Ameritrash Remakes - Past, Present, Future.

mjl1783 wrote:

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

Dude, nobody's saying that Magic Realm is unassailably complicated and no one can possibly figure it out. Only that is IS complicated to learn. Hence, you know, extensive efforts by fans to re-write the rules to make them more accessible and understandable, and frequent discussion about how to learn it from someone who already knows the game rather than trying to go it alone.

If you're saying Magic Realm ain't complex, I'm pretty sure you're the only one on the entire internets making that assertion.

I'm happy I came into the hobby at right about the right time. The Euros are on the downturn and AT is on the upswing. Remakes of classic games left and right that I wouldn't have had the chance to try if I had gotten into the hobby say 5 year earlier. Stuff like Cosmic Encounter, Space Hulk, and to a lesser extent Tales of the Arabian Nights, Titan, and now Dungeonquest and Dune whatnot.

mjl1783 wrote:

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.

... snip ...

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.

This is an interesting point in itself, which has been discussed before. MB would agree with you that a bad game is a bad game regardless of how long it takes to learn and play but I, and many others, disagree. Whilst there certainly comes a point at which a game is just shit, no matter what, there's a big gray area in between.

Take Pico 2 for example. You may well not have come across this game: it's a ludicrously simple trick taking game that only has about 13 cards and takes literally five minutes to play. It's popular with parents because it can be taken and played anywhere and is a great time filler. It's also not really that brilliant - below even a weak 7 in my opinion. And yet it seems quite a bit of play round here, not just with family but just to do something while everyone finishes their beer at the end of game night. But if it took even three times as long to teach or play than it actually does, no-one would touch it with a bargepole. It's an extreme example but it proves a point: length and complexity most certainly do have a big impact on how worthwhile a game is to bother with playing.

So to return to Curse of the Mummy's Tomb. It has some interesting concepts, like the bid to control the Mummy and the neat 3D pyramid, but most of the other game mechanics are pretty rubbish and only there to add chrome. It's certainly not particularly complex by our usual standards but compared to something like Pico 2 or For Sale, it actually does require an investment of time to teach and learn. Perhaps more importantly it does usually take a couple of hours to play. If you could strip out some of the rubbish flavour mechanics halve the play time and teach it in five minutes, it'd be worth running through for the novel bits: the bidding and the pyramid. But as it is, the entire game in invalidated by taking too long for what it represents.

That's largely what I mean by "too long" or "too complex". Not literally too long to learn or play in an evening, although I maintain on average games took longer back then, but too long to bother investing the time in for the fun you get out. There were a *lot* of games around in the 80's that were like this: thankfully they're a lot rarer now, at least in our favoured genre.

Overnight I've also thought of some more to illustrate the point. Other people have mentioned things like Car Wars and you can't invalidate them by calling them "lifestyle games" because that's precisely the point: more games back then required a greater investment of time which pushed them more toward the lifestyle category. Also a lot of the old AH and SPI fantasy and science fiction games like Dragon Pass or Dawn of the Dead or that dreadful old War of the Ring game. They don't spring easily to mind because people have forgotten them. They've forgotten them because they were shit, and because they've been superceded by newer games. If you want me to take the time to compile a proper list to my point I will do, although it'll be a shocking waste of effort.

mjl1783 wrote:

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.

Come anywhere near my bollocks and I'll eviscerate you with a spoon.

Actually what you're saying here is true, but the term "risk management" still has a meaning because many games emphasise that aspect of the play a lot more than others. War of the Ring has plenty of random factors but I don't think many people would call it a risk management game - the choice is more in terms of making the most of what you've got, rather than trying to minimise the potentially bad effects that your opponent can throw at you. MR is the same, except it's the game throwing bad stuff at you instead of an opponent.

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?

It's not taking the time to read it. It's memorising it and applying it to the game.

Overnight I've also thought of some more to illustrate the point. Other people have mentioned things like Car Wars and you can't invalidate them by calling them "lifestyle games" because that's precisely the point: more games back then required a greater investment of time which pushed them more toward the lifestyle category.

Another way of looking at it is more games used to be worth playing to the exclusion of all others.

mjl1783 wrote:

Another way of looking at it is more games used to be worth playing to the exclusion of all others.

Another way of looking at that is because there wasn't any alternative. Game design wasn't as tight and the general mindset - which was still in the process of evolving from true lifestyle games like RPGs and miniatures games - was that games ought to have the potential to be limitlessly expandable.

Basically, we played them like that because we didn't know any better. Are you seriously suggesting that nowadays a lot of AT gamers would choose to devote their lives to Car Wars because of the quality of the game play, if only they had the chance?

Besides which, as I pointed out, this doesn't cover all those SPI and AH "classics" that we try so hard to forget.

I don't see where the impetus to expand has gone away. How many Runebound and Heroscape expansions are there now?

We didn't play them like that because we didn't know any better, we played them like that because there weren't 1,000 new games coming out every month, so we got good at them to the point where the complexity wasn't really an issue.

I don't really give a shit what a lot of AT gamers think of Car Wars. Car Wars is a pretty fun game. Dated, yes, but still enjoyable and, in my opinion, worth reprinting in a good new edition. But anyway, as I've already pointed out, the game still enjoys a very large (in hobby terms) and devoted following, so yes, a lot of gamers would still play it.

mjl1783 wrote:

I don't see where the impetus to expand has gone away. How many Runebound and Heroscape expansions are there now?

That's not the point. The point is that - under your definition - Runebound and Heroscape are just as much "lifestyle games" as Car Wars is. But most gamers wouldn't categorise them as such, putting the lie to the idea that the lifestyle tag has anything to do with the quality of a board game.

mjl1783 wrote:

We didn't play them like that because we didn't know any better, we played them like that because there weren't 1,000 new games coming out every month, so we got good at them to the point where the complexity wasn't really an issue.

Crap. Whilst there wasn't the same volume of games coming out as there is today, there were still plenty more than any one gamer interested in any one genre could comfortably find the time or money to play. Besides which most people here know well enough to leave alone those 1,000 new games because most of them are Euros and we're not interested in them. I've made the point before that the market for Euros today is in the same state as the market for AT games was in the early 90's - over saturated with shitty games designed by people who were taking more notice of design trends than they were with how and why gamers were playing games.

mjl1783 wrote:

I don't really give a shit what a lot of AT gamers think of Car Wars. Car Wars is a pretty fun game. Dated, yes, but still enjoyable and, in my opinion, worth reprinting in a good new edition. But anyway, as I've already pointed out, the game still enjoys a very large (in hobby terms) and devoted following, so yes, a lot of gamers would still play it.

Well, I suspect that "very large" following is actually very small, especially compared with the following of something like, say, War of the Ring but I can't prove it so we'll have to let that one pass.

The fact you still play it and enjoy it is the root of this discussion: you don't see much wrong with older games. Nothing wrong with that of course, everyone is entitled to appreciate whatever games they like and for whatever reason. But the fact of the matter is that you're in a minority: most people here aren't terribly interested in Car Wars, even as a redevelopment. And this isn't because we've all become terribly distracted by all the bright new shiny things being dangled in front of our faces every month. Lord knows I've campaigned against that attitude hard enough. No. The reason is simply because design has, in the opinion of most people, advanced and improved and games now are generally more interesting and fun to play than they were. And a primary aspect of that improvement is that designers now have a much better awareness of how to balance the amount of time it takes to learn and play a game with what you get out of it.

If this were not the case, why do design teams spend a lot of time and effort redeveloping games when they're reprinted? If they were so great in their original form, why not simply leave them as they were, give them a makeover and make more profit from your license, simply because you've had to spend less time in the development phase? Why generally, do gamers who've played both old and new versions of a lot of these reprints prefer the newer versions?

I'm going to have to stop responding to this argument simply because I don't have time to keep it up - it's reaching the point where I could (and perhaps should) get an article out if it and we can continue the discussion from there.

Not that I'm expecting another response, but:

That's not the point. The point is that - under your definition - Runebound and Heroscape are just as much "lifestyle games" as Car Wars is. But most gamers wouldn't categorise them as such, putting the lie to the idea that the lifestyle tag has anything to do with the quality of a board game.

I don't recall ever putting forth a definition for lifestyle games, and I certainly never said it the tag has anything to do with the quality of a board game, and I certainly wouldn't classify Runebound as a lifestyle game.

Games like Star Fleet Battles and Car Wars require a pretty hefty time commitment in order to be able to play them proficiently, and to really get anything out of them. I'm not of the opinion that this automatically makes them bad games. Rather, I look at SFB, a game I have not seriously tried to play myself, and assume from the testimonials of people who have devoted the time and effort to mastering it that there must be something more to those horrendously boring rules and procedures than is apparent from a brief flirtation with the game.

To say these types of games suck simply on the basis that they can't be played casually is fallacious, shallow thinking.

Crap. Whilst there wasn't the same volume of games coming out as there is today...

Whilst nothing. There wasn't the same volume of games, nor was there the internet to facilitate you finding new games, or trading away games you weren't happy with after a few plays. There were more gaming hours per title on your shelf. Unless you abandon your favorite games 5 years after they come out, you've also got a bigger selection on your own shelves to choose from than you once did.

And again, what most people here do or don't do is irrelevant. I play games with other people. Some of them buy their own games, and some of those games are Euros and games in which I am not particularly interested. I still have to make time for them if I want to continue to have a group. If you're in a situation where you get to decide what gets played all the time, then good for you. Most people aren't.

Well, I suspect that "very large" following is actually very small, especially compared with the following of something like, say, War of the Ring but I can't prove it so we'll have to let that one pass.

When I start seeing organized War of the Ring clubs and internet fan sites, I'll say your suspicion is warranted.

The fact you still play it and enjoy it is the root of this discussion: you don't see much wrong with older games. Nothing wrong with that of course, everyone is entitled to appreciate whatever games they like and for whatever reason. But the fact of the matter is that you're in a minority: most people here aren't terribly interested in Car Wars, even as a redevelopment.

Yeah, I'm in a minority. What's your point? I put out some of the games I'd like to see get re-printed. I'm not interested in guessing what re-prints might suit the fancy of F:AT. If Most People Here would rather play Warhammer Quest than Magic Realm, then Most People Here have shitty taste in games.

If this were not the case, why do design teams spend a lot of time and effort redeveloping games when they're reprinted? If they were so great in their original form, why not simply leave them as they were, give them a makeover and make more profit from your license, simply because you've had to spend less time in the development phase? Why generally, do gamers who've played both old and new versions of a lot of these reprints prefer the newer versions?

What does this rant have to do with the subject at hand? Older games get revised because most games have flaws. 20 years after a game comes out, you've got 20 years of hindsight to identify where the game could be improved.

I never said I didn't see anything wrong with old games, you said I didn't.

mjl1783 wrote:

I never said I didn't see anything wrong with old games, you said I didn't.

I thought I ought to take the time to say that although, predictably, I disagree with most of the rest of your post, you're right about that. Looking back it seems clear I was putting words into your mouth on that particular point.

One of the simplest things and biggest improvements you to do with an older game is to take information and tables that you had to look up in the rules before and put them on the cards. DungeonQuest is perfect example of that. You draw a card and then you have to look the information up in the book. The monsters or trap stats could be right on the card.

This is why most remakes from FFG are packed with 1000's of cards. I think games like Car wars and Star Fleet Battles could be made more accessible by somebody like me by reducing the rule set, improving components and adding information on cards and making the games playable in 45 min - 2 hours.

Star Fleet Battles may be just perversely complicated, in the sense that the designers thought it was a good thing.

Car Wars isn't all that complicated (except the spreadsheetiness of car construction).

There's a list of actions (turn, shoot, brake, etc), and a table that shows what phases (out of 12, I think) your car moves at various speeds. If you take more points of actions than your driver skill (per round), you roll on a table to see how bad you eat it (from nothing happens to total flaming death).

You check through the phases, moving your car forward each time, and that's about it. Shoot people occasionally, then apply damage.

You need about two small pieces of reference paper in front of you to play the game, and both were printed in easy places for reference on the original set. You'll also need your own car template for damage boxes and dice. That's all.

Now, after a few years of power-creep gadgets the *modifiers* started to get cumbersome, but the game itself is pretty simple. Count the X'ed phases to see if it's a good idea to risk that 90-degree turn before you hit the wall.

Star Wars: Assault on Hoth

This is definitely a game that could use with an upgrade in components. Actual miniatures will serve this game well, and should be easily distinguishable, and a mounted map would also make the experience more pleasant (at least for me). The game doesn't really need to be retooled as the rules are pretty streamlined, and seem fresh as they are.

LA

You should see my dad's copy of that game. He bought Star Wars Micro Machines for everything except the radar towers, which he had to make out of some checkers and some dowels. The speeders are mounted on wires so they hover above the board, which is of course blown up to giant size.

It doesn't really make the game any better, but it's still pretty awesome, if totally ridiculous.

Yeah, I have been slowly trying to find the Micro Machines that are to scale for the original map. i think I was kind of late to the game because they can be pretty hard/expensive to find. I would love to play on a board like that though.

LA

I also have heard a rumor that Betrayal at House on the Hill is getting 2nd edition treatment, though I don't think it should be considered a classic. In that same vein, I have the latest printing of Robo Rally, and the components are extremely low quality.

My Wishlist for reprints:

For the shelf-space impaired, I'd like to remakes of the TSR/Steve Jackson mini-games; Saga, They've Invaded Pleasantville, etc. SJG did horrible remakes of Snit's and Car Wars, but I'd like to see some good ones. I remember taking the Car Wars pocket edition out of my (dare I say) pocket, and playing a quick game during recess in the 6th grade. Not a lot of the new remakes can be taken anywhere without a flatbed truck.

Regular OOP games I'd like to see back (granted, they're not classics): Broadsides and Boarding Parties, Samurai Swords, Buck Rogers: Battle for the 25th Century Game (any game that advertised on the back of a comic book deserves it), Chainsaw Warrior (with a multi-player variant), and TSR's Escape from New York (that game needs a full face lift, including better mechanics -- but the theme, man, the theme!).