Chapel wrote:
Shoot, that is my forte are DOAM and Civ games. Probably the only part of me that is F:AT. The issue I have with some of the older titles is sometimes they tend to drag on. More of a cyclical drag than because of content. Doing the same thing over and over again with not much gain. Which is why I LOATHE Risk. I need more mechanisms, more ways to destroy my opponents other than make a wall of stuff, then push stuff forward. There are some cool aspects in newer(and I use that term relatively) DOAM kind of games. Wars of the Roses, Olympos, Colonial, Manifest Destiny, Moongha, Imperial. All really cool DOAM/EURO hybrids that all bring really interesting things to the table.
So in answer to you question, I really don't care how LONG a game is, as long as it keeps those hours interesting.
Another reason I wish I never left Texas. I would SO drive 4 hours to chill with you over a game of Imperial while decrying Risk.
AND, for the record, the tangent I was going off on wasn't as much as the games of today are worse, although they are, by and large, it was that the idea that game boxes now have length of play listed on the side speaks volumes about our society at large. And how I look back to the 1977 period where games didn't have lengths on the side, where people had more time to do things.
And not so much because the world has changed, but because priorities have. People would rather spend 2 hours playing a game and then 2 hours surfing the internet or chatrouletting than sitting down with 5 friends and playing one game of singular gravity for 4 hours.