Ameritrash Remakes - Past, Present, Future.

Warhammer Quest Reprint? Hahaha, can you imagine the siezures that would happen around here when the price is announced? Heart explosions everywhere.

The problem I see with WHQ, is that even 'back in the day' they couldn't put all the necessary minis in the box. You got a hand full of orks, goblins, skaven, some critters, and a minotaur or two.

To be fair you got all the stuff needed for the game without using the 'RPG Book' rules.

The real problem I see with WHQ is that it's a shitty game. You're better off getting a rondom dungeon generator for the D20 system, like Dungeon Bash. If GW really want to bring back one of their dungeon crawls, they're better off taking Advanced HeroQuest and improving on that instead.

I thought WHQ was a fine game, but it does have problems. AHQ was great but had problems in different areas. The best dungeon crawl ever exists in a merge between the 2.

Future:

Star Wars Epic Duels - Reprint with very little changes

Star Fleet Battles (Star Trek) - I'd like to see this totally redone. Update the game from a 3 hour 1980's game. I'd like to see use a combat system more like a fun Star Wars Epic Duels combat system.

Msample wrote:

Now Merchant of Venus....

I think MoV is about the only truly worthwhile AT game from the past that hasn't either already been reprinted or isn't in the works to be reprinted. We forget how much of that late eighties stuff that came out was just overwrought crap, built with the mindset that longer and more complex was automatically better. And I'm afraid that, beloved as they are, the Richard Hambelin games also fall into that category, as do the remaining GW games, except perhaps WHQ. Block Mania really isn't all that interesting.

I love Tom Wham, but frankly re-working most of his games is a dead end. He did a lot of fairly throwaway magazine games and in all his titles his own particular goofy sense of humour and art is a big part of the draw and I can't see a modern production wanting to retain those. Of his two best games, Kings & Things is already in the works and The Great Khan Game could be a contender but it'd need a serious overhaul. I also liked Mertwig's Maze but it's a game which would be better salvaged as a concept and totally overhauled mechanically.

MattDP wrote:


We forget how much of that late eighties stuff that came out was just overwrought crap[/quote]

Gunslinger comes to mind via the following story. A friend of mine decided to sit down with a group to play it ; the group loved it and he wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Soon he decided ( rightfully ) that playing a board game simulating about 30 seconds of real time over the course of several hours wasn't his cup of tea. He decided to shoot himself and end his misery; of course it took so long just to get into "firing position" and then...MISFIRE. More agony...

MoV would only need a few tweaks IMO and I think with a good presentation it would be a hit to those who never knew the original.

I think MoV is about the only...

To quote the great Joe Pesci, everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you.

Outside of wargames, which still haven't changed too much, games weren't any longer or more complex on average then than they are today. This is especially true of the GW games, which don't take any longer to play or learn than most FFG titles. I notice that nobody ever cites any particular game or games when they make this "overwrought" claim.

Unless, of course, they bring up Gunslinger and Magic Realm. Gunslinger is actually a pretty simple game. It's tough to get into because all the information is presented so badly, but basically all you do is lay down cards, do what they say, and when someone gets shot, check a chart to see what happens to them.

Magic Realm is as complex as it needs to be to do what it does. In fact, it's quite simple when you consider how much detail there is in the game. If anyone out there thinks you can make a fantasy game that creates a world as complete, dynamic, and near animate that MR's with a shallow learning curve and a 2-hour playtime, then by all means, let's see it done.

mjl1783 wrote:

To quote the great Joe Pesci, everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you.

Diversity of opinion is, of course, the lifeblood of good forum debate. But that doesn't stop you being way out of fucking line.

mjl1783 wrote:

Outside of wargames, which still haven't changed too much, games weren't any longer or more complex on average then than they are today.

Okay, let me qualify the statement slightly by saying that on average games tended to be longer and more complex and that was a definite trend to present games which took a long time, were quite complex but which - and this is the crucial point - gave the players a lot less fun than the amount of effort they put in. Those sorts of games today would be recognised as being over-long and trimmed or abandoned.

mjl1783 wrote:

This is especially true of the GW games, which don't take any longer to play or learn than most FFG titles. I notice that nobody ever cites any particular game or games when they make this "overwrought" claim.

Off the top of my head - and so by no means complete:

Gunslinger
Magic Realm
Curse of the Mummy's Tomb
Chainsaw Warrior
Block Mania, especially with 4 players
Warlock of Firetop Mountain
Junta
Apeptus Titanicus
Mighty Empires
Dark Future
Rogue Trooper
Advanced Heroques
Blood Royale

Note that many of these games could be superb if they were pared down in the length and or complexity departments.

mjl1783 wrote:

Magic Realm is as complex as it needs to be to do what it does. In fact, it's quite simple when you consider how much detail there is in the game. If anyone out there thinks you can make a fantasy game that creates a world as complete, dynamic, and near animate that MR's with a shallow learning curve and a 2-hour playtime, then by all means, let's see it done.

That's a fantastic true-but-meaningless statement. No, I couldn't reduce Magic Realm in any meaningful way and retain its unique character but the fact it has unique attributes in no way qualifies it as being any good. I had some fun playing Blood Royale because of it's unique take on the DOAM genre, but it still made my list above because it was stupidly long and never actually got anywhere. MR is effectively a risk-management game, it just happens to be a risk-management game which takes a day to learn, an hour to set up and many, many hours to play. In terms of fun-per-hour ratio, if I wanted a risk-management game I'd do better playing grabbing five dice and playing Zilch.

jeb: Sometimes I simply think a game doesn't need a ton of expansions. I thought about getting AH when it first came out, concluded that it might add a little to game play but would be expensive, decided the cost/benefit wasn't enough and so wasn't necessary.

That was exactly my point in the comment I made- games are expensive to the point where there is a noticable attrition of interest

To be fair, your initial statement really didn't have any support to the claim it was making. While the follow-up statement at least lays out the case, I still disagree. As mj said, Gunslinger is really pretty simple -- it is just playing cards. If someone streamlined the rules, updated the card quality, and reissued the maps, this game would become much more accessible and I can't imagine it really costing that much either. Most of the rulebook is just the scenarios....I would say that it is more straightforward than Descent.

As for Magic Realm, it really isn't that much more complex than something like Android. The vast majority of that game is just examples. Clean up the explanation of combat and the problems with that is done --- both of these are simpler than many modern wargames (see Fields of Fire) and have less exceptions than most CCGs.

Really? Curse of the Mummy's Tomb and Chainsaw Warrior are overly complex and long? I was playing those games when I was 7 years old. Most of your other examples are pretty weak as well, and miniatures games aren't any simpler now than they were then.

a definite trend to present games which took a long time, were quite complex but which - and this is the crucial point - gave the players a lot less fun than the amount of effort they put in.

This is a fantastic true-but-meaningless statement. Not fun is not fun regardless of the game's length or complexity.

I can understand why you don't like Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, but its problem is definitely not that it's too long and complex. Too long for what it is, maybe, but again, that's simply a matter of bad gameplay.

No, I couldn't reduce Magic Realm in any meaningful way and retain its unique character but the fact it has unique attributes in no way qualifies it as being any good.

I didn't say reduce it and keep it unique, I said reduce it and keep it as detailed and intricate as it is. You can't do that either.

MR is effectively a risk-management game, it just happens to be a risk-management game which takes a day to learn, an hour to set up and many, many hours to play. In terms of fun-per-hour ratio, if I wanted a risk-management game I'd do better playing grabbing five dice and playing Zilch.

First of all, whoever it was that first started applying the term "risk-management" to board games needs his testicles flayed and soaked in vinegar.

Second, EVERY game with any sort of random element of ANY type EVER made is effectively a risk-management game.

Third, the sheer number of different risks, combined with the myriad ways available for you to manage them which are more evocative of the literature the game is trying to "simulate" does make for a much richer and more robust risk-management game than something like Talisman, where you mostly just have to weigh the potential reward of trying to hit something with your sword against the risk of not hitting something with your sword.

Fourth, how the hell did all you fancy-pants college fuckers get your high-falutin' degrees and jobs when you have trouble getting your minds around a rulebook that takes about as much time to read cover-to-cover as a weekday newspaper?

mjl1783 wrote:

Fourth, how the hell did all you fancy-pants college fuckers get your high-falutin' degrees and jobs when you have trouble getting your minds around a rulebook that takes about as much time to read cover-to-cover as a weekday newspaper?

C's get degrees.

F's should still be able to figure out Magic Realm without too much trouble

Well off the top of my head I can name a few games from the 80's which everyone agrees had a fun/effort ratio out of whack:
Car Wars
Star Fleet Battles
The Renegade Legion series
Battletech (to a lesser degree)

Basically anything with customized vehicles or reasonably complex damage charts doesn't have people crying out for a remake. Those few games were popular at the time but don't have many fans now.

Yes, but you're getting more into the "lifestyle game" territory with these, and in cases like that, you're often talking about relatively simple games that people just kept adding to until they overfilled the glass, then just kept on pouring. This is true of both Car Wars and Battletech, though I'd also point out that both of those games still enjoy very dedicated fanbases decades on.