Member Login
You are not logged in.
| Analysis | Blogs | Cartoons | Culture | Gaming Scene | Interviews | New Games | News | Rants & Raves | Reviews |
Walterman
said:
|
 |
... I think that Knizia's Sauron expansion for Lord of the Rings (which turns the game into more of a team game like Fury of Dracula) is an acknowledgment that that game does not work at co-op for a lot of people (I enjoy it, but I feel it really needs the Battlefield boards, Foes, or another player being Sauron to be enjoyable). I was surprised to find out that in Arkham Horror you can betray your fellow players. There is at least one card (I think it was called "Join the Winning Side"  introduced in Dunwich that allows this. I just saw it in an AH game played last weekend, for the first time. Individual win by helping the Mythos. Just try to get a lot of unique items (it was a mission) and you too can win Arkham. The mission did require several humans (ally cards) to sacrifice so it wasn't an easy individual win. If Lord of the Rings and Arkham Horror are excluded from co-op then what's left? Doesn't the traitor make Shadows over Camelot not a pure co-op either? It sounds like the same will be true about Battlestar Galactica. Which would make Vanished Planet and Pandemic the only co-op games. Are there others? |
|
... Hey KingPut, Nice Natty Boh guy! I love that stuff... the best dirty beer in existence. |
 |
... Matt, I agree in principle, but disagree in everything else. 1st, I would argue that by linking AT to the ability to Attack other players is making the term too one dimensional. Like saying there is no At without plastic.... its bullshit, and we (F:AT) should avoid tempts to nail down the term Ameritrash in that way. I think for me the thing that make AH more At than euro is that it is steeped in theme, like that pot of tea you left out overnight, it is dark and rich, with little bits of theme floating around on the bottom. Can this be said for all co-ops? No. Pandemic and LotR are clearly on the euro side of the line, focused on mechanics over the environment they create. For me the make or break factor is the "Fun" level. AH, is a beer in hand lets take out this fucked up bad ass from another dimension or a game. We try and play "in Character" and really frown upon the "hey Jim you go sit in the magic shop" type of coordination. Pandemic, on the other hand is something i picked up in hopes of getting the eurosnoots in my group to play something i might actually be able to tolerate, in hopes of stepping them up to AH. Is it the most pure AH experience? Nope, but I am not the Yehuda of AH; I don't look for absolutes in my gaming experience. I don't biol games down to their base components to be "anal"-ized, and studied. For me, it about that wonderfully intangible characteristic, FUN. --M |
 |
... I don't get it...if a game has a strong theme, meaningful interaction, drama, narrative, and is a lot of fun to play _but it's co-op_ how could it be, by default, excluded from the AT canon just because players work together? All games that have negotiation or diplomacy have at least a small element of cooperation. Aside from that purely co-op games hearken back, to some degree, to the RPG origins of a lot of AT. Which is probably why games that focus more on storytelling then even a lot of AT fare, like ARKHAM HORROR, are more acceptable to you. Like you say, your issue is more with games that have a "beat the system" concept (like PANDEMIC, VANISHED PLANET, or LOTR) than games where you are essentially competing against one antagonistic player. And I can at least understand that, but still...if it's fun, you cuss a bunch, and it has a good theme then who cares if you're not beating the shit out of each other. I've had just as much fun lambasting a player for a stupid decision or a bad die roll that cost the team an important win as I've had destroying them. It's like playing a FPS co-op...sure, it's the most fun to blast away at each other but the co-op games can be really fun too...it's a different experience, and it gives the game some variety. I do think, Matt, that you hit on some very valid arguments against co-op...particularly the fun murdering "dominant player"...that pisses me off to no end. And it does happen quite a lot. I definitely prefer games that have a combination of cooperative and competitive play, whether it's an opposition player or direct competition...but I still don't ever use the score tracking in AH. MUTANT CHRONICLES or SPACE CRUSADE did this balance really well with individual achievments and resources, I'm surprised no one has really taken those ideas further. And I also agree that the ultimate co-op game almost by default has to be an AT game- there's no point in basing a game around teamwork if it doesn't have theme. |
|
... Nice article, although I don't really have a problem with coop games in general. Maybe it's because more than just AT games, I like games that are driven by a theme I enjoy, so being able to crush my opponents is not a priority  But like you, I also feel that the best coop games are AT (or other heavily themed games). Games where creating a story is one of the main points. You mentioned Magic Realm, and I'll use that as an example of an excellent coop game. If you play Magic Realm as a coop game (players in one team, all cooperating to fulfill all their goals) the game still is excellent. True, you loose the competition between teams/players, but the game system is so good, the game manages to stand. Here's why: MR is one of the few games that manages to create a world that behaves in an unexpected way but with enough logic that you can make a plan. Each time you explore a new hex, you'll know what kind of monsters you can encounter there, but not when they'll appear. This makes for some tense gameplay. Also, the combat is quite strategic with some randomness, but deterministic enough that you can plan ahead and decide how much you want to risk. Another example is Ambush! Yes, it's a solo game. But divide the squad in two and let each player control one team. Better yet, only speak to each other when the commanders are close. You'll get a really fun experience because the game's paragraph system works very well and creates a nice story with challenging gameplay (with the problem being replayabiliy, of course). I generally like Coop games. I think this comes from my RPG years, as it was really fun to discuss what course to follow and play as a team creating a story together. But, just as in RPGs I like games that don't force you to cooperate (such as Magic Realm), and where each player can decide how to play. But as I also like solo games that are quite puzzle like, I don't mind coop games that work a bit like a colective puzzle, so I might enjoy Pandemic, and do sometimes play Lord of the Rings, which is quite challenging. I like Arkham Horror, but as my main gaming partner doesn't like the theme, we don't really play it anymore. There's another branch of cooperative games with some competition: The modern storytelling games such as Universalis, where each player competes so that the story goes in the direction they want, but everyone cooperates actually creating the story. I think those are also fun games driven by the theme, and can appeal to an ATer. BTW, you mentioned the Return of the Heroes variant for MR like goals. I made one such variant (I see there's another one in the files section on BGG) and find the game gains a lot. First you can control how long the game will last, also the game doesn't suddenly end when one player kills the nameless one leaving the other players in the midst of their adventure. Now each player can complete their own adventure and then see how well they did overall. But I'll add that Magic Realm is still a much better game, and one that is not that complicated if you learn it gradually (just don't play with hired natives at first and the game becomes much more manageable) There's also a coop variant for Return (from the game designer) which sounds pretty good, but I haven't tried it yet. I'd love to hear from anyone that has... -Jorge |
|
... They are all out of print now, but I own several older co-op games that I consider to be solid AT games: Intruder (Task Force Games, 1980), The Vesuvius Incident (Fat Messiah Games, 1993) and the original Arkham Horror (Chaosium, 1987). I will skip over Arkham Horror, since it has been rendered obsolete by the new and different version by FFG. All three games present a variety of character types, a tense and horrifying narrative, and enough randomness and variability to keep the game interesting. The simple AI of each game is generally assisted by the randomness and also a tendency to weight the odds against the players. And the randomness is high enough that bossy players can't effectively dominate the other players, because they lack certainty that a given course of action will actually succeed. In terms of complexity, Intruder is a surprisingly simple (and unlicensed) simulation of the original Alien movie. Initially, there is a single, small alien running loose, along with several escaped lab animals and several dummy counters that represent the unreliablity of the motion sensors. Each turn, these counters randomly move into adjacent rooms throughout the ship, while nervous crew members try to find the alien. However, the alien intruder has a chance of evolving each turn, and this die roll always happens just before characters have a chance to encounter the alien. The initial alien form is moderately dangerous and possesses a couple of random powers or resistances, like fast reflexes or flame resistant. Each level, the creature becomes more likely to attack and even more likely to kill if it attacks, plus it gains one additional random power. If the game goes on long enough, and it often does, the alien evolves to the sixth and final level of development, which is absolutely lethal. One of the random powers is "Clone", which starts adding an additional alien for each level of development after level two. If things get to ugly, one of the officers can set the self-destruct and then the crew can attempt to evacuate the ship as the self-destruct timer quickly winds down. And there is always a chance of an alien managing to stow away on one of the escape shuttles, making for a surprising and nasty endgame. There are a couple of variant scenarios, including one where one player takes over the movement of the alien, lab animal and dummy counters, but the base scenario is exciting enough. My favorite part is the mandatory panic phase, where the whole crew immediately regroups in the command module to have a meeting after each death, giving the alien two free moves. The Vesuvius Incident was clearly inspired by the first two Alien movies and also Intruder. The game is marred by a poorly organized rulebook and some very innovative but non-intuitive mechanics. But the map is outstanding, and the basic scenario is exciting and extremely difficult. Players control a dozen space marines on a mission to rescue a space station laboratory that has been overrun by aliens. The marines can't leave any of their own men behind, and they also can't leave until they have accounted for the entire space station crew. This grim tally is reached by counting bodies, viewing security camera tapes, and even rescuing a few survivors. The really interesting twist is that the space station has slipped into a decaying orbit, so there is a limited amount of time to accomplish the mission before atmospheric re-entry begins. Where Intruder had facedown cardboard counters constantly moving randomly about the map, Vesuvius Incident leaves the counters in a chit cup, to be drawn whenever a random encounter is rolled. The combat system is more complex than Intruder's but allows for a greater range of possibilities, such as wounded characters, zero-G manuevering, weapon jams, and accidentally shooting important high-tech equipment in the room. The complexity of combat is offset by the rapid lethality. It's a rare combat that lasts more than two consecutive turns. Both of these games (and the original Arkham Horror) have always been popular with my players. Intruder particular has been played so heavily for more than 20 years that the map is slightly torn and the sturdy glossy cardboard counters have worn down on the edges. We keep playing them, not because they offer the traditional AT fun of direct confrontation and competition, but because they deliver excitement in spite of cooperation. The game is so challenging and the horror narrative is so strong that we players are compelled to work together. Thanks to the complexity and trade-offs and randomness, we can engage in discussions or even debates about the best course of action. You know, the kind of conversations you see in the better horror movies, like the upstairs versus basement debate in Night of the Living Dead. That's the ultimate allure of the co-op games that I love, that they offer the experience of playing a main character in an exciting horror story. |
 |
re:1st, I would argue that by linking AT to the ability to Attack other players is making the term too one dimensional. Like saying there is no At without plastic.... its bullshit, and we (F:AT) should avoid tempts to nail down the term Ameritrash in that way. Absolutely. But I didn't say it had anything to do with attacking other players. Rather that it had to do with competing against other players. For me the make or break factor is the "Fun" level. AH, is a beer in hand lets take out this fucked up bad ass from another dimension or a game. We try and play "in Character" and really frown upon the "hey Jim you go sit in the magic shop" type of coordination. I'd agree. But everyone finds fun in different things. AT seems to boil down into two vague camps with a big, fat overlap in the middle. One subscribes to the idea that a good AT game is all about generating theme. The other, which is more my bag, says that AT games are more about drama and excitement. Which isn't to say you can't have excitement in a co-op title - Arkham Horror manages it beautifully - but it is going to have an uphill struggle to manage it because of all the things I've mentioned. Having someone else tell you what to do is not exciting. Competing against a static game system is not exciting. Having your chances of victory determined before you've even made a choice is not exciting. Logic puzzles are, especially, not exciting. |
|
re:All games that have negotiation or diplomacy have at least a small element of cooperation. But they still have the competition, which is what's missing from co-op games for me. Like you say, your issue is more with games that have a "beat the system" concept (like PANDEMIC, VANISHED PLANET, or LOTR) than games where you are essentially competing against one antagonistic player. And I can at least understand that That's my argument though - that co-op games by their very nature are driven to be "beat the system" games. It's like playing a FPS co-op...sure, it's the most fun to blast away at each other but the co-op games can be really fun too...it's a different experience, and it gives the game some variety. Heh. It will come as absolutely no surprise to you to learn that it doesn't do it for me. Give me another living target every time  |
|
re:Also, the combat is quite strategic with some randomness, but deterministic enough that you can plan ahead and decide how much you want to risk. I really hated the combat system in MR. Besides the overall complexity this is the next biggest thing that really put me off it. Strip away all the rules chrome and what you seem to be left with is something very akin to rock-paper-scissors, and without an awful lot more strategy. I generally like Coop games. I think this comes from my RPG years, as it was really fun to discuss what course to follow and play as a team creating a story together. Like so many people here, I'm also an ex-RPG player. RPGs are an essentially different proposition than playing a boardgame because they have the potential to generate narrative besides which even story-driven boardgames like AH pale into nothingness. They also have the ability to offer personal challenges to individual players way beyond the scope of a boardgame and thus are as much in the realm of the "forced co-op against the game" as they are pure co-op. To achieve either of these goals in an RPG it's necessary to indulge in long-term campaign play - that's why so many short, one-off RPG sessions end up being run as semi-competitive tournament games. In short, I just don't think that the two bear much comparison in this regard. But I'll add that Magic Realm is still a much better game, and one that is not that complicated if you learn it gradually (just don't play with hired natives at first and the game becomes much more manageable) I learned the game without magic and natives. I still found it absurdly complicated. I am not joking when I say that I devoted several days to attempting to learn Magic Realm and I still didn't get to grips with all the details. I am no rules slouch - as far as I can tell I managed to play Arkham Horror, a game renowned for confusing newbies, off my own back from just the rulebook and with only one minor rules error on my first try. But how anyone can actually hold all the rules for Magic Realm in their head at once so as to play a meaningful game is totally beyond me. |
|
... This is BIG NEWS!!! Two AT founders at odds over the inclusion of coop games into the AT genre! Let's look at this situation: Matt Thrower is the John Locke of the AT movement. Matt's theories have been acted upon by Barnes and Robert Martin to form a new "country" of games. While Matt provided the inspiration, it is Barnes who now rules the "country" and has the final call on the issue. So unless Barnes changes his position, Coop games are AT. Case closed, |
|
...I really hated the combat system in MR. Besides the overall complexity this is the next biggest thing that really put me off it. Strip away all the rules chrome and what you seem to be left with is something very akin to rock-paper-scissors, and without an awful lot more strategy. I disagree with this statement more than anything I've ever read on this site, maybe the internet in its entirety. (Ok ok, not the whole internet.) I sometimes sit for hours running Realmspeak battle sims - or the game itself - playing out the vast array of interesting situations that arise. Not to be a dick, but what you said is like dismissing Poker as being "all luck of the draw" and shows that you haven't begun to scratch the surface. |
|
re:Not to be a dick, but what you said is like dismissing Poker as being "all luck of the draw" and shows that you haven't begun to scratch the surface. Not being a dick at all. I suspect you are entirely right, but as far as I'm concerned this just highlights the failings of Magic Realm. I could be wrong, but I got the impression from playing the game that the more factors you put into combat - more players, more monsters, hired natives, more weapons, more armour and so on and so forth the less my original assessment became valid. Or to put it another way if I took a single unarmed and unarmored character up against a single simple monster then the resulting combat would have a big rock-paper-scissors element in it. However, the game puts huge stumbling blocks in your way before you can start to find this out. The rules for weapons and armour are confusing. Playing a single character against more than one monster is frequently extremely deadly. The rules for natives are apparently so confusing that many people recommend learning the game without them. Result? I do indeed only get the scratch the surface, and come away with a much lower opinion of the games' various interlocking mechanics than I probably ought to. It's a vicious circle - the more blocks of complexity that get put in my way, the less likely I am to appreciate the depth of the game and the less likely I am to bother making the effort to break the back of the next obstacle. There's an interesting argument here about how one is or is not capable of judging how "good" a game is based on play experiences in which you didn't fully grasp the rules. Can one declare a game "bad" because it has a learning curve sufficiently steep that it effectively stops you from ever getting to the "good" bits? I think that probably deserves a F:AT article all on it's own. I didn't mean this to become a dissection of Magic Realm We're supposed to be talking about co-op games here! |
 |
... I dunno Matt. To me AT is all about a good ass-kicking. Whether it's other players or the game itself doling it out, AT personifies ultra-violence on a game board. Now, while I wouldn't call Lord of the Rings "Ameritrash", it's a damn fun game for AT-ers because it is just so wicked and mean spirited. Coop games deserve some respect, especially those with some real teeth. Pandemic? Baby teeth at best... |
|
... OK, fair enough criticism, Matt. MR is certainly not easy to pick up. Whether the fun-to-effort ratio is good enough I guess depends on the person. If I had only heard of the game yesterday, I might not have gotten so into it...After all, there are so many great and relatively simple games out there today. I originally picked up the game when I was an eight-year-old with too much free time, and an older brother to teach me the rules. I relearned the game a couple of years ago because I remembered having so much fun with it as a kid. The game could use a modern revamp - to put its age in persective, MR is only a year younger than the first edition of basic D&D! A graphic designer on BGG is doing a full artistic revamp - it's looking more streamlined and easier on the eyes so far. For instance the battle sheet will be visually cleaner, and the denizens/denizen roll system will be color and symbol coded, which I can proudly say was my idea . Best of all, most pertinent info will be printed on the pieces, so you don't have to reference the rulebook quite as much. (Why they never printed weapon lengths on the weapons is beyond me.) Here's one example of old vs new - Old: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/178173 and New: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/301422 ...Just by looking at those pics you can see how the original graphics are cluttered and eye-straining. Now, whether someone will ever revamp the rules, I don't know... Sorry for the hijack. I certainly respect your opinion and just wanted to offer mine - MR is my favorite game after all. |
|
... Well, speaking as the King of Boardgaming...it is acceptable for Matt to dislike co-op games, even in my review of PANDEMIC I made it clear that not everyone likes, or will like, co-op games. It is OK to like Co-Op games, and it is also OK to dislike them. SO SAY WE ALL. But anyway...some themes are best handled by cooperative play, that's all there is to it. PANDEMIC's theme is best suited to co-op play and I'd go so far as to say that it would be anti-thematic, gamey even, if a player controlled the diseases. It wouldn't make sense to compete when the players are trying to save the world from forces of nature, would it? I guess some kind of scoring mechanic (also gamey) that handed out merit badges or something for the researcher who does the most work might remedy that, but when the theme is viral apocalypse then it demonstrates that theme can dictate co-op play. Likewise, in LOTR, it doesn't make sense if every player is a hobbit and they're racing to be the one to make the slam dunk into Mordor- then you might as well be playing one of those mass-market licensed games from the 70s or 80s. And at the end of the day theme is a much more important barometer of AT credibility than competition. Poker is competitive, PUERTO RICO is competitive, and Tic-Tac-Toe is competitive. Richard Launius (ARKHAM HORROR) has a couple of unpublished games that I think manage the cooperation/competition thing extremely well...one idea he uses a lot is events where players have to band together to stop a common enemy that will cause all players to lose something or even the whole game...but it's still competitive, so it's possible for players to betray each other and follow their own selfish agendas. Cooperation becomes an option, but you're still looking out for #1. On MAGIC REALM...The combat system in MAGIC REALM is incredible and should not be dismissed so haphazardly...it's a blow-by-blow fight, a good example of how Richard Hamblen had a really interesting grasp on how to really meter time in simulation (witness also GUNSLINGER). It has a level of automation and some randomness to keep it from being deterministic, but I'm always amazed at how much detail it provides. These days, yeah, it's a little clunky and the flowchart is awfully scary but there's no other game that gives you such a specific, narrative account of a melee battle. One day I'll get around to doing a MAGIC REALM article. |
|
re:Likewise, in LOTR, it doesn't make sense if every player is a hobbit and they're racing to be the one to make the slam dunk into Mordor- then you might as well be playing one of those mass-market licensed games from the 70s or 80s. The mass-market licensed games from the 00's are still using this "everyone gets to be the main character" design approach. The BATMAN BEGINS SHADOW ASSAULT GAME allows up to four players to be Batman. Strangely, it's a team game, in which the many Batmen combine forces to defeat a lone R'as Al Ghul, who controls the 20 plastic ninjas that have nothing at all to do with the BATMAN BEGINS film. |
|
... Interesting article. I'm with Barnes on this one though. As an aside, does anyone here really think that LotR misses the books' themes? From the perspective of the hobbits, you have desperation in the face of a perilous and long mission, the value of sacrifice, and hope in the face of overwhelming odds. I see each of those in the gameplay. Does the narrative, or account of events, in the game closely resemble that found in the books? No. But the themes are there. |
|
... Like I've said before, LOTR takes the more "humanistic" themes of LOTR as a jump-off point for its design, and it stands to follow that it's a cooperative game. It's practically designed to eventually force players to face elimination for the good of the team. Sacrifice, working together against a common enemy, overcoming selfishness, perseverance, friendship...anybody that says that those elements- all represented in the LOTR board game- are not what LOTR is about is full of shit. However, there _are_ more themes and ideas than just that in the books, and for those there's WAR OF THE RING. If LOTR is just a massive fantasy battle narrative for you and you're more interested in fighting Uruk-Hai than spiritual corruption, then WotR will serve you nicely and it's got the Fellowship bit in it to- pushed to the background. The Nexus team simply chose to describe different elements of the same narrative and their game is a perfect big-scale counterpoint to Knizia's more internal and personal depiction. Both are brilliant games. So it turns out that LOTR as thematic material can support both competitive and cooperative play- it just depends on what part of the theme you're expressing. |
 |
......but it's still competitive, so it's possible for players to betray each other and follow their own selfish agendas. That's the only avenue a cooperative game can take to really be good. Anything else is a multi player puzzle. After the novelty of the puzzle wears off the game will be cast aside and like so many other min/maxing games, it will be doomed to ignominity. The fate of pandemic is assured. It will die a quiet forgetable death. A saving grace though might be expandibility. There could be new roles/events that breath fresh life into the game when the novelty wears off. Steve"GameSeer"Avery |
|
... Ah yes, the "theme" of LotRs. It is okay to like the game for what it is, but calling it thematic escapes me. Where is the sundering of the Fellowship? Why are hobbits frequently hanging out at Helm's Deep? Why do the hobbits keep passing the ring around? My answer is that those things happen because the game is an abstract inspired by Lord of the Rings. If you remove the artwork from the boards (as was done in Battlefields expansion) then the abstract nature of the game is even clearer. |
|
re:Ah yes, the "theme" of LotRs. It is okay to like the game for what it is, but calling it thematic escapes me. Where is the sundering of the Fellowship? Why are hobbits frequently hanging out at Helm's Deep? Why do the hobbits keep passing the ring around? See the reply by Barnes above. The game chooses to focus on certain thematic elements to the exclusion of others. Also, I can ask your type of "sticking to the narrative" questions about any wargame or any other game based on a property. I see LotR as similar to Mall of Horror in the way it too focuses on the human side of these situations. |
|
... I did read what Barnes wrote before I replied. I don't disagree that it's a fun game for him (I prefer to use one or more expansions when playing). What I have a problem with is calling the game thematic (since that seems to be a more objective criteria). Most WWII games that I am familiar with don't feature tactical maps of the moon because it would be out of place (in much the same way Helm's Deep seems out of place in the hobbit based Lord of the Rings game). Note: I haven't complained about Fatty. He could have gone along. Having an alternate historical event doesn't break the game for me. I would probably be more forgiving of Lord of the Rings's thematic lapses if you weren't stuck on rails. A game that let's you take hobbits to Helm's Deep seems okay. A game that forces the hobbits into Helm's Deep loses theme (which might be why I like Friend and Foes: skipping Helm's Deep or not becomes a strategic decision instead of unthematic railroading). I haven't played a war game where you are stuck on rails (that's right I haven't played Phalanx's The First World War, yet). So I don't really think there's an apple to apples comparison. Again, I have no problem with people who like the game. I just don't understand why someone would call an abstract inspired by Tolkien's book thematic. What's wrong with saying you like the game and it's abstract? I think I'd like it less if it was less abstract (War of the Ring wasn't that fun for me, and War of the Ring is very thematic). |
|
re:What's wrong with saying you like the game and it's abstract? I think I'd like it less if it was less abstract (War of the Ring wasn't that fun for me, and War of the Ring is very thematic). Because the game is not totally abstract. It focuses on specific themes that were prevelant in the books and uses certain mechanics to evoke them. Just because it doesn't follow the exact sequence of events as the books does not mean that it fails to capture these themes. The game is trying to get the players to feel something the hobbits felt, much like Mall of Horror gives players the chance to feel what it's like bargaining for their existence in a difficult situation. I haven't played War of the Ring yet, but I'm sure that the game does not follow the sequence of events in the books exactly either. I'm guessing the game doesn't focus on the theme of friendship in the way the books do, so does that mean it suffers for it? Maybe we're confusing theme and narrative here. By the way, your comparison to having the hobbits go through Helm's deep to having a moon map in a WWII game is disingenious. It's simply an alternative "history" twist not unlike the twists you can witness during the play of strategic wargames. |
|
... So Walt...by your reasoning, the LOTR films were "abstract" because Tom Bombadil wasn't there and the Elves showed up at Helm's Deep? It strikes me that adapting a theme is a lot like adapting a novel for the screen...inevitably, somebody somewhere is going to freak out because some minutiae or even a seemingly major plot point or character is omitted...I think a lot of people would be satisfied if directors and screenwriters literally opened a book and said "OK. Page 1. We have shoot this this and this, and this character says this". It doesn't- and shouldn't- work that way at all, and likewise it doesn't work that way for games. Particularly because all games are by nature abstract to some degree. To fault the LOTR game for not directly following the story doesn't make sense, because it is not the LOTR story. It is a game narrative _based on_ the events, themes, and characters of LOTR. Also Walt, I think you're misconstruing narrative for theme...theme doesn't necessarily have to be a story and it doesn't necessarily have to be succession of events. When we talk about game "theme", what we're _really_ getting at (as Frank pointed out a billion threads ago) is _setting_. Nothing wrong with liking an abstract game at all...but LOTR isn't one. Sure, there are things that are abstracted (just like in every game from CAMPAIGN FOR NORTH AFRICA to GO) but as a whole the game is an intentional and specific adaption of themes from the LOTR novel. Good point on MALL OF HORROR...I don't think the game is all that great, but one thing I do really like about it is that it sort of takes the Romero route and demonstrates human nature and survival instincts instead of focusing on eventually boring B-Movie zombie action (ahem, LNoE?) |
|
re:Note: I haven't complained about Fatty. He could have gone along. Having an alternate historical event doesn't break the game for me. I haven't tried to claim that a rigid adherence to the trilogy's sequence of events would make the game thematic (see above quote). That just seems silly. If you want the exact same thing as the books: read the books. Lord of the Rings is a "game on rails". The base game forces you to take hobbits to Helm's Deep. I think we all agree on that this isn't the most thematic path a hobbit focused Lord of the Rings game could have taken. Going back to Fatty, you aren't forced to play with him. You could just play the game with 4 players (or 2 if you insist that only Frodo and Sam should go to Mordor). You are forced to take the hobbits through Helm's Deep. As Friends and Foes demonstrated there are other scenarios which would make interesting boards so it's not like Knizia was forced to use Helm's Deep because there were only 4 notable events in the trilogy. Arkham Horror has themes of people working together against a greater evil, as does Pandemic (so I hear), Vanished Planet, and even Runebound with Seven Scions expansion (when played cooperatively). Does that mean that they are all thematic Lord of the Rings games? This whole topic of "Lord of the Rings: abstract or not?" seems pretty far removed from the original article's intent.... |
|
... Lord of the Rings is thematic not so much because of its mechanics, but because of the atmosphere it creates. It does create the flow of a long, arduous journey fraught with challenges. The Fellowship is being constantly beaten down and assaulted from all sides. There is a desperate and sort of hopeless feel to the game that evokes the atmosphere of the books. Now where the game goes off the rails is with the Battlefields expansion, which peels the abstract layer on the game back a bit too far. And the Sauron expansion which is so difficult that it's not even fun. |
|
... Barnes, I'm not a big fan of the Lord of the Rings films, but leaving that to the side for a moment. I don't see Lord of the Rings as abstract because of the things it omits (no Tom Bombadil in the base game of Lord of the Rings either), but because of the things it adds (hobbits forced to march through Helm's Deep, playing "pass the ring" after each scenario board, and so on). I actually see this abstraction as a plus since I don't especially like Peter Jackson's films and my favorite Tolkien book is the Silmarillion (if that doesn't mark me as a major geek than I'm not sure what does), but I do enjoy Knizia's Lord of the Rings (probably because it is abstract). The more thematic War of the Ring reminds me too much of Jackson's films. Robartin, Battlefields just illustrates how abstract the whole game is. If the scenario boards were printed without Howe's art (as the Battlefield boards are) then complaints about abstraction would be more easily accepted when addressed to the base game. I agree that Lord of the Rings does cause the feeling of being assaulted from all sides, but so does Arkham Horror (I think most co-op games try to evoke this mood). I don't see Arkham Horror as a thematic Lord of the Rings game though. |
|
re: re:Arkham Horror has themes of people working together against a greater evil, as does Pandemic (so I hear), Vanished Planet, and even Runebound with Seven Scions expansion (when played cooperatively). Does that mean that they are all thematic Lord of the Rings games? No, because they don't use the same mechanics to evoke the theme - like the ring's corrupting influence, limited access to Gandalf's help, gifts to the fellowship, sacrifice being necessary to advance, and so on compared to resource gathering task resolution, exploration, and area control. Two songs can be about love in a general sense and differ significantly in the way they get you to feel something about what they're saying. You decide which one is more effective. For what it's worth, I think Arkham Horror is very poor at evoking the themes of Lovecraft's novels. There's no real sense of hopelessness compared to LotR, magic as forbidden knowledge isn't as nearly as dangerous or unattractive as it should be, and there's no isolation (unless you play it solo) or significant slide into madness. It is however, excellent at generating interesting narratives. This is why I think a distinction needs to be made between the ability of a game to evoke certain themes and its ability to generate interesting narratives. Getting back to the original poster, I think some themes are best conveyed and some narratives are best generated using a cooperative game structure. |
|
re: Nick, is Arkham Horror really themed on Lovecraft? I had thought that Elder Signs were one of Derleth's additions to the Mythos (and the game definitely features Elder Signs). Derleth is the guy who dropped a nuke on Cthulthu (in his story "Black Island" . I can see a group of players doing that in Arkham (if the game would let them). The ring's corrupting influence is shown as a track which is similar to the Doom track of Arkham Horror. Just because one game calls it a corruption chart and the other calls it a doom track doesn't obscure the similarity of the mechanic. Admittedly, there is no current analog to Gandolf in Arkham, but the Guardians soon to arrive with Kingsport might render that a moot point. As an aside, using shields to get help from Gandolf wasn't part of Knizia's initial game design. There was the Gandolf card in Rivendale, only. Gandolf summoned via shields was added to the initial abstract design during playtesting (in part because it made shields more than just extra points at the end of the game). I focused on Arkham because that seems to be the game your most familiar with, but parallels between mechanics of Lord of the Rings and other cooperative games do exist (it just seems pedantic to list them all). It seems that we all agree on 99% of the points (Lord of the Rings does evoke a certain mood and is a fun game). It still seems like we're hijacking these comments over a minor difference of opinion. And even Robartin (who agree that Lord of the Rings is thematic) appears to disagree with you that it is Lord of the Rings's mechanics that are thematic. Lord of the Rings is thematic not so much because of its mechanics, but because of the atmosphere it creates. |
|
... I don't see Lord of the Rings as abstract because of the things it omits (no Tom Bombadil in the base game of Lord of the Rings either), but because of the things it adds That still doesn't bear out...I mean, it _is_ a game. Just like with taking things away in adaptation, it's necessary to incorporate things that make the game fun, interesting, strategic, interactive, or whatever. Maybe some elements like passing the ring may be a little gamey but it doesn't foreclose on the theme or the narrative. You don't play LOTR to re-enact the events of LOTR...you play it to experience the atmosphere and thematic ideas in a game context. No, the mechanics (discarding a card or cards to move and so forth) aren't necessarily thematic. But is _any_ mechanic removed from its context thematic? Dice rolling isn't thematic at all. It doesn't mean shit. But it can mean a million different thematic ideas when applied to certain situations. All mechanics are abstract. Every single one. Framing them in theme, narrative, and setting gives them meaning. What you're also saying is that you're not really into the LotR theme, which makes a HUGE difference! If you're more into the SILMARILLION then of course you're not going to be as involved in the thematic material in LotR. It all makes sense now. BATTLEFIELDS failed because it had no atmosphere whatsoever- and because of that, the mechanics there were all too visible and the fact that they were simple flowcharts stuck out like a sore thumb against the rest of the game. Onto ARKHAM...I do kind of think the "Lovecraftian" thing is kind of misleading because really it's more of a pulp adventure game in a Mythos setting...but that being said, anyone interested in Lovecraft is going to be engaged in the theme. I can't see someone who just hates Lovecraftiana getting into the game and enjoying its thematic material, just like someone who doesn't really care about LotR not getting its atmosphere. I think some themes are best conveyed and some narratives are best generated using a cooperative game structure. Exactly. |
|
... I doesn't matter to me that Robartin and I might disagree over what it is exactly that makes LotR thematic. I'm just saying it is thematic. I disagree that Arkham Horror and LotR are similar in the choices it asks you to make. For example, in the stories both games are based on, characters can choose to use horrible magic and live with the consequences. In Arkham Horror, you can choose to use somewhat inconvenient magic and in LotR you can use the ring, which will only make a very challenging game that much more difficult. In most Mythos stories there is a lone protagonist. In Arkham Horror, you are usually working with a group. You can sacrifice yourself to help each other, but death doesn't necessarily pose a significant penalty. In LotR you can, and often must, sacrifice yourself and be eliminated from the game in an effort to destroy the ring. This requires significant trust among the players, which may even require forming a fellowship. In most Mythos stories the protagonist is driven irreversibly insane. Along the way they start to doubt their perceptions and decisions. There is no parallel in Arkham Horror. Can you see why I think one game is better at evoking its source's themes than the other? Similar mechanics with very different applications. By the way, Lovecraft did create the Elder Sign, though Derleth referred to it more frequently and changed its appearance for the worse. Most people who enjoy Cthulhu stuff and read Derleth do so knowing that Derleth either didn't get what Lovecraft's stories were about or simply wanted to mix it up. I think of Arkham Horror the same way. In contrast, its clear that Knizia understood what the fellowship was about when designing his game. |
|
... Barnes, I admit that I'm not that involved in the thematic material of Lord of the Rings, but that still doesn't explain why the strong theme of War of the Ring made that game less fun for me. Battlefields would have had more theme if they would have had more thematic artwork on the boards (which would have obfuscated their flow-chart nature). I can imagine boards with evocative images to accompany the bad effects of those spaces. I hope we can both agree that the white cones in the base game aren't thematic game markers, and that the pieces for foes and for members of the followship are more thematic in Battlefields than said white cones. Boromir returning from the grave after each board is no more thematic than passing the ring, at least to me. The main differences in theme between the base game and Battlefields is that the perceived theme of components is less in Battlefields (with some justification, Mr. Peterson defended the expansion's appearance on the grounds that a more evocative presentation wasn't commercially feasible). I think we all agree that Arkham is more thematic than Lord of the Rings Putting them on a continuum with something like Knizia's Samurai on one end representing total abstraction and Twilight Imperium (which I haven't played yet but you seem to really enjoy) as on the other end as total theme. Lord of the Rings is "somewhere" in the middle, abstract enough (for me) so I'm not put out by the theme, but thematic for you. It might be enlightening to consider Marvel Heroes. I find that game immensely thematic, but I have heard that some people don't. Is Marvel Heroes another game the the "murky middle" of the theme/abstract spectrum? Do some people find Lord of the Rings more thematic than Marvel Heroes (in which case there probably isn't an objective measurement of theme for games in the middle)? Marvel Heroes is simi-cooperative (players cooperate to play villains against the troubleshooting heroes), so this is at least tangentally connected to the article's topic. |
|
... Nick, Derleth's Mythos is very much a part of Arkham Horror much more than Lovecraft's (in my opinion). Have you read the Trail of Cthulthu (by Derleth)? It is a linked series of short stories about a team (not separate individuals) of investigators who not only don't go insane, but travel from location to location trying to close off "gates" Cthulthu could use to rise (it also includes the nuking Cthulthu story I mentioned earlier). Having read Derleth, Lovecraft, Robert E Howard, Chambers, Kuttner, Lin Carter and Bloch, I do think that Arkham is a Mythos game (but that doesn't mean it is a Lovecraftian game for reasons you cited above). In Arkham Horror, you can actually sacrifice yourself "for the greater good" (using a similarly named mission introduced in Dunwich Horror) to ensure the Great Old One doesn't arise. There are differences: the sacrifices in Lord of the Rings are not a guarantee of success (which is more of a depressing message than I remember from Lord of the Rings, almost Lovecraftian), but the sacrifice in Dunwich is a guaranteed win for the group (your character just gave their life for the entire planet, how like Boromir from Lord of the Rings). See the above question about Marvel Heroes. I've said that Knizia's Lord of the Rings is an abstract inspired by Lord of the Rings (our disagreement seems to be how much the theme of the inspiration shows through). But if theme is just in the eye beholder (which the Marvel Heroes case might confirm) then it is totally meaningless to debate the thematic qualities of Lord of the Rings any further. You subjectively find it thematic, and I subjectively find it abstract. Simple difference of opinion. End of story. |
|
re: re:Nick, is Arkham Horror really themed on Lovecraft? Great question. No, Arkham Horror is not directly themed on Lovecraft. People tend to forget that Arkham Horror was originally published by Chaosium, at the peak of their publishing years for their rpg Call of Cthulhu. I firmly believe that Arkham Horror was designed by Chaosium as a boardgame that would roughly approximate their role-playing game. It would be really strange if Chaosium or Fantasy Flight had purposely tried to create a game that would actually cause insanity or even existential despair, since that is pretty far removed from the inherent concept of playing a game. To keep CofC roleplayers interested and entertained, there has to be some hope. Maybe their characters will go insane or be killed. Maybe their characters will go insane just before they die... it's really terrible when you're flying in a plane and the pilot goes insane. But players need to feel like there is a chance of success in the face of overwhelming odds, even though that does break with Lovecraft's themes. In a tournament event, players are just trying to keep their characters intact long enough to achieve a limited goal. In an ongoing campaign, players can pursue the traditional character advancement, but now there is time to experience the downward spiral of sanity loss with those characters, and that comes closer to what Lovecraft was writing about. And so it goes with the boardgame Arkham Horror. You can't get most people to sit down for a long, complicated game that will definitely end in a loss for everybody at the table. They need that hope that they can win if they play well. They may miss out on the spirit of Lovecraft's writing, but the experience of playing in well-designed game with many of the trappings of the Cthulhu Mythos is good enough for many players. |
|
... I also think it's best we end it here Walter. I'm trying to differentiate between theme and narrative, in a Lit 101 sense, and I guess I'm not doing a very good job. Regarding Arkham Horror, I haven't read that work by Derleth. I'll see if I can locate a copy. Shellhead, I don't think it's impossible to design a board game with Lovecraftian themes. I think the trick might be to use mechanics that require the players to act irrationally when they push their luck too far (use spells/have too many encounters with Mythos creatures) while trying to find a safe haven of some sort. |
|
re: re: re:Nick, is Arkham Horror really themed on Lovecraft? I would agree that the narrative of a game of Arkham Horror rarely resembles the narrative of a Lovecraft story, and that a game based in teamwork and heroism will probably sell better than one depicting isolation and madness. On the other hand, the great virtue of Arkham Horror as a game is how wide open it is, especially with the various expansions, and this random flexibility, although it also can bring about rather unsatisfying games, makes many different game narratives possible, some of which are quite Lovecraftian. One of the most enjoyable games of Arkham Horror I have ever played was a six-player affair which lasted about 5 hours and ended in absolute defeat: when the Old One awoke (I believe it was Tsathoggua) we calculated that it was mathematically impossible for us to defeat him, and packed up the box. In many settings such an experience would be frustrating (and I know that not all of my fellow players shared my enthusiasm for that play), but in the world of Lovecraft it felt perfect. From roughly the middle of the game a steadily growing sense that we could not win hung over us, and our frantic efforts to kill monsters and close gates became more and more the exercise of a vain hope. There was no madness (I think), but that's about as close to a Lovecraftian experience as you can get in a game, and, although many disparate elements have to align correctly for Arkham Horror to play like this, the fact that it can has certainly increased my respect for the game a great deal. This is all perhaps by way of seconding those who have said that some themes, like the Cthulhu Mythos, demand co-operative treatment, and saying that, as a fervent advocate of the theme properly deployed in good gaming, I would therefore hold no particular grudge against co-operative games as such. |
 |
... I'm always late to the party. First up, we've talked plenty of trash in co-op games. Made fun of each other when someone fails to successfully bash a catapult. Talked trash at the game itself when things seemed to be getting out of hand and we make a power play to get back in it. Hell, co-op games are part of the fiber of what AT games are all about. Don't we talk endlessly about how people are more important than the game mechanics? How great AT games are because they allow us to interact with other players rather than stroke our beards and stare silently at some goods cubes, wondering if those are worth the 2 ducats we have to bid for them? Co-op games REQUIRE you to deal with the other players! You can't have a game session (and expect to win) of Pandemic without talking to your fellow gamers. And then the game turns nasty on you and you're all saying things like "Oh SHIT, everyone in the Middle East has THE BLACK DEATH, now what?! Medic, GET YOUR ASS OVER THERE!" And as for LOTR, I'd say that it is probably one of THE most thematic Euros ever designed. It's heavy thematic elements bounce up against the limitations of the Euro-style of design as well as the abstraction present in the system, but the game evokes its theme wonderfully. It was done back when Knizia seemed to give a shit and was one of the strongest designers going, and he was really firing on all cylinders with LOTR. Bar none. It's interesting because I rate both LOTR *and* War of the Ring with perfect scores. I think both of them are awesome, and what's more they are as Barnes' said equally solid treatments of the source material but approaching them from different directions. War of the Ring is very much a simluation-esque, detailed account of what went down. "Then Bormir bid them farewell, racing toward the White City, hoping against hope he would be in time to help blunt the attack of Sauron's Orcs." "And rising with a great and terrible power, Galadriel at last revealed herself to the Eye, her booming voice echoing throughout the forests of Lothlorien." It's very much a narrative-point focused approach to thematic gaming. However, LOTR comes at this in a different direction. Instead of going for a blow-by-blow thematic recreation, it's instead content to recreate the thematic elements of the film in spirit. You're pitted against a relentless foe that has no mercy, and the hopes of Middle Earth are in the hands of the most unlikeliest of creatures. Though man, dwarf, and elf can help, ultimately it is these Hobbits who represent the potential defeat of Sauron. In that backdrop, these Hobbits rely on each other, strengthen each other, and make sacrifices for the greater good. Sure, it's hard to say "what just happened?" on someone's turn when they played a Foot and a Tree. It's not broken down to such a detailed level. It's the overall flow and feeling of impending doom as you juggle ever diminishing resources and the capability to resist the corrupting force of the Ring. Some concessions were made, sure. If only one Hobbit carried the Ring, everyone else would feel like second banana. Plus, for expansions suddenly Sauron would only need to focus on corrupting Frodo the most. In that way, it's a necessary mechanic to keep everyone involved and to make sure everyone contributes where they can. On top of that, Sam ended up with the ring for awhile when he thought Frodo was dead...sure, in the books Merry never carried the ring, but what if they'd stayed together and Frodo and Sam were incapacitated? Then yes, Merry *could* have carried the Ring. Because Sam wore the ring for just awhile, it certainly is fitting for the theme, even if it didn't happen EXACTLY as it happens in your game. I find the idea that LOTR "misses the theme" of the novels pretty laughable, actually. LOTR is about fellowship, teamwork, sacrifice, and resisting evil. And LOTR represents all of those things very well. |
|
... I would very much like someone to explain to me how LOTR is at all a thematic or immersive game. I can read Ken's post, but the 3 or 4 times I've played the game I never felt very engaged with the theme--how is someone basically saying "Does anybody have a tree?" representing the theme of the books? You guys admit it's abstracted a little bit, but come on. What are you really sacrificing? The hobbits don't have any ulterior motives, so there's no reason they shouldn't just give up whatever random card they drew...what am I missing here? And on the topic of co-op games in general, I think the OP is completely off. The notion that AT games have to have direct conflict is missing the main point of what makes the games we love so fucking awesome: you can remember the details of individual games long after you've played them. Whether a game is co-op or not is irrelevant. |
|
... Well, it had to happen at some point ... this was the first truly poor article I've run into since the "new" F:AT launched. "All co-op games are unconditionally crap and worse they're the antithesis of everything that AT ought to stand for." Please. That's not writing; that's just ranting. And it just gets worse from there. Honestly, I couldn't even make it to the end ... |
|
re:Hell, co-op games are part of the fiber of what AT games are all about. Don't we talk endlessly about how people are more important than the game mechanics? How great AT games are because they allow us to interact with other players rather than stroke our beards and stare silently at some goods cubes, wondering if those are worth the 2 ducats we have to bid for them? This is the best argument against my opinions that's been put forward yet. I'm half-convinced. Standing in its way though is the fact that co-op games, as I described, have a tendency to actually decrease personal interaction because someone ends up ordering everyone else around, and they end up obeying because it's in the interest of winning the game. I guess it all comes down to who you play with. However, LOTR comes at this in a different direction. Instead of going for a blow-by-blow thematic recreation, it's instead content to recreate the thematic elements of the film in spirit. Maybe I'm just unimaginative. Perhaps I need a bit of hand-holding and guidance from the game when it comes to constructing a narrative. I've often suspected as much. Sadly, even if I could pass muster with LotR as a storytelling game, I still think it sucks as a strategic challenge I find the idea that LOTR "misses the theme" of the novels pretty laughable, actually. LOTR is about fellowship, teamwork, sacrifice, and resisting evil. And LOTR represents all of those things very well. Perhaps I chose my phrasing badly. While the game clearly attempts to portray the things you describe and they are, undoubtedly, themes in the novel, I'm with the camp that says exchanging a few friendship or sword tokens to move spaces along a track in no way actually succeeds as a representation of those themes. See the bit about me being unimaginative above . |
|
re:Well, it had to happen at some point ... this was the first truly poor article I've run into since the "new" F:AT launched. Sorry about that. Were I not such an egotist I might feel guilty. Please. That's not writing; that's just ranting. And it just gets worse from there. Honestly, I couldn't even make it to the end ... I don't think this is entirely fair. I posted the articles in the "rants and raves" section which ought to give you some warning that the content isn't likely to make much of an attempt at being objective. It might also give you a clue that the content either isn't entirely serious or, as in this case, that the whole thing ought to be mentally prefixed with a big, fat IN MY OPINION. Perhaps I should've spelled that out clearly - re-imagine the text you quoted from the article with IMO in front of it - does it seem quite so bad now? If you gave up well before the end you might also have missed the considerable space I devoted in the article to arguments supporting my hypothesis, beyond making a blanket emotional statement about them not being "very AT". You'll also have missed the bit where I describe a game that succeeds. |
 |
... I actually think this was an excellent article whether you agree with Matt or not. I woke up yesterday morning about 5:00 AM Eastern US time and read Matt's post and said "  amn, I'm not going to be at a computer all day. I'll bet there will be some great debate over this topic." Sure enough I turned on my computer this morning and a saw there was 40 posts. Most of the posts are long and well written. Much better than the stuff you'd read on BGG. Matt not only gave us his philosophy of co-op games but also pulled a Socrates and challenged us to think about our philosophy of co-op games. One last note: Last night, I played Last Night on Earth for the first time. For some reason I was thinking it was going to be a totally co-op game. I think one of the reason I liked this Last Night on Earth much better than the Zombie game is that a real player controls the Zombies. The Zombies moves are very predictable and could have been played by nobody or by the game design but it was much better having a real player controlling them. I think it's much better to have co-op games with one bad guy dungeon master like in Doom, Descent, Fury of Dracula, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Last Night on Earth. Shadows over Camelot may have been a good game if you had one player playing Mordred who can do crap to the other players during the game. |
|
re:And as for LOTR, I'd say that it is probably one of THE most thematic Euros ever designed. It seems like a verbal quibble. I say it is an abstract inspired by the Lord of the Rings. You call it thematic for a Euro. As I mentioned above, I think Lord of the Rings may be somewhere in the middle of a spectrum of abstract/strongly themed. Or it could be that theme itself is subjective (which would seem to remove an objective criteria for the Euro/AT divide). And everyone who defends the theme of Lord of the Rings doesn't really address my main thematic quibble: why Helm's Deep? There are other events in the books which could have easily been included instead (events which actually featured hobbits). The inclusion of Helm's Deep seems even more glaring when you realize you don't have any choice in the base game: you are going to Helm's Deep. I don't rate War of the Rings down because it is a bad game. I think it is a great game that isn't that fun for me because it is so thematic. Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is enough of an abstract that I can enjoy the co-op play without being reminded of Peter Jackson's films. MattDP, a game shouldn't be dependent on players to be a good game. If you have a problem with one player bossing around everyone in Lord of the Rings, then I highly recommend using the Sauron expansion. The bossy person is not just telling the hobbits what to do, they are also telling Sauron where and how to hit the hobbits where it hurts the most. Problem solved. If bossy wants to win (the probable cause for bossiness) then they need to shut up and stop being so bossy. It is possible to beat the Sauron expansion (I've seen it done once, and we weren't crazy enough to add dark event tiles into the mix). It does require a different strategy than other expansions, though (and it does change the game from pure co-op to asymmetrical many versus one). Speaking of Arkham Horror, am I the only person interested in Darrell Hardy's (Runebound) newest game: Innsmouth Escape? (http://www.darrellhardy.com/) It is a many against one game (ie not a true co-op), but the twist is there is only one human player everyone else plays Deep Ones trying to catch that human. I'm on the fence (the pictures on Hardy's site leave me ambivalent). If you find Arkham's Horror's "lack of isolation" problematic then this might be the game for you. |
|
... how is someone basically saying "Does anybody have a tree?" representing the theme of the books? How is rolling a die, drawing a card, or moving a piece _ever_ evocative of a theme? Game functions are _all_ abstract. Unless you're playing a boxing game and punching somebody in the face is a key mechanic. It's all about context. Yeah, if you tell me that discarding a tree card is part of a game I'd say that it sounds pretty abstract (and dumb). But in the context of the game, it represents taking one of four key actions the Fellowship performs in the books (hiding, fighting, travelling, and fellowship-ing). It strikes me that part of the problem may be personal expectations about what a LOTR game should and shouldn't be more than anything else. Like Walt, he thinks Helm's Deep shouldn't be in there so the whole game is ruined for him, apparently, although the Helm's Deep board also incorporates several other storylines. Aside from all that, I think that a LOTR game that captures the themes Knizia was after couldn't be anything other than cooperative so anyone looking for a competition there is in the wrong place anyway. The notion that AT games have to have direct conflict is missing the main point of what makes the games we love so fucking awesome: you can remember the details of individual games long after you've played them. Whether a game is co-op or not is irrelevant. But now that I completely agree with. Well, it had to happen at some point ... this was the first truly poor article I've run into since the "new" F:AT launched. I don't agree at all...I think Matt had a challenging viewpoint and he knew it and set out to get people talking...and some of the discussion we've had about his topic is among the best we've had at F:AT, mainly because it is something that is a little divisive. |
|
... Walterman, I was stunned to see Innsmouth Escape on the shelf at the neighborhood game store last night, for several reasons. First, I personally know Darrell Hardy and ran into him less than two months ago at that same shop. He told me that he had left Fantasy Flight, but didn't say a word about working with Twilight Creations. Instead, he told me that he had become a freelance writer. Wait, I just looked at his new business card again, and it does mention game design. Second, after Dunwich Horror came out, a lot of people in various forums I post in were speculating that Innsmouth Horror would be next. So now I'm wondering if Darrell was working on Innsmouth Horror before he left and changed a number of key mechanics around to make it Innsmouth Escape. Third, I was really having a tough time deciding if I would buy it. $40 for boardgame is serious business under my current budgetary and space restraints (My girlfriend and I moved in together into an apartment only slightly larger than my old place, and her car needs to be replaced this year.) And Twilight Creations has a real history of great ideas turned into so-so games. But I like Darrell and respect the quality of the work he did for Fantasy Flight. And the theme is great, one lone man desperate to escape the degenerate town of Innsmouth while gangs of Deep Ones seek his destruction. Lovecraft wrote a great story about just that, Chaosium based an amazing adventure on that story for their Call of Cthulhu game, and then there was that cool Call of Cthulhu pc game from a few years back that was set in Innsmouth, too. In the end, I bought Innsmouth Escape. I told myself that I had to keep up my collection of nearly every Lovecraft-inspired game ever made, even though I passed on that stupid-looking Cthulhu 500 and the really crappy-looking Cthulhu Mash. Besides, I was getting 10% off with my store discount card. Briefly, Innsmouth Escape is a game for 2-5 players, playable in 60-90 minutes. The board is the smallest four-panel foldout in my collection, but is sturdy and practical. The map depicts a drab beige map of Innsmouth (that doesn't match the Chaosium map the way Fantasy Flight's Arkham Horror map matched up with Chaosium's Arkham) punctuated with a few more colorful icons, and overlaid with a large 6x6 grid. There are 100 plastic Deep Ones, 25 in each of four colors. Four six-sided dice, a pile of tokens of varying types, two decks of cards and 4d6. One player plays the human who is trying to escape town, but first he needs to collect 8 victory points, by rescuing other humans and grabbing proof of the existence of the Deep Ones. The other players each get 25 deep ones and a shoggoth. Each turn, the human plays a combinaton of three of his nine movement cards, then lays down a pair of facedown chits that describe his new location on the 6x6 grid. Some of the movement cards allow the human to rest and regain hit points. In effect, it's like a role reversal of Fury of Dracula on a smaller scale. The only concession to scaling is that the human starts with 8 hit points and gets 2 extra hit points per additional opponent. That seems odd, that a human dealing with 25 Deep Ones and a Shoggoth gets 8 hit points, while a human running from 100 Deep Ones and 4 Shoggoths gets only 14 hit points. Combat is a bunch of dice-rolling. The different icons on the map indicate locations where specific actions can be performed or certain card types may be drawn. Each Deep One faction can summon a Shoggoth, a slow-moving but indestuctible creature that inflicts serious damage. Cards offer valuable equipment and victory points to the human, and spells and tricks for the Deep Ones to use. I haven't played it yet, but I'm hoping that this is another tense cat-and-mouse game like Fury of Dracula. However, I suspect that this game will be less strategic due to the more flexible movement rules, and that there will be a lot more combat. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but more sneaking and less fighting would have been closer to the original story. The components were a little disappointing. The Deep One figures are comparable to the zombies from Zombies!!!, but otherwise, this game is drab compared to every other Twilight Creations game that I've ever seen. Unlike Zombies!!!, where there was different artwork on all the cards, Innsmouth Escape often uses the same artwork on a whole bunch of different cards. Even compared to Fury of Dracula's muted tones, the Innsmouth map is fairly colorless. And even though I've always regarded a fixation on tuckboxes to be an early sign of obsessive-compulsive disorder, this game badly needs a couple of tuckboxes, to keep the six different card types from getting all mixed together while sliding around freely in the box. And maybe a few small ziplock baggies would help keep the different token types sorted. |
|
...All co-op games are unconditionally crap and worse they're the antithesis of everything that AT ought to stand for. the ultimate co-op game almost has to be an AT game. Oxymoronic? I'm glad that the comments had a good debate over certain issues, because the main article was rubbish. But I'm sure you feel better having vented. |
|
re:It strikes me that part of the problem may be personal expectations about what a LOTR game should and shouldn't be more than anything else. Like Walt, he thinks Helm's Deep shouldn't be in there so the whole game is ruined for him, apparently, although the Helm's Deep board also incorporates several other storylines. Aside from all that, I think that a LOTR game that captures the themes Knizia was after couldn't be anything other than cooperative so anyone looking for a competition there is in the wrong place anyway. I don't want to give the impression that LotRs is ruined because I experience as an abstract inspired by Tolkien. I enjoy playing the base game with one or more expansions. If Knizia's game was more thematic (like War of the Ring is) then I probably wouldn't like it as much as I do. Do you feel that the Sauron expansion destroys LotRs's theme? There is competition with that expansion. I'm asking as someone who doesn't see the theme in the base game (so wouldn't know if it hurts what others find thematic). Helm's Deep shows that the game is abstract (to me at least). Knizia did have a Bree board in some prototypes, but he didn't include it in the published base game. A Bree board would feature a lot more hobbity activity (base on the books and the board we eventually got in Friends and Foes). I think Knizia went with Helm's Deep because the abstract game worked better with 3 fighting boards. I get bored playing the base game. The long term strategies seem clear cut after a couple games. They are not so simple with the addition of an expansion. This is a personal preference of mine. I know that lots of people find the base game exciting. The thing I find most interesting in this discussion is the idea that theme may be totally subjective. My instinct is that this isn't the case, but I'm not an expert. If theme is completely subjective then it cannot be an objective criteria separating Eurogames from Ameritrash. Shellhead, I get the feeling that Innsmouth could be a good game, but there's that nagging feeling that it could be meaningless dice rolling (the wide open board shown in pictures isn't encouraging). It all comes down to how it plays (at least for me). |
|
re:Even compared to Fury of Dracula's muted tones, the Innsmouth map is fairly colorless. First of all, thanks for the Innsmouth Escape preview. I didn't even know it was out thanks to Twilight Creations rather casual attitude to updating their page for this game. Secondly, that map is an abomination (but not in a good, Lovecraftian way). Is the whole thing in that vomitous beige/flesh tone color? If it were going to be primarily one color, why not dark green or gray? |
|
... Sabastian, the map isn't quite monotone, in that there are more than a dozen dime-sized picture-symbols scattered across the map, indicating special locations where players draw cards or perform certain actions. Those little pictures are more colorful, and they stand out reasonably well against the rest of the map. Also it probably needed to be a light background so that the gridlines would stand out. Still, it isn't up to the usual visuals that come with a Twilight Creations game. The newer map tiles for Zombies!!! are gorgeous compared to the Innsmouth Escape map. |
 |
... Have you ever been watching a movie, and about halfway through it you realize that you don't give a shit about what happens to any of the characters. That's how I feel about Lord of the Rings, Shadow over Camelot and Pandemic. Lord of the Rings doesn't invoke any feelings of sacrifice or dread, because I don't really give a shit what happens to my almost undifferentiated pawn. I don't much care about "winning," since the game is cooperative. I do agree with Rob that it does feel long, arduous, desperate and hopeless - as a result of its sheer dull, boring repetitiveness. I'm happy to volunteer to sacrifice myself, as it means I will hopefully get eliminated from the game sooner and can go grab a beer and some snacks. I think that people who say that Lord of the Rings and Shadow over Camelot invoke thematic emotions are projecting a lot of their experience of the books/films/stories onto the game. If those pawns where penguins, would they feel the same way? "Who has Waddle cards? Anyone? We have to hand in Waddle cards and a Fish for the green penguin to make it to the breeding grounds otherwise the hunter is going to move closer." I think Arkham Horror could be about penguins, and I would still have fun playing it. In fact, I think it would be pretty funny if it were. |
|
...Have you ever been watching a movie, and about halfway through it you realize that you don't give a shit about what happens to any of the characters. Man Uba. You totally nailed my feelings for these types of games. Its not that I couldn't enjoy a co-op because I do enjoy teamwork and creative play to solve problems but these games just evoke feelings of ambivelence for me. I've enjoyed the company of the gamers more than the game itself. Steve"tanktop"Avery |
|
... Ubarose, You should download the Strange Aeons freeware. It's a neat software package that is specifically designed for creating custom content for Arkham Horror. You can create new characters, new monsters, new equipment, new encounters, etc. It has a built-in point buy system, to guide you towards creating content that is balanced for the game, or you can ignore those limits and generate content that is unbalanced if you want. It even lets you import photos or artwork. I created a custom character sheet of myself, as the "Two-Fisted Accountant" and another one for my girlfriend, as the "Eternal Student." Anyway, point is, you could totally create penguin characters to play in Arkham Horror. Here's a link to the software download. It's very user-friendly: http://www.sfu.ca/~cjenning/eons/index.html |
|
... Well, it looks like I get to come and post on all of these threads, well after the fact and well after the debate has passed by and moved onward to the most recent article. (sigh) To Start: Two AT founders at odds over the inclusion of coop games into the AT genre! ... While Matt provided the inspiration, it is Barnes who now rules the "country" and has the final call on the issue. So unless Barnes changes his position, Coop games are AT. Case closed, Steve, you are one weird dude. But to your point about Barnes...one person doesn't or can't "anoint" anything about a whole genre of games. Matt's position most definitely counts. I'm glad Barnes called that out with his comment: SO SAY WE ALL. Case Closed. That being said... this was a very well written article and the person who said it wasn't... is seriously on something. But he is certainly entitled to his opinion too. I don't agree with Matt overall and tend to take Michael Barnes viewpoint that cooperative games which bring out discussion and meaningful interaction are more than worth playing. But I'm on the opposite end of Matt's experiences though. We've NEVER had a game where a "dominant" player controls the game. I think that is because all my friends are Type A "dominant" personalities and no one would stand for it. Matt probably has a valid point in so much that I think a co-op game would probably not fare nearly as well with one person who would dominate and the rest be subservient. So what to do? I like to have variety in my games. Certainly the competitive: I'M THE BOSS is my favorite boardgame. I own LIFEBOATS too and haven't played it yet but that game also looks like it would rock. But... as they say, variety is the spice of life and so I think co-op games give some nice overall balance to a game collection. I think PANDEMIC sounds like it would be a great game and I'll probably buy.Matt's points notwithstanding. I think we all agree on a fundamental point: its PEOPLE that make the games work... not the other way around. Cheers. Ryan B. (Too bad its so late nobody will read this...(LOL) |
|
... Ryan, Lifeboats is a decent game. It's like Mall of Horror, only without the zombies. Naturally, I prefer to play Mall of Horror, but Lifeboats is okay. |
|
... Good points, Ryan. Don't hesitate to comment on "older" articles...with the "Recent Comments" on the home page, someone will usually see what you have to say, no matter how old the article. |
|
re:I think we all agree on a fundamental point: its PEOPLE that make the games work... not the other way around. Heh. We still read the older comments! I think that's a really nice summation of the fruit that this particular discussion has borne. In many ways I kind of think that that feeling is probably what units the people here at F:AT (as opposed to the wider AT fandom community, many of who may feel differently). After all, a common theme to many of the Euros that we praise on this site is that they have a much higher level of personal interaction that most cube-pushing exercises. And that's worthwhile fruit if you ask me, whatever you think of the value of the original piece |
 |
... I'm even later than Ryan is on this one. Very well 'written' article Matt, which makes me wonder if you have even played a Co-op game. It kind of reminded me of those articles shrinks write about raising kids; sounds all fancy and academic but when you boil it down you begin to wonder if the guy even has kids, 'cause he really isn't making much sense. Co-ops are not AT? Hell, I would say the MAJORITY of AT games are partially co-op. All dungeon crawls are partially coop. You stuff like fury of drac is partially coop. Most of my games have most people on the same team. A full co-op just replaces the 'evil player' with mechanics. As far as LOTR goes, it is VERY thematic - in the true sense of the word, not the gamer sense. I didn't like it for ages, but eventually it clicked - while it doesn't follow the story of the book closely, and is fairly abstract, the THEME, in terms of ideas, lessons and feel, is 100% there for the hobbits journey. Its more thematic (in this sense) than War of the Ring, though war of the ring follows the story / plot much closer and is less abstract. |
|
... Skeletor, Matt's article seems to argue that conflict and competition define AT more than theme. I am beginning to agree with him. Theme seems to be highly subjective, based on these comments. Lord of the Rings does miss out on major feelings from the hobbits's journey. I don't feel the loss of Gandolf to the Balrog. I don't feel the breaking of the Fellowship. I don't feel the experience of being followed by/traveling with Gollum. That's why I call it an abstract game inspired by LotRs. |
|
re:I'm even later than Ryan is on this one. That's a fair criticism. Yes, I have played several co-op titles, but not many, and not many times in total. After all, I don't really like them, so why would I bother continually experimenting? The first co-op game I ever played was LotR, which for me had all the problems I'd described and more. We also managed to beat this supposedly tough game on the second session. The third session got so dull that we started trying to steal the ring off each other just to inject some entertainment into the games lifeless corpse (and we lost). There was no, and never has been, a fourth game. It's worth noting that group which played this contained several die-hard Tolkein fans (including me) none of whom felt the game was at all thematic. Which is a very long winded way of saying that it's possible that my LotR experience soured me on the co-op genre to the point where I negatively pre-judge other titles. AH seems like a pretty good game to me so a few repeat plays of that should settle that question for me one way or another. Co-ops are not AT? Hell, I would say the MAJORITY of AT games are partially co-op. All dungeon crawls are partially coop. You stuff like fury of drac is partially coop. Most of my games have most people on the same team. A full co-op just replaces the 'evil player' with mechanics. This is why I made sure at the start of the article to point out that my criticisms don't apply to partially co-op games. Partially co-op games are great because in my experience not only do they allow you to get your competitive fix but because you're playing against other people, rather than the system, they foster genuine discussion about the best route for the co-op group to take rather than having someone who "knows the system" direct everyones best moves. In that sense partially co-op games actually capture far more of the co-op spirit than 100% co-op games do. So the differentiation between and "evil player" and the system is vitally important - the latter makes it much, much harder to "play the system" looking for a win. |
|
... Hey Walterman- I'm curious, what do you think of the LORD OF THE RINGS board game? |
|
re:Hey Walterman- I'm curious, what do you think of the LORD OF THE RINGS board game? I enjoy playing it with expansions. But I enjoy a wide range of games: Samurai, On the Underground, Princes of Florence, Betrayal at House on the Hill, Diplomacy, Republic of Rome, Kingmaker, Pax Romana, Arkham Horror, Brass, Byzantium, Formidable Foes, Industrial Waste, Blue Moon, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, 1825, Civilization, Buck Rogers - Battle for the 25th Century, San Juan, 7 Ages, Hollywood Blockbuster, Revolution: the Dutch Revolt, Marvel Heroes, Runebound, Rumis, Go, and so on. I also dislike a wide range of games: Chess, Puerto Rico, War of the Ring, Aqua Romana, Bohnanza, Axis and Allies, Napolean at at War - Four Battles, Race for the Galaxy, History of the World, Imperial, Amun-Ra, Medici, Evo, Hey! That's My Fish!, No Thanks, Settlers of Catan, Can't Stop, Age of Renaissance, Iliade, British Rails, Great Wall of China, Gloria Mundi, Hell Rail, Nobody But Us Chickens, Cash 'n Guns, A Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings without expansions, and so on. I cite the list of games because I don't think my opinion of the game is that important (ie I think it is a bad predictor for what other people might like). I enjoy it with expansions and find it a bit boring with just the base game.
I quoted Ken because I basically agree with the parts I included (I omitted some part claiming that these feelings the game engenders are theming). I do feel like that when I play LotRs. I enjoy the experience (playing with at least 1 expansion helps with this immersion for me). It seems like immersion in an abstract system (I get get very immersed in Go, Samurai, and other abstracts). But my interest in this topic has drifted from "LotRs: thematic or not" to "theme: subjective or objective". If theme is totally subjective then Ameritrash can't really be defined by "strong" themes. It is competition that then defines it. And Matt's article is then spot on (saying that only the AI of Arkham is of high enough caliber to have a chance of being AT). I'll continue to enjoy LotRs with expansions, if it's thematic or not. And if it is Ameritrash or not. |
|
... I think Matt lays it out pretty effectively....a good game is a good game, is a good game. The draw to this entire website is an open, critical discussion of games. In many ways, this website is the heir to what I thought Gamefest was so effective at, before the columns shut down. Don't get me wrong. Boardgame News is a great, great website for games. But I'm not quite sure if some of my Boardgame News mates are a bit teed off at me or not for some of the positions I have taken regarding the Euros. Yes, I DO care if I am making them somewhat irritated at times. I am also of the opinion that there is sometimes a defensiveness pervasiveness that arises around the Eurogame genre and its defenders. THAT, I do not understand. At the end of the day, we have to have an honest, open discussion of design elements if we are to seriously advance the hobby. To that end, that is what I like about everyone who posts here: lots of intense, worthwhile discussions but nobody takes it too, too seriously. You learn a lot. And that was represented in this piece. Its interesting because I have never been a "Eurogame" proponent... but nor am I an "Ameritrash" proponent. I AM a "good games" proponent and I think the best games are really yet to come. But to do anything new and exciting in this hobby, there is are going to have to be a reckoning.... a conglomeration of design methodologies and philosophies between both "camps". I think this group, faster than anyone, truly realizes that. Well discussed article. Excellent reasoning on both sides of the opinion aisle. Sincerely, Cartoon Head. : ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
