bad films. The accuracy of the details had to be fudged a bit to add some of the entertainment.

Sure, it mattered to those specific people a little bit that something wasn't accurate, but let's face it, if every event and story was depicted 100% accurately in films, it would probably be very disjointed and boring. Real life dialogue and events do not always compress very well into a 2 hour movie without some license to punch things up. As long as something that was changed doesn't become propaganda in the process or isn't used particularly for that effect (i.e. like in 1984), then it's not necessarily a big deal. In other words, there is sometimes more truth that can be depicted and shown about life within something that's fictional than with something that's more stark and concerned about accuracy. Documentaries don't necessarily give you any more truth or wisdom about life than fictional films.

The irony is surely people praising interpretive art while bemoaning ambiguous symbols or failing to take things lightly then claiming things are too serious. No? (inscrutable)

Anyway, the question of accuracy here has been an ongoing straw man as I don't believe anyone has called for 100% accuracy in games or other mediums in general. Accuracy can be a positive, just as inaccuracy can be a negative. Neither is a given though and the latter can be easily offset by other insight, information or emotional impact conveyed. Any 'based on real events' movie would invariably be filled with ugly people, hmming and hawing, sitting around in their long-johns updating their facebook pages, rather than those two minutes something really exciting happened in their lives or that one time they made that really biting putdown. Can we accept that there is no widespread demand for 100% accuracy?

What is sought is an understanding of what, if anything, is conveyed beyond simple accuracy. For entertainment its enough to be fun and even propagandist elements can be easily overlooked on those grounds. For something akin to 'Birth of a Nation' though, whose worth is justified more by its artistic and technical contribution to the medium, such positive factors simply need to be either self-evident or easily justifiable.

Yeah, if you expect from your fellow discussion partners to have read Margaret Thatcher's biography in order to get all your subtle and actually jokingly ironic references, then I really fail at communicating on as high of an intellectual level as yours. I should note to always trust Southernman; he knows an arrogant cunt when he sees one.

I'd assumed you were posting Man Ray and Geddes as examples because you knew what they were... (sad, slightly bemused face)

Motion resolved: Henceforth no one shall overestimate Schweig's knowledge, even on subjects he himself raises.

A lot of people on these boards seem to adopt a posture where, when faced by a choice between taking something as a light-hearted joke or a cruel, petty insult, they opt for the latter. There is of course the possibility it qualifies as both, yet, I can't help but think how they receive it says far more about them than the spirit in which it was intended.

The same applies to topics or facts being raised that are outside your personal knowledge. You can either embrace the chance to learn something new or write people off as arrogant. Once again, manner of reaction is likely reveal good insight into core character.

You can either embrace the chance to learn something new or write people off as arrogant.

There are other options.

The information may be very unappealing to you, I can think of several topics that qualify... depending on who you are of course. Not everyone wants to learn about the dog shows my Mom attended, or how much cologne Justin Beiber uses, or how much grain is produced by Saskatchewan farmers... regardless of it presenting to them the "chance to learn something new".

The point being that "something new" is not inherently something good or worthy of your time and it's almost impossible to apply a hierarchy to knowledge that suites anyone but yourself.

Incidentally, even though I'm sick of hearing about American Foreign Affairs, I did think it was cool that people praised the game for promoting discussion and then you tried to actually make that happen... but then no one wanted the discussion anymore, they just wanted to insult you. So your good in my books, arrogant or not.... and anyway, I can't think of a single poster on here who hasn't been an "arrogant cunt" at some point... maybe metalface.

I do consider someone arrogant who twists other people's words. I was not "bemoaning ambiguous symbols", if I was bemoaning anything it was your misuse of symbols. I'm all for the usage of ambiguous symbols - by people who actually know what they're doing. You assume that if I was talking about Man Ray and Geddes, I'm supposed to know that Margaret Thatcher was in fact NOT a "flower child" and did NOT cry upon seeing the Geddes photo. You also hold against me that I didn't understand this paragraph of bullshit you made up as irony. Presenting lies as facts isn't irony, it's hypocrisy. A mere irony smilie is not going to make people look through that. I hope you now understand that I don't write you off as an arrogant cunt, but that my perception of you as an arrogant cunt is rooted in your very own behaviour. You prove it with sentences like:

- - -

It is in fact the other way round: You assume your petty insults should be understood as light-hearted jokes.

When you present "facts" to offer me the chance to learn something new, and these facts turn out to be bullshit you made up, in what light do you expect me to view you?

I say potayto you say f%*& you &#"+&&#xin;g c$#* :D

Jesus, you are one painful sonofabitch to read. Apparently you're not happy to have any discussion unless it's to try to piss someone off or to impress with your imagined intellectual superiority. Lots of people here behave as jerks but they do so in a way that is at least entertaining most of the time - not so much the case with you.

Yeah, I'm going with Door #1, Monty.

I haven't bothered reading any of Brannigimps posts but from the tone/text of the dwindling people left in this thread, and of the ones already departed, it seem's the prick's days at this site are numbered - people will just stop communicating with him.

Schweig! said:

Ah - my boy [wipes small tear away from eye], they grow up so quickly.

Nice new avatar southernman.

I'm watching you Miss Toaster .... (thank you, New Year new look).

Miss toaster no more!

Ditto. His posts are garbage. There are other places on the net where they would eat up that snarky shit but this isn't one of them.

Steve"Telling it like it is"Avery

I've found that Southernman is indeed almost prescient with his ability to root out bullshit and call the professors of said bullshit on their bullshit. Even when it was me. ;)

Moral of the Story:
If you're being a Branagyn, don't. Jesus may love you, but we think you're a cunt.

Comes from being a world-weary old(-feeling) bastard who expects people to treat other people how they would want to be treated, which is why I have no problem with Frank or Mikey Barnes or MJL as they are (usually :D) respectful in their direct fire. Even Steve Weekes was OK until he started to try to just destroy the site.
And, yes, I can be a bit overboard at times myself - when I do I usually pull my head in and sit in a corner for a few days before posting again.

JonJacob wrote: "I can't think of a single poster on here who hasn't been an "arrogant cunt" at some point... maybe metalface."
I'm mortally insulted! You, you, you're an arrogant cunt! And since you brought it up, just how much grain is produced by Saskatchewan farmers?

superflytnt wrote: " Yeah, I'm going with Door #1, Monty."
Could you slam his other limb in the door on the way out please?

I suspect that it wouldn't notice being caught in the door; hell, it may even slip between the door and the jamb. People who run their slopholes like that trying to impress people with their vast repository of knowledge tend to have other inadequacies, although I cannot surmise what that might be.

.

No doubt. I usually put them in the same category as people who talk about their gun collection, or Mixed Martial Arts...

All that just yells, Little Pee Pee!

You gonna take that shit from Chapel, Loter?!?!?! ;)

I think that we have found the real F:AT Game of the Year. I propose that we name the game Internet Flamewar.

Whoa guys...we cannot dogpile the shit out of someone for having strong opinions. (Quiz: What's the difference between someone with strong opinions you agree with and strong opinions you don't? One's a maverick, the other an asshole.)

As for the brief Weeks mention...he wasn't banned for having strong opinions, but for trying to tear down the site (spamming forums, PM'ing and harassing users, and so on.) BIG difference.

We can't run folks out of town on a rail because they talk shit and have strong opinions. The more of that, the merrier.

You go ahead and try having a discussion with the guy, Ken.

I'd like to know Brannagyn's opinion on the artistic merits of Cannibal Corpse's 1991 classic "Butchered At Birth". I still get bleary eyed when I hear "Covered With Sores".

I wasn't referring to Brannagyn...

Nota:I know...I was, though! ;)

I love that Ken comes in as the voice of reason when he, himself, put Puzzle Strike up as his F:AT Game of the Year (not to be confused with THE F:AT Game of the Year). Puzzle Strike?!?! How reasonable can the man be?!?!? ROFL

Brannagyn was really, really clearly kidding with that. It was pretty obviously a joke, and I think both he and I are surprised that anyone thought it might be real.

Since this has become the official F:AT insult or "telling it like it is" thread, like Avery put it, I need to pile this on:

FUCK YOU SOUTHERNMAN!!! For bashing me twice in the other GOTY thread. But thanks for that reference you provided.

Sorry Ken but...
FUCK YOU BRANNAGYN!!! Not for having a dissenting opinion, but for composing the most mind-numbingly dull posts to desecrate this web space. I try to read them but my eyes automatically revert to "skimming mode". I have to make a huge effort and find myself re-reading a sentence three times. Takes forever, and then I'm always let down and wonder why I bothered reading it in the first place. Yet I can't help reading them, I need Southie's discipline.

Hmm… This got me into thinking... I write lengthy posts as well. I wonder if my posts regularly engage other F:ATies "skimming mode" as well...

Anyway I have a real life story I'd like to share: I just finished a class last week. The lectures were in a "computer lab". Everyone has a computer monitor in front of him, but the professor stands in the front of the room while he lectures, so he can't see anyone's screen. So this student, an arrogant cunt, has his screen open to Wikipedia/Google and answers all the professor's questions quickly by searching on the internet. But the fucker pretends he knew the answer all along, and also engages the professor in lengthy discussions which the professor does not care about, much less the rest of the students. Interestingly, he sits in the first row, so most of the students in the class can this cunt's screen and see what an assclown he is. But the unashamed prick doesn't seem to care. He just wants to impress the professor by pretending he knows everything about everything.

So if you're feeling bummed about this thread, think of those who have to endure that shit in real life.

I do have to admit, though, Brannagyn, that as much as I'm on your side, your avatar doesn't help the fact that everyone else thinks you're a cranky old cunt. Keep posting, don't be scared off by the schoolyard bullies.

Yer momma.

is so fat...

OH NO YOU DINT

"...is so F:AT." How'd you blow this? Do I have to do everything around here?

I had to roll over twice to get off her...

...but before I did, I just flipped through the folds to find the stinky one, then flipped back one and had at her!

And then she said MORE !

Brannagyn = Karl Pilkington?

She's so fat, she was standing on the corner and the cops came by and told her to break it up

Yer momma's so fat, her blood type is gravy

Yer mom's so fat, we used to take the bitch to the beach to sell shade

She's so fat, we used to take her to McDonald's to watch the damned sign change..."one billion sold...two billion..."

I couldn’t give a dead dingo’s dick about Labyrinth, either as a game (wasn’t a twilight struggle fan) or as a discussion about the war on terror (I’m bored shitless hearing about that crap on the news, let alone hearing about it from internet fat-asses.)
So Bannagyn’s ‘side’ of the argument is not the problem in the least, because I don’t give a shit.
No what makes him annoying is the fact he sounds like a jackass who has spent 20 years in University and has yet to leave. His language is the most inane self conscious horseshit I have ever read on this site. It’s like he spends 20 mins on every post trying to make himself sound as smart as he can.
The posting style her is very relaxed. I like the fact everyone is plain speaking and just types off the top of their head. Lets keep it that way, I don’t need to read wannabe DaVinci Code bullshit when I’m bludging at work.
These are internet forum posts not a fucking Thesis. There is no ‘intelectual asswipe’ position needing filling. So either write for the audience here or shut the fuck up.

And Canibal Corpse has, and forever will, suck raped asshole shit.

I think that's what most dissenters thought either straight away or after they persevered with him and then thought 'fuck, not worth the effort'. Me and Mr Avery couldn't even read his bloody posts after the first couple.
Less bullshit and antagonism, more grunt and 'joining the crew'.

"suck raped asshole shit." - They perfom that track on the last live DVD, you should check it out.

Shit, I always thought was D.R.I.

Hey Dragonstout, it’s really only the occasional post like yours that has provided any reason to respond here. I certainly wouldn’t have ever commented if the site board was populated solely by unabashed hypocrites with a homoerotic obsession with dick-jokes. Nonetheless, the internet is useful to me only as a place for mental interaction and with so many people here so disdainful of even casual displays of knowledge in favor of a, sincerely moving, need for validation from their peers, its hardly worth the effort. Moreover, Labyrinth was of particular interest to me purely because of the rarity with which my hobby addresses my professional field and it’s unlikely that anything equally stimulating will crop up soon.

That said, should it do so I’ll certainly throw in my arrogant, disrespectful and unentertaining opinions and, as far as my avatar goes, I’m fond of the source but I can’t help wonder had I used a cute girl’s face and called myself Bree, would the locker-room behavior above have replicated itself? (rhetorical) La galantery est morte, but then, de Rouchefort did say "Gallantry of the mind is saying empty things in an agreeable manner" so maybe the denizens here are a step up on me. And now, knowing that the people who hate reading my posts will certainly read this, and that the use of French and obscure quotes will have their nostrils flaring, I'll bow out of gracefully.

Queer.

What a loss he will be.

Facing your departure with a tear rolling down my cheek, please allow me to quote this old German dictum:

"Es wäre mir sehr gelegen falls Sie sich herzlich ins Knie ficken würden, Brannagyn, Sie Arschgeige."

It's OK, Branny, allow me to translate for you, brother:
"Hey Dragonstout, it’s really only the occasional post like yours that has provided any reason to respond here."
= Hey, only guy who threw me a rope, thanks. I was getting a little overwhelmed.
"I certainly wouldn’t have ever commented if the site board was populated solely by unabashed hypocrites with a homoerotic obsession with dick-jokes."
= I misjudged you folks; I figured you'd get my arrogant, pompous writing style as being 'hip'. You guys are fags.
"Nonetheless, the internet is useful to me only as a place for mental interaction and with so many people here so disdainful of even casual displays of knowledge in favor of a, sincerely moving, need for validation from their peers, its hardly worth the effort."
= In real life, I don't have many friends, so I get on the internet to meet people with a shared hobby. Sorry I know so much more than you ignorant cunts, and since you're so fucking retarded, I can't even talk to you beyotches.
"Moreover, Labyrinth was of particular interest to me purely because of the rarity with which my hobby addresses my professional field and it’s unlikely that anything equally stimulating will crop up soon."
I'm a superspy in real life, and I have a background in political science and foreign affairs. I liked the game because it allowed me to apply my Bondsian powers to the a game, and that was cool. Bummer they don't make too many terrorism games, because I like whacking Hajjis. It's invigorating.

"That said, should it do so I’ll certainly throw in my arrogant, disrespectful and unentertaining opinions and, as far as my avatar goes, I’m fond of the source but I can’t help wonder had I used a cute girl’s face and called myself Bree, would the locker-room behavior above have replicated itself?"
So, beyotches, I'm done with you, but if something catches my eye, I'm going to put some boring, long, drawn out, academic stuff in here to further bolster my personal knowledge that no matter what you do, I am smarter than you. So fuck off. Oh, and if I had breasties, would you have been such mean guys to me? I think not.
(editor's note: He called us fags or dicklovers earlier, so by extension, wouldn't we be MORE nasty to one who bears the holiest of holies...?)
"La galantery est morte, but then, de Rouchefort did say "Gallantry of the mind is saying empty things in an agreeable manner" so maybe the denizens here are a step up on me. And now, knowing that the people who hate reading my posts will certainly read this, and that the use of French and obscure quotes will have their nostrils flaring, I'll bow out of gracefully."
="Gallantry is dead", but the guy with the stinky cheese did note some shit that essentially boils down to "Be nice". My point? Stop being asses because you can't be me. I'm that old spice guy, motherfuckers, so step up and smell nice. I am the guy who your wife wishes you were. In fact, you didn't get that Frenchy-Frenchmen shit, and it'll piss you off because you're mad that I'm so much better than you. Audi 5000, fuktards.
----

Wow. That was a mouthful, there, pardner. Glad I could assist in the translation, and fuck you very much.

You guys are fucking brutal man... although he's been dishing it out just as immaturely since his third or so post, and trying to hide his immaturity, at least you guys embrace it I guess.

Queer

First time I actually laughed out loud in awhile reading forums. It's just so appropriate given his final speech.

hypocrites with a homoerotic obsession with dick-jokes.

..see what I mean?

I think it's pretty obvious the guy's a homosexual member of Al Qaeda, which is a pretty stacked dick...er..deck against you. Please stick around, I haven't had the opportunity to jab with a professional student in a long time, terrorist no less.

It's interesting though, how bullying the same person brings people together. I have a much higher opinion of mjl1783 and superflytnt now.

Fuck both mjl1783 and superflytnt, both of them have been here for at least a year and niether has delievered us one obscure french quote. Not one!

Puppy

Doux Jésus, quel trou du cul!

-- de Rouchefort

Brannagyn wrote: "Labyrinth was of particular interest to me purely because of the rarity with which my hobby addresses my professional field and it’s unlikely that anything equally stimulating will crop up soon. That said, should it do so I’ll certainly throw in my arrogant, disrespectful and unentertaining opinions"
So are you going to write a review? (Sorry, couldn't resist putting some fear into everyone's minds.)

Oh man that translation was hilarious.
Nice work Pete.

When they get an App for that I'm going back to posting on the Geek.

Steve"Where is my damn french Quote?"Avery

That translation has made my day (although that's not difficult at the moment) - and I'm impressed how accurate it seems. I honestly believe this guy must be the epitome of the socially inept geek who never socialises with other humans in real life - and obviously has no idea on how to do it over the ether either.

Loser. No loss to this site.

I'm a new guy and maybe I shouldn't, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say I enjoyed some of Brannagyn's posts. Not necessarily all of them, but he has some valid points. I enjoyed hearing his opinion on something I am woefully underinformed about. I also liked the back and forth to a point, but this has gotten to be something of a piling on. I like this site and the games that it highlights, but this has been a bit much. Again, I've only been reading this site for a few months, so shout me down if I deserve it. I'm a glutton for punishment and it won't stop me from reading and posting on this site, because it is both entertaining and informative.

I have finally decided that I now understand the hierarchy of boardgame-related websites.

ToS is the beatnik wine bar where academics argue the merits of using yellow cubes to represent asian-themed workers. A place where the most intelligent congregate to discuss high political subjects such as the historical accuracy of Power Grid as it relates to the rise of the industrial age.

F:AT is the blue-collar pub where the folks discuss at length the merits of cunnilingus, the publican tries to keep the punters from killing each other while laughing because nobody really knows what started the brawl, and a place where people can simply be themselves, even if they are real assholes.

LONG LIVE THE PUB!

Mange mes crottes de nez ostie de criss de calice! - Pat

wdgrant - maybe you're a very similar person to brannigimp then. You're more than welcome to read and post and contribute here, just be aware there is a culture here that differs from other niche hobby sites (as people have alluded to in this thread and the main reason why this site was created as an alternative to BGG) and if you rub against it too hard then you may find yourself at odds with other contributers here.
Brannigimp belongs to a special subset of self-worshipping geeks and his online habitat is really only a few specific forums at BGG.

@ wdgrant

It's an alpha-dog thing. It takes some puppies a while to figure out the difference between sharing an opinion, and issuing a challenge. If you challenge the big dogs you will get dog piled. Everyone gets dog piled sooner or later. I think Superfly Pete may hold a record for most dog piled n00b who kept coming back. Usually a good idea to make some friends on the site, understand the culture, establish you rep, know who the big dogs are, and have a good sense of humor about yourself before baring your teeth.

But at least I had the good sense to apologize for being an asshat. :) Anyhow, I came back for Avery's wit, Loter's energy, Southernman's innate sense of rooting out bullshit, Barnes' sardonic wit, Ken's sense of justice and skill at reviewing products, and finally, Miss Rose's charm and good looks. ;)

That, and everywhere else has banned me... >:( You're among friends, WD. It's a matter of treating people as people, and not students to be lectured, and that was Brannigyn's downfall. Had he framed his posts in a fraternal way, I think he would've been accepted as a brother, which he still may be if he amends his attitude. It's about treating people as equals and peers, and not talking down to people, I think.

And just treat people with some hint of respect. Some people had no problem with the points or opinions he was making (when he could be understood), it was just the way he expressed them showing little social ability and to detriment of respect to others.
We all do our best to get along with each other here - shit, people are now visiting each other and making face-2-face friendships - so I don't think that is too much to ask.

Also, if your argument at any point devolves into "I'm smarter than you", you're effectively fucking toast. That's where Brannagyn lost it.

Despite the low-brow banter, folks here are quite in touch with their mental selves, and the levels of education here are higher than might be expected at first glance. Everyone is also quite familiar with Internet cranial dick-waving, and want no part of it on their games site. There's a site devoted to that for the people who want it.

Dissent is totally normal, there's nothing here everyone agrees on (even Arkham Horror, which may be the closest thing to a holy relic on F:AT). Being an ass about your dissenting opinions is just going to cause trouble, so be prepared if you're going to talk down to people.

Pete has his analogy half-right. I don't think BGG is as cool as a beatnik wine bar, and I'm not sure there's any useful discussion relating games to anything but other games, and the acquisition of those games. F:AT is a definitely a pub, though, and certain rules of decorum apply.

Amen. Now pass me a Landshark.

Not Sure nailed it. And let's note that for the record, so we can spare ourselves the 'oh, you don't like different opinions' bullshit.

I never knew we were in such a nice pub.

Which valid points would those be, WD?

1. Labyrinth is simple-minded in order to be marketable to simple-minded Western audiences.
2. Labyrinth has a fascist/imperialist slant because Western audiences like that sort of thing.
3. Labyrinth is racist because Western audiences are racist.
4. People who don't agree with me are stupid (also racist, don't forget racist).
5. People who suggest my condescending attitude undermines the ingenuity of my expressed desire to have an intelligent exchange on this issue are dumb as well.
6. Winky faces mean I can insult you all I want and I'm still not a jerk.
7. If you tell me to fuck off, even after I've deliberately goaded you beyond endurance, you're a stinky, poopy, meanie head.
8. No, YOU'RE immature!
9. War on Terror is a profound, nuanced examination of Islamic terrorism and the West's response to it.
10. You guys are just like the jocks that used to beat me up in high school.
11. You guys are meanies!
12. OK, I tried to be friends with you guys, but I can see you don't like me for some reason. Sorry I had to bother you with all my stupid trying to have a nice conversation about how ignorant and racist you are. Bye bye.:'(

13. If I had tits, you'd be slobbering to tell me how much you agree with me.

Hey Not Sure: You'll enjoy this in response to your statement that "and I'm not sure there's any useful discussion relating games to anything but other games, and the acquisition of those games."

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/599991/fairness-series-vendettas/page/6 "Fairness Series: Vendettas"
I managed to frame "revenge moves" in a rather interesting way: If your wife is cheating, you kick the shit out of the other guy, but does that other guy come back to kill you for whipping his ass? Amazingly, I haven't received a banning yet.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/6057854#6057854 "RPGNet V RPGGeek" by Our Man Chapel"

I managed to slide in a "Jesus Loves You But I Think You're An Asshat" reference, and got a warning from Octavian, who I would note has become far more congenial and relaxed of late, to my astonishment and pleasure. The tide may be turning.

1. Labyrinth is simple-minded in order to be marketable to simple-minded Western audiences.
2. Labyrinth has a fascist/imperialist slant because Western audiences like that sort of thing.
3. Labyrinth is racist because Western audiences are racist.
4. People who don't agree with me are stupid (also racist, don't forget racist).

Perfect tl;dr summary of the preceding criticism of the game...

Maybe Brannagyn's dream game about the GWOT would have been titled Chimpy McBushitler's War of Oppression Against Brown People.

MJ, I can't say I agree with any of the 12 you mentioned, but I might be persuaded to agree with Superfly's number 13. In order to really be able to tell, I would have to the see the tits in question. I don't just slobber over any old pair (anymore). :D

I disappointed at the thin skin he ended up having. He's just like all the pussies here who quit BGG in a huff. Have some balls to an opinion that might not be the most popular one on the lot.

These are certainly valid critcisms of what he said and sure, MJ and Pete summarized him pretty accurately if somewhat ingenuously. But I've seen several users here get away with this kind of posting and suffer no repurcussions.

It was classless and rude the way we treated him... occasionally funny too but that doesn't make it ok. It's when new users post on BGG and then get attacked that I get suspended for defneding them. Apparently it's cool to attack new useres here too.

You can all call me a sensitive fag now if you want. I'm just wondering when I'm going to get the Brany treatment. Now that I've seen you all turn, I know you can't be trusted... ;)

It's not "new users" that are a problem, JJ. It's new users that are asshats. I was a TOTAL asshat, and I got skullfucked almost universally for it, but here I stand and shall remain. I remediated my position, and now I'm an upstanding member of the "commune".

It's not that tough to hang here, as long as you're not an ass to people. Well, unless you're Canadian, in which case, you get more slack since Geddy Lee is pretty much all you've got. ;)

...maybe the kick to the scrotum of all new users is just a hazing and "weeding out" exercise?

Completely true. It is all about the presentation.

Steve"Breast Man"Avery

I'm pitcuteing huge tits on that ugly ass avatar and it's not doing it for me.

But I bet we'd leave him alone at least.

That help, JJ?

"So your telling me that it's ok to be friends with a girl if she's ugly"

"No, you pretty much want to nail them too."

C'mon. The fella would have been Ok if he'd just stuck to his points without rubbing & fondling his thesis (which is still being ironed out btw) and trying to do the intellectual masturbation thing. I took a course in college back in the '90's on Terrorism (which makes me just as polished as him on the topic btw) and could see his points. It's the fact that he kept trumpeting the fact that his life's work was somehow sullied by the presentation of this game and the lowly opinions generated from it. It was getting really difficult getting to the points amidst all that crap.

For the record I could give a rats ass about the game as this is a topic best left in the news until it, if it ever, ends. Someone has to win in a game and as far as I can tell no one is winning this...ever. The last thing I'm going to do is run off at the mouth about how my opinion on this topic is more soundly based than anyone else due to my "studies". I'd like to see how long this sort of argument would last with a 20 year old suicide bomber who obviously lacks the 20 years of bookworming on the topic that O'le Branny gots.

Still I hope he sticks around and learns to eat shit as well as he spouts it. I certainly see it less as piling on so much as pissing everyone off - which is a really tough job around here. For that he deserves some sort of F:AT award. Perhaps the "Weekes Shitcicle" or something.

*Braaaap!!!*....someone pass me some scotch 'fore I reach over and grab it myself.

Chapel wrote: "He's just like all the pussies here who quit BGG in a huff. Have some balls to an opinion that might not be the most popular one on the lot."
Disingenuous as usual. As you know full well, anyone on TOS that has a different opinion gets dogpiled. And the double-standards mean the pro-TOS crowd get to be more insulting than the critics. Something you've taken advantage of on many an occasion.

Don't taunt me with that fucking Vendettas thread, Pete. I've seen it.

I still get bored once in a while and attempt to read the general forums on BGG. That one has all the hallmarks of why discussion there is futile, beginning with Cosine explaining that there's only one way to acceptably play games. I didn't stick around to attempt to watch him "prove" it with hazy logic.

I won't even begin to address the idea of an "Our Man Chapel" thread.

I still maintain that F:AT is extremely friendly to new users. However, if you walk into an unfamiliar bar and announce "all you fucking yokels are just idiots, let me tell how shit really is", you're doomed. (Unless you're Loter and can kick all their asses simultaneously...)

Even if you've seen two other people doing that to each other, it doesn't mean it's open season, and it doesn't mean everyone uninvolved doesn't think they're being assholes as well. Flare-ups happen (like fucking Fridays), but this place isn't guns-blazing all the time, or nobody would ever get along with anybody and F:AT would be useless.

I don't have any permanent beef with Brannagyn, if he wants to eat a little crow and continue to participate, good on him. If he's interested in something other than global terror, there's a whole site about games (and other diversions) here. If he figures we're all just dickheads and beneath talking to, that's his call as well.

Of course they do, as they do here. I've been dogpiled on both sites numerous times. But I still have the balls to continue contributing my opinion instead of running away to a land of make believe where I can high five my bromances. I've always told anyone that doesn't like the niche' that BGG has become; Continue to use your own voice, and people will follow. Running away and complaining about it at a far will never change anything.

Just think at the level of Ameritrashers BGG would have today, if the most vocal salesmen didn't all going running off in a huff.

I'm not going to speak for others, but I'm not an evangelist, Chapel. I couldn't give a slow, sweetly loving fuck about the level of AT discussion at BGG. Life is too damn short to spend it having to ignore every second post by an Aspie wannabe.

As far as I'm concerned, sites aren't about opinions you like, it's about people you like. BGG is a total fail on that level, and no matter how many of us went there, we'd never be anything more than a drop in the bucket. And you know very well that using our own voice over there would just get us all banned, anyway. Why play in a sandbox full of shit?

That's too bad, cause I've played F2F with Many F:AT'ers and many BGG'ers(and a lot that are both)that are all top notch people to game with. There are shitheads on every site I frequent, and I frequent a bunch. But I think you'll miss out on the creme if you only focus on the curds.

I'm kinda with Bullwinkle on this, Chapel. My biggest bitch (hell, only bitch, really) is that when things get heated over there, in comes the "moderator" to end the conversation. In some cases, moderation is OK. In many, it's definately not.

It stifles voices in many cases, which is why people emigrate here, where you can say what you want, but the general public will beat you mercilessly if you step out of line rather than TOS where an outside influence is the arbiter of righteousness and decides who is right and wrong.

Yes Chapel - you are missing the most important point of ex-FATies at TOS, when we did stand our ground we were quickly banned by the admins - sometimes without even needing a spineless TOSer to whine to them. So when you are sitting out another 2 or 4 week suspension you think to yourself 'why I am habitating this site again, is there anyone here I actually like or want to communicate with ?'.
Each to their own and live and let live and all those other great pieces of wisdom.

I'm right you're wrong...simple. See how easy that was?

No. If you scroll up a few feet you'll see that I actually tried to have a conversation. But then he proceeded to talk out of his ass and I completely "got" why the others before me treated him the way they did.

Also, what Pete said.

How do you continue to "use your own voice" when you are getting banned for periods of months at a time? Christ almighty you are thick.

JonJacob - you're a sensitive Fag.
What has (apparently) happened to Mr B was EXACTLY how I invisioned the moderation around here working when I set the forums on here up - go and read the original stuff I wrote when the forums were still new (if it's hanging around somewhere). To use the Pub analogy - You don't need a security guard (admin) keeping the peace if the patrons can run any asshole out themselves. And that is exactly what happened.
Despite Brown Chappel's claim, there is hardly a 'consensus' or 'group think' around here. We are a pretty motley bunch of independant, loudmouthed thinkers. If you can't find at least a couple of allies in this mixed cesspit then you really have to be pretty fucking out there. So you either tough it out until your value to the community starts to shine through (like MJ), adapt your behaviour to be better accepted (superfly), or crack the shits and fuck off.
That's exactly how it should be. This place operates like a village, not communist china.

You can use your own voice and not be a dick. Or maybe "you" can't.

If I started acting like a professional brown noser, I'd hardly be using my own voice. I'd be using yours.

F:AT rule #17: Any discussion Chapel participates in is about BGG. (Was already, or turns into one.)

Chapel's a good dude, and that's all I'm gonna say.

I like Chapel, too, but the rules are the rules, man.

Chapel said:

But then he just has to say:

He still can't quite get the TOSer out of him.

I'm just saying, you can get your point across without telling someone they are a dumbass. Not a single one of you were were ever suspended because weren't acting like a dick. I've been suspended several times, and I'm for certain because I was acting like a dick. I know it. You know it. But after 10 years, I know how to get my message across without acting like an asshole 24/7.

I truthfully think that getting along with people is just a foreign concept to Frank. You are an Angry Angry person. You are.

It's not "kissing ass", I certainly have NEVER been accused of kissing ass by anyone on BGG but a small minority on here. I'm not sure if you even understand the concept. Have you actually "read" anything I say over there? Tom Vasel, I'm not.

Wrong.

Sure am.

Brown nosers don't acuse chief brown noser of sniffing the shit. More news at 11.

Yes, Tom Vasel is actually his own man.

Whatever Frank. Enjoy wallowing in your shit attitude. I'm sure it's gotten you far in life.

Awww, you going to play the internet "my life is better than yours" game now?
I'm happy with who I am. What on earth makes you think I'd change it for someone whom I don't even like?
That's a retorical question by-the-way, so feel free not to answer it as I'm not really interested.

It's OK for Frank to be angry. Half his fucking country is underwater right now, and that's some fucked up shit.

Now, I have to take exception at the notion that being nice and playing well with others won't get you a ban over at TOSserville.

A thread (the RPGNET v. RPGeek Thread, in fact) was getting all shitty near the spot where 2 asshats were arguing about who was more inclusive, even after Aldie stepped in and told them they need to take it to PM. Octavian came in and reprimanded with the usual red flag of doom. I get a geekmail that notes this...

"FYI, if you continue with the non-sequitors and I'll have to moderate you for disruptiveness. Based on your moderation history that will result in a one week suspension."

My post? The non-sequitor that he pointed to in the email? This was the post, verbatim:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment"

I mean..seriously? For pointing out that that they had derailed the thread? So I respond:

"I'm not going to lie, I had to look that up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)#Non_sequit...

So, what exactly did I do wrong, Matt? I can't imagine that I was disruptive in that thread, but hey, if you say I was, I must've been. I thought I was actually being pretty straightforward!

Let me know the offending phrase, por favor. And, it's been a while since I've talked to you! Hope all is well with you and yours, and Happy New Year!

Thanks!
Pete "

And he responds...
"Your buddy-Christ post has been flagged many times, and for good reason IMO. I let that whole exchange slide in hopes that Aldie's request would put an end to it. It wasn't clear whether your off-topic wikipedia link was an indication that you would be putting an end to it or not. Thus my message to you.

-MMM"

Now it was nice to have a discourse with him, but seriously? Threatening to ban because I posted a simple comment about derailment?"

Not being a dick there, I don't think. I wasn't even a dick in the "Jesus Buddy" thing where I posted the now-famous "Jesus loves you, but I think you're an asshat" picture with the text above: "Is this what you're trying to say?" that was pointed to the douchebag instigating that whole "I am more inclusive than you, you retard" clusterfuck.

That's why when I get sucked into conversation over there it always ends up with me being banned. I guess I'm just not a fucking puss that gets offended at the drop of a hat. Those fucking morons all appear to be wearing hats.

And you two, cut it out. Accept that we're all cunts or we'd not be here.

Come to think of it, I'd think you'd get along better...if Chapel is a brown noser and Frank's an asshole, I'd think you two would get along like peanut butter and jelly. (That's Vegemite and toast to you, Skelly).

Chapel said:

100% reversion back to TOSer, and you wonder why we don't want to have anything to do with selfrighteous little cunts like you over at BGG. You just can't accept that people would have a life or view of the world different to yours that was of at least equal worth.

GODDAMN IT BARNES! Every single article of yours comes back to BGG. WHY CANT YOU JUST LET IT GO?

Sad really.

Yeah, you wish. Not sure what "we" you are talking about, but fuck you if you think this is only "your" stomping ground.

What's Chapel saying now:

What the fuck are you talking about you pathetic cunt - you are the one looking down your nose at other people's life because they are different to you ! You fucking well know that you have been made very welcome here with all your comments and ideas and even little stabs at our supposed 'insecurities' with BGG, but as soon as someone seems to disagree with how YOU see things (especially the Golden Site of BGG) then you have to resort to shit comments like "Whatever Frank. Enjoy wallowing in your shit attitude. I'm sure it's gotten you far in life." - that is a sure sign of a prick who thinks his own shit doesn't stink but has got no way to prove it, just an arrogant loser.

I'd like to take moment to let y'all know that I hate all y'all motherfuckers.

Now who wants to go grab some poutine and a beer?

I know, right!?!?!?

Jesus, you fuckers get on each others bad sides in a hurry.

BRANIGYN is the enemy, not each other!! This looks like a fucking twilight zone episode...

You just can't accept that people would have a life or view of the world different to yours that was of at least equal worth.

This goes both ways. If you read all of the above comments, there's plenty of intolerance in both directions.

Note that I'm not taking sides in this mess. Just calling 'em like I see 'em.

Happy fucking New Year all you bunch of chumps. What an opening epic F:AT run off at the mouth, everyone is in fine form. I for one would like to see Chapel's nose in Frank's ass...'cuz we all know how much Frank likes all things in ass.

Thanks again Branny for bringing out the best in everyone. Where's that Weeke's Shitcicle?

I'll have a frite sauce italien Billy if that's all right with you, wierd I know but I must be the only douche in the province that can't stand the curds.

People's opinions on this site (Chapel's included) are taken onboard, and agreed with/parried with/or piled upon but it (most of the time) is hardly ever personal.

Brannigimps opinions (for the few who could actually find them in his wall of pseudo-intellectual mess) were thickly coated in patronizing thick shit, which got a lot of people's hackles up.

Chapel just pressed his BGG 'If you don't agree with me then you're nothing' Reset button causing his FAT camouflage to fall off.

Happy New Year to all FAT bastards and the better-mannered feminine members.

I get a kick out of the "Angry 7" thinking I'm some sort of BGG spy. I've been here as long as you dipshits.

No one mentioned spy (that's Octavian - another story), just an apologist and prophet.

I admit, I am Pro-BGG, well guess what I am also Pro-F:AT. I'd defend this place on BGG if needed. I can love both places without conflict, as I'm not in the Angry 7.. I hate to break it to you guys, but not everyone here hates BGG, actually probably a minority does at best.

The bullshit for the most part at BGG can be avoided as the crowd is fairly large. If you're hanging out in the forums then you're looking for trouble. There certainly are a hell of a lot more douchebags than I can stomach in most internet forums but it ain't all bad. What do you expect with so many nerds in one place?

It is a valuable resource no doubt. All this board game website politico talk is fairly useless though - can we stick to personal attacks please?

I Hate Everyone and Everything. I *AM* the angry 7: Seven different seething personalities combined into one towering pyre of RAGE and FURY.

b]HATE! HATE! HATE![/b]

Destruction and Despair to ALL! Feel my fury biyatches and wither under my gaze.
Do you feel it? Do you feel it wellinng forth from your keyboard and screen? I am like a miasma of wrath bent ot destroy all who cross my path.

Steve"Angry7"Avery

What the fuck, y'all. I mean, seriously. I quit counting how many of the posts here are about some personal bullshit, BGG, or other nonsense once I hit 100. That means at least a third (and probably closer to 3/4) of the posts here have nothing to do with LABYRINTH, Game of the Year, my column, or anything related to it.

I'd hate to think that someone might come on here to talk about these games and wind up reading through hundreds of pissing match posts about some random guy that really managed to piss you guys off or beef from five years ago about BGG. It's retarded, and it's why I ducked out of here.

Look, I'm all for verbal sparring, forum brawling, and all that. Honesty and straight talk are two of the keystones of this place. But you guys are just acting like bitches at this point. Including Mr. Smartypants Brannygn, who I suspect may actually be Morrissey given his felicitous language and the way he stormed out of here in a huff.

I mean, seriously, questioning somebody's loyalty to a Web site? That's a little ridiculous. We've always welcomed EVERYBODY here...I mean, for fuck's sake, we let Octavian post and sometimes he's got some good stuff to say. Chapel is one of our top people here, so is Southernman. Pete reformed, and now I think he's a stand-up guy. I'm convinced that Mr. Skeletor is some kind of automated internet caricature at this point, but he at least knows to keep his bullshit brief. It's good that we have friction, but you guys are just jackin' off at this point.

Anyway, just wanted to let y'all know that this shit is ridiculous.

Your pal,

Michael Barnes

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment"

Chapel wrote: "I certainly have NEVER been accused of kissing ass by anyone on BGG"
I did.

Not me. I'm a Hater

Steve"Angry7"Avery

Er....

At least I have my question asked about Labyrinth (about 100 posts ago...). I have yet to find any real simulations, books etc. that really objectively could explain current events to classrooms of any age. From what I'm reading, the game is way too subjective to use as a classroom sim.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Scorched Earth as a Game of the Year in the near future.