Mr. Barnes Quite Busy, But Nothing Stops "The Publish" Hot

No kidding with all the Euro's aiming to strip as much of the player interaction OUT of multi-player games as possible. What got me into boardgaming as an adult hobby was the social aspects of sitting around a game of Catan, Risk, and so on. Now I go to game nights and have to sit at the table quietly calculating stuff in my head with hardly anyone talking. Which was also part of the attraction to Ameritrash for me. AT games seem more about having fun with the other players than simply trying to out-analyze them.

The idea of enhancing board gaming with the use of up-to-date technology is an interesting one, but then in the article Barnes goes on to list a bunch of games that tried and failed for various reasons. To develop custom electronics for a game skyrockets the overhead, making it mostly not feasible for the hobby market. There is the option of developing software for existing tech devices for use in your game, but then you are shrinking your market to those that own and want to operate such a device inside of thier gaming, and again shrinking an already small market is not something hobby publishers can afford to do. So I think any innovation in this area will likely be left to mass market publishers. Fortunetly both games you named as successful in this regard in the past came from mass market publishers. I wouldn't count out the notion of a great board game that also makes good use of digital tech coming down the line from one of them.

freaky.....I picked up a copy of The Omega VIrus at a flea market for 5 bux this weekend. It was a leap of faith, as the box was sealed, but it paid off. I have a complete 100% functioning copy of this game. I will not ever be my top choice but retains quite a bit of charm.

Oh man I loved Omega Virus! What a cool game.

Barnes has some really good points. Why we don't see more AT style games on these systems is beyond me. Actually it was seeing the Tablescapes guys at Carnegie Mellon working on Dungeons and Dragons implementation on Microsoft's Surfacescapes touch table thing that made me go out on a limb and apply to their Masters in Entertainment Technology program. I was already planning on applying to some graphic design programs at Carnegie Mellon so I said "What the hell?"

I'm glad Barnes made mention of the new Clue. Has anybody tried that out? I was almost tempted to pick it up from the store one night. I'd like to see more board games or board-type games for the iPhone/iPod Touch, but in reality I think they would best shine on Apple's mythical tablet whenever it comes out. The iTouch is just too small for everyone to see at once or to display things like a big world map. Not that games can't be designed around that, of course.

I have to agree with Mike on this one. I 've been playing some DARKWIND:WAR ON WHEELS quite a bit over the past two weeks and it represents the perfect implementation of what he's talking about in my humble opinion.

Basicaly, it's CAR WARS on steroids, with realistic physics, turn based and fully automated and animated by the server. So what you have, instead of looking up a bunch of CRTs, rolling a bunch of dice, having a lengthy argument about how rule 2.1 b was or should be applied to the present situation, you have a animated sequence showing your car being blown to shit by a Heavy Machine Gun, explaining how easily your, now, non-existent armor was punched through , and how your charcter has a whole where hisn stomach once was making him very, very dead.

It's a brilliant game that does away with all the fucking book keeping that would be involved with a game of the same level of depth and complexity by allowing your computer to do all the heavy lifting while you make the decisions and enjoy the show.

By subscribing to the site it allows you to fully immerse yourself in the MMO, with scouting missions between towns, and a real-time economy.

Simply outstanding stuff. If this is the future of our hobby- then I'm all for it.

Reasons this isn't happening:

1. Software is expensive and complicated.
2. If you sell software, you'll probably need to pay someone to provide technical support to your customers. That's expensive.
3. Software needs to be localized to each country in which it is sold, because of differences of language and cultural conventions.
4. Software is inherently obsolescent. Boardgames last forever. If you have a hybrid app/board game and the the software part of it is designed to run on a device that nobody uses anymore, the whole thing is useless.
5. There are distribution problems. If a boardgame requires an iPhone app, then you want to be relatively certain that Apple will be willing to allow your app into the iTunes store before you manufacture your game. But why would Apple approve an app that exists to support a physical product that doesn't yet exist?
6. If you've done all the things you need to do to sell software then why bother with the boardgame aspect of the business? You're a software publisher now. You don't need to sell cardboard.

Juniper's #6 is the biggest thing I see being a roadblock. What is the point of doing both? Even the example you give in the article of World of Warcraft -- what is the motivation to go back to anything that doesn't take care of everything over the internet. Xbox live does it great for a non-PC platform.

So what is the motivation to play face to face games while introducing software? What is the advantage of doing the bookkeeping on a machine and playing on the table? Usually, if one is willing to go through the effort to set up a game (like Arkham Horror) then they are looking for the more tactile experience of bookkeeping, etc. Otherwise, everyone would just log-in at 8pm and get ready for a 4 hour raid.

Barnes is perhaps a little bit behind the times:

Look at www.yvio.com

It is a boardgame console. Standalone electronic gizzy with an sd card interface. Games for it come with boards, pieces, and an SD card with the code. There is bugger all for support or information on it that isn't in German. The games tend to run all family oriented.

Also, there is an awe-inspiring implementation of D&D 4e for Microsoft Surface. Games for that are far more appealing sounding.

And I have played with Ex-illis. Cute, but...odd. You don't really need the pieces and board which makes the entire thing somewhat silly.

For the life of me I don't understand why no one is releasing board games with web pages to manage the grunt work. No computer screen can give you the vast display of information that is required for TI3 or heck even Imperial or Agricola for that matter. What makes a board game a manageable experience is the ability to look at the equivalent of a 110" screen with exceptionally high definition and clarity.

But -- a small computer screen could add tremendous value, managing card decks and dice rolls, or providing other external influences on the game such as story developments or events to take into consideration in the play.

A hybrid between the two mediums could greatly lift the ceiling, provide a point of common interest (imagine a TI3 community discussing recent events in the Imperium when not playing) and would have the added advantage of driving highly-defined eyeballs to a web site for marketing opportunities.

S.

Sag -- that is a good idea. In a recent D&D campaign, we wrote a quick program to handle all the DM die rolls for hordes of monsters, and it worked pretty well.

I have to agree with Sag about expanding and providing additional content for setting etc would be the way to go. I think to implement Barnes' idea a web-based brower support service or application is the way to go. This could be sold as a service or fee per use (wouldn't you spend a buck to have a system manage all the gates in Arkham horror?) The game companies get a new revenue stream, the players get some of the tedium of system management taken care of for them.

What keeps TWI3 and AH from getting on the table with me is not love of the systems but set up time, explaining the rules, running through them myself and teaching new players. Having a lap top managing some of the grunt work would seriously shorten the games. The player would still get the tactile experience without the tedium of mechanically chugging through the actions of the board itself

I have to agree with Sag about expanding and providing additional content for setting etc would be the way to go. I think to implement Barnes' idea a web-based brower support service or application is the way to go. This could be sold as a service or fee per use (wouldn't you spend a buck to have a system manage all the gates in Arkham horror?) The game companies get a new revenue stream, the players get some of the tedium of system management taken care of for them.

What keeps TWI3 and AH from getting on the table with me is not love of the systems but set up time, explaining the rules, running through them myself and teaching new players. Having a lap top managing some of the grunt work would seriously shorten the games. The player would still get the tactile experience without the tedium of mechanically chugging through the actions of the board itself

Oh, fuck all that.

If you can't be bothered to get some people together in a room, draw your own cards, and roll your own dice, then just_play_video_games. You're not playing a complex and detailed game if the computer's doing all the work for you, you're playing a simple game that uses complex calculations. We cardboard-loving dinosaurs call that "abstraction," which is exactly what it is regardless of whatever spin you'd like to put on it. ASL isn't a complicated game because it takes so much detail into account when depicting a battle, it's complicated because you have to pay attention to all that stuff.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not tabletop gaming is culturally relevant. It's not for everybody, and if it's got to change to the point where it barely resembles what it is now to gain wider acceptance with numbskull teenagers who get suicidal after watching Avatar, then I'm glad it's not. And while we're on the subject, the vast ass majority of video games aren't cultrually relevant either. The number of titles which have had any cultural impact outside of the people already involved in that hobby (admittedly, a much bigger number of people that tabletop gamers) can be counted on one hand, same as board games.

I like that playing board games is not an every day thing for me. I simply don't need to be playing games every spare moment of my life. Right now, I get to play once a week at the most, and it's great. I have something to look forward to all week. Yes, the games themselves are a big part of it, but it's also the gathering. "But, but, you can socialize over the internet, too!" No, you can't. Putting someone on your buddy list is not the same thing as inviting a friend or co-worker to your home, and introducing them to new people.

I'll vote 'no' to this idea.

Besides some ideas expressed above:

When we game we usually have some music on and are getting a bit hammered. I don't want to lose those aspects of the evening so I can hear some crappy recording yell "Green sector is shutting down!" or some crap.

Also, house ruling may be a bit problematic if you start passing over actions and mechanics to WOPR.

Third, there's always the 'spectre of the programmer' going on that folks will complain about.

And I think those of us that boardgame actually _like_ the feel of wood/plastic/chits etc. There's just something nice about have a real tangible object in hand to fiddle with while gaming that would be lost. With everything else going virtual, I like to lay out a board and set the pieces up. It's relaxing in a way that booting up a pc or console isn't.

To Billyz point, I'd much rather check a CRT and narrate the result as I see fit then watch some crappy cut scene that I'll want to skip after repeated plays. No thanks.

And everyone thinking that adding in some handheld app or something is going to bring in the masses, is delusional. "Hey want to come over to my place to play TI4? First you need to understand 40 pages of rules, then download..." Wrong answer. The ease of entry is even worse. Add to that companies will start adding bonuses and crap to those gamers that log in more hours, have more nuyen, or what not.

And for the record, Ex Illis isn't going to work. For a similar reason that pre-painted wargames never will. As a long time GW player, it's not the 'awesome gameplay' that keep people coming back, it's the hobbying. GW has killed it's GTs, but the Indy scene is going stronger than ever. Folks _like_ to actually spend time painting models to then show off and play with their friends. This can't be replicated with Ex Illis, or Armies of Arcadia, or any other disposable army game that companies keep thinking they can make to be more 'accessible'. You need a rabid player base to keep these games going, and folks spending crazy hours building lists, assembling models, painting armies, etc are going to also have enough drive to organize play. No one is playing Arcadia unless the LGS is running some company sanction tourney with prize support. That's artificial and won't last (see: Heroclix). Hell, look at Bloodbowl, _no_ real support for years, yet it's fans continue to run world-wide events and make all types of crazy teams and conversions.

And Finally to all this talk of videogames being so much more 'innovative' than boardgames I'm calling bullshit. True, this was not the point of the topic, but this sentiment has been bandied about over the past 6 months. Last month I was at my neighbors and he wanted to show me Modern Warfare 2, supposedly the new hotness. Besides being pretty, the gameplay was the same as shooters were 10 years ago when I was shooting up buddies in Goldeneye. Sure some of the subject matter was more intense, but the gameplay really wasn't any different. I didn't need a tutorial at all, I got the hang of the controls as soon as I found out which button shoots, which jumps, which runs, which changes guns, which crawls, etc all the same crap even same strategies. And the best fighting game this gen? SF IV which really isn't all that different than II but sure looks nice.

So, I'm failing to see how boardgames are falling behind when it comes to innovation compared to videogames. Videogames seem to only have gotten better graphically, but so have boardgames. Sure videogames sell more, but that's because we've become lazy. I don't think this is a direction we should continue to encourage, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

And you know what? Who gives a flying fuck if videogames sell more? If boardgame companies make enough to stay in business and make a little profit that's all they need. This comparison is like apples to oranges anyway. For all the punk talk around here, I'm a bit shocked at this. I mean, this would be like bitching at Fugazi because they didn't move as many units as Fall-Out Boy. Two totally different things, man.

Looks like mjl and I posted about the same time.

I'd like to add, split a case of beers, create new in-jokes, etc. No way is it the same.

Jack:

ExIllis actually has REALLY nice minis, and oversized terrain boards. I still don't think it will survive, mostly becuase it just doesn't have the distribution and support.

Jack and MJ:
The one thing electronic elements add is complexity without sacrificing playability. You can put a sophisticated subset of rules in the device. Exillis might be one of the most complex minis games around, even though movement and combat are restricted to a 5x4 grid. Playing it is not hard at all, the rulebook is PDF, and you have to download it to play it extremely competitively--but I have yet to.

That's why Microsoft Surface-based games look so appealing. Especially for minis games. Imagine a situation where you can have real pieces, a dynamic board that adapts to the situation, and actual people. Forget the whole cutscene and dreck that comes along with videogames. Think about something on the labyrinthine complexity of Disgaea played face to face.

Here's something that might interest those in favor of new technology:
http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/16/view/8504/scope-augmented-reality- game.html

Make sure to check out the video at the bottom of the page.

The only video games that can approach the level of social interaction that board games give are the ones like Rock Band. As long as you are primarily interacting with other people through the medium of the video game, there is a disconnect between people. It's a much different thing to shoot your friend in a FPS or destroy his base in a RTS than it is to look him in the eye and move all your armies across his border after convincing him that you were on his side just 10 minutes ago, or negotiate a possibly-game-deciding deal with two other players at the end of a tense board game.

I can see the use in helper programs for games like Arkham or Twilight Imperium. The thing that puts me off adding an electronic component to board games is the need for a device and all that entails. It means you need to have a device that can run the software. If it's not a handheld widget, you need to make room at the table for it. You have to make sure power needs are covered. Those are just enough additional steps to playing board game that I don't want to have deal with them.

One of these days, we're going to play Blood Feud in New York again. But first, I'm going to do a spreadsheet to simplify the buying process. Just type in your desired quantities of whatever items to get a total cost.

The last time I played (the best rail game) Silverton I used the spreadsheet that does all the market calculation shit for the commodities on my laptop - as well as saving time it gave the game a bit more theme (OK - who sniggered !?)
Pity I'll never find enough players to get it out again :'( .

In my opinion Microsoft's Surface is DOA from a gaming perspective. Total Cost of ownership is through the roof and what you get in return is a colder, flatter, less readable layout that requires robotic response to make work properly. This is the part of boardgaming where everything is working correctly -- material components are presenting the intellectual information in an easy-to-manage package and require minimal change. This part of the revolution has already happened.

What remains is the automation of the tedium. This isn't enrichment, it's toolset. Take away the hassle of scorekeeping and shuffling, figuring out the the bullshit. In fact it may be as simple as automating the rulebook --> "End of turn 3. Turn 4, place the General Washington marker on Boston, each side takes seven chits for reinforcements and places them on existing positions. Stack limit limit is five units now. Random weather value for turn 4 is : Snow. Snow limits movement -- all movement actions are cut in half for the duration of this turn."

This is the crap that keeps your head in the rulebook instead of the game and a LOT of it can be automated to keep people's eyes and ears on the board and each other. A tutorial version of the game could be used for first time players and be more detailed and interactive. A tight version could be available for expert players. Long-arc stories could be added to existing rule sets that would add richness to the play without being overbearing. And (here's the big one) this can be delivered today, with today's hardware. A laptop or perhaps an iPhone could serve as a butler for the game with pretty linear, low-risk level of effort, delivered via nearly-static web pages. As best I can tell no one is touching this idea right now in spite of it being well in reach.

S.

Surface is painfully expensive. The idea for games on such a device is appealing, but the reality is not there.

Having a small portable device for a game is still appealing. That's what is nice about Ex-Illis (Iphone) and Yvio (small electronics module that supports a number of games.) Those two models actually seem almost practical, although the current business models for those two products looks pointless.

Frank:

Right Exillis may have great looking minis, but from my understanding of the game, they aren't really needed, so what's the point? And dynamic surfaces is nice and all, but is it as satisfying as playing in a 3-d ruined village that you and your buddies created? I'm not so sure. There's a sense of accomplishment and achievement with minis game that doesn't look to be replicated with Exillis or Arcadia.

What LordVontush linked to looks kind of interesting, but the same result can be had with a ruler and a few d6s. This too though looks more like a new twist on videogames. I feel like part of the charm of board/card gaming is the drama in finding the result. That slight hesitation before the flip of the card or roll of the die is where a lot of suspension hangs. I haven't found this replicated in any video format.

And it will remain that way because of the cost vs return. Even a very basic interface can have a significant cost for a software engineer to plan, develop, test (this is the biggest one) and support. If you give it away for free then it is additional overhead that will be passed on in the form of price increases for the boardgames. If you charge for it, even a small fee, then you also have to develop or purchase a user managment system (website) or some form of copyright control (app) which then increases the cost of the service. Given how cheap most boardgamers are, the pay option runs a substantial risk of demand seriously under-running projections and losing money, which has to be made up with price increases on the next boardgame.

Regardless, using an program for a tabletop game has the issue of doing the same thing twice, once in the game and once in the program. (there are exceptions) This leads to how to deal with mistakes, do you change the board or the program? It may not be a big deal, depending on how many turns you have to go back, but it's frustrating either way.

Also, there will always be some people who love it, some who hate it and a lot inbetween. Forcing people to use electronics, like Ex-illis, will lose the business of the hate it group and some of the inbetweeners.

Jack H Said...

The last time I played Omega Virus we had drinks and music going and had no problem playing it. It is a quick beer and pretzels filler game with a great theme. The electronic bits only help make it play faster and add flavor to the game. Have you ever actually played it? Seriously? It is probably one of the fastest AT games ever but is more fun because of the electronics not in spite of them.

MOTO:

Yes, I have played Omega Virus, and it is indeed fun, but in the way something light like Drakon is. It's not something I'd pull out all the time. A game like Omega Virus is kind of gimmicky to me. Fun for once in a while play, but I wouldn't want boardgames as a whole to move in this direction.

Considering that it was a mass market game and that almost every mass market game strips down rulesets to bare minimums it isn't the game it could have been. Considering the bargain basement prices you can get it at now I think it provides alot of fun for the dollar. Sure it's gimmicky, but doesn't it convey the theme of a corrupted or uncorrupted space station and a race to fix it with the timed elements and oldstyle cheesy computer voice? This was a 1992 game, I think, they could do so much more with much less now. Reducing some of the bookwork/setup of more complex games could get them on the table more and reduce the play time without sacrificing much.

I still do a fair amount of split-screen gaming with friends sometimes. So Rock Band is not the only social video game, just I think more current games go for the online option and downplay a split-screen one if they have it at all. Whether co-operative or competitive, split-screen is definitely more social than online gaming. I've tried playing board games online either live or pbem and its just not a fun experience for me.

I've played RPG sessions where not just the GM, but every player had a laptop in front of them. I think that makes sense for an RPG as there is a lot more upkeep required and if you're networked the GM can send maps and pics of monsters and such to people, which can actually be pretty cool. But would playing via webcam be the same, probably not. There's just something about having other human beings in the same room that online gaming will never be able to duplicate even with webcams and headsets.

I'm with others who don't think board games need to be culturally relevant. Combining them with technology just doesn't seem warranted. For all the reasons already mentioned. Also, I think using a computer to do stuff for TI3 and such is more likely to lead people away from board games and into turn-based PC games. You've already put all the mechanics into a computer for a game so why not just put the board into one too and play Master Of Orion or Space Empires, both of which give you way more options than TI3 does.

Any word on the new Barnes addition?

Spawned Thursday eve. Looks creepy and slightly alien like most newborns, and obviously I'm not a good judge of such things.
Got a pic emailed, and one or two short iphone messages.

Thanks for the update Frank.

What strikes me about Barnes' article is that he doesn't seem to have ever picked up a PC game published by a company like Matrix or HPS or anywhere else John Tiller has published a game. They recreate the table-top consim experience (right down the unbelievably ugly--but cheap to produce--graphics) without having to remember all those nasty little rules exceptions that you when your rulebook has paragraphs numbered down to a level like "33.b.2.a sub-bullet 4." Thing is, they're actually kind of hard to play well unless you read the rules...which are as granular in detail as anything pre-Hasbro Avalon Hill ever published. I certainly do enjoy games like these if only for the ability to *always* have an AI opponent on hand who can't say "nope, I'm tired of fighting the battle of Germantown; let's play something else tonight." Sadly, there are no card-driven games out there yet, but I don't see why Matrix can't come up with one.

That said, make no mistake that these games are a replica of, and replacement for, a boardgame of the same ilk--and they do actually require you to read--and know--the rules because the computer isn't going to tell you when you've made an invalid move; it simply prevents it. In addition, it does nothing but exploit you if you make a really stupid move because you forgot, say, the exceptions to the terrain and cover rules that severely penalize their defense in certain types of cover.

However, if it's not about "helper apps" (like the ASL combat calculator that TAHGC sold years ago still floating around out there or the killer Silverton "market simulator" Tom mentioned above) or gimmick games (like Omega Virus) but some sort of true "hybrid game" in the Ex Illis model, I'd really like to know which boardgame company (aside from Hasbro) out there has the financial and human capital in-house to go down this route. FFG might, but software and hardware development require a hell of a lot of very different resources--and even a different corporate management approach--than most of these shops have on-hand.

To look at Ex Illis, I can see some answers out of their FAQ that illustrate the utter pointlessness of "hybrid boardgames" and how ill-conceived (not a word I use much with Barnes) the whole concept:

While I find Steam's (and now Microsoft's) absolute requirement for a dedicated 'net connection just to play the solo game (e.g., if you bought an honest-to-god physical media package for HalfLife2 and installed it just as you had done for every game you bought in the pre-Steam era but couldn't "validate" Half-Life 2 via Steam, you *could not play the game*) I'm at least sitting in front of the computer at the time and might possibly want to play some multiplayer rounds online. So, ok, yea, I'll fire up the network and let this thing call home to mommy so I can get a signed permission slip to play the game I paid for.

Now, I buy a boardgame that comes with an app. I set up the board, get a quick read of the rules....and discover that I have to load this software. Ok...

Now here's the interesting part:

Read that closely--now tell me why I need their board or miniatures? If I have their mystical application, I don't see why I couldn't play the game with a stack of 4x6 notecards and an old chess set.

The application, on the other hand is crucial because they've created a ruleset that's apparently so ridiculously complex that it can only be handled by computer.

So, now we've got a "boardgame" where the board and pieces are actually nearly pure chrome. What's the target audience for this? Videogamers who are so illiterate that they can't comprehend anything longer than a 3-word on-screen pop-up or remember it for more than 1 minute (it amazes me, e.g., that at least half the shooters jointly released on consoles and PC have no means [on the PC anyway] for turning off their "helpful"--and constant--reminders to do shit like RELOAD that are always in the middle of the damned screen)? Or is it boardgamers so unbelievably corpulent that they get winded trying to roll dice?

In the end, the tactile element and social aspects *are* the essence of boardgaming. The thing that separates Cyberboard and VASSAL from videogaming is that neither enforce rules nor provide an AI opponent. They are merely digital equivalents of what you get out of the cardboard box. While they allow me to play a game I might not have a local F2F opponent for, they certainly don't allow me to play the game solo. So, while it doesn't have the tactile quality, it absolutely does have a social quality as you do certainly end up chatting with your opponent in-game or via email or even skype as chances are pretty good that the guy who took up my open offer on BGG for a PBEM round of Empire of the Sun probably has at least enough in common with me to maintain pleasant chatter throughout a game--and might even turn out to be someone local who turns into a F2F opponent (has happened 3 times already in the last year). Conversely, the first thing I do when I get onto a multiplayer PC game online is shut off all public voicechat, because the last thing I want is a fucking teleconference of assholes screaming CAPTURE THE FLAG YOU FAGGOTS in my livingroom all night. So, while the tactile is gone in Cyberboard, the social quality really isn't as far as I can see.

The one question that I don't see being addressed by Barnes in any way is this: Had TI3 been released as a PC or console game FIRST, who here would have plunked down $100 for the coffin box + expansion in addition to the $40-60 you dropped on the game? My guess is a number pretty close zero. I've played plenty of PC-based wargames with that recreate tabletop wargaming with a complicated ruleset and a passable AI (and, hey, the PC version of Puerto Rico ain't bad either...it's probably fairly easy to come up with a decent AI when the game is essentially a gussied-up Excel workbook to begin with). Not once, however, have I thought--god, if only I could find a physical copy of this game!

Am I off the mark by reading this article as ultimately being a call to end boardgame publishing because videogames are the only way to go?

I feel that board games should actually go the other way. Make the game so simple, so elegant, so fun, and with such helpful player aids that new players can hop right in and play the real game right away. Take a page out of the Settlers of Catan playbook. Foster player interaction and verbal communication. Use dice and cards in a way that having to spend extra seconds clicking or pressing A gets in the way of the gaming experience. Make more 30-60 minute games so fun and engaging that the introduction to Legend of Zelda or Assassin's Creed become tedious masturbation exercises.

Put me in the cardboard dinosaur camp. If I'm in front of a PC i'll play a computer game (and I don't even like them that much.)
Why on earth does Ex-illis have calculations so complex only a computer can handle them? What the fuck is the point of that? If I can't make the calculation in my head how the fuck am I supposed to know which move is good and which is bad? Talk about stupid.

That said, make no mistake that these games are a replica of, and replacement for, a boardgame of the same ilk--and they do actually require you to read--and know--the rules because the computer isn't going to tell you when you've made an invalid move; it simply prevents it.

The fact of the matter is you're not supposed to just concentrate on tactics when you play ASL. Having to worry about morale, terrain, weather, the date, and all those different modifiers is why that game was designed the way it was. If all Don Greenwood wanted you to do was figure out the best way to get your platoon accross the street into that tractor factory, he would have designed Conflict of Heroes.

The idea that you can just hand the tracking of all that minutae over to a computer and still be playing the same game is fallacious. Yes, and computer could probably calculate the wind's effects on the velocity of 10,000 different bullets being fired from 10,000 different rifles at the same time, but if you're not aware of what the computer's doing, how, and why it's doing it, then what does that detail add to the experience of playing the game?

I don't see how that's really any different from playing Combat Commander, where all the complexity is abstracted to the card decks. You draw an event card, and a fire breaks out in hex E7. What caused it? Doesn't matter. You don't need to worry about it because we've taken all the different variables into account already.

Now, I can certainly see why people don't want to put in the time it takes to learn, and keep track of all that stuff, but that doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with the game, it just means it's not the right game for you.

I don't know if Computer/Boardgame integration is the way of the future, but if it is coming I think it's gonna look pretty much exactly like EX ILLIS.

As handheld devices that can run easily downloable programs become more ubiquitous, games like EX ILLIS will actually become a reasonable venture.

Someone just brings their Cell Phone or whatever along and runs the program.

But really, I see 2 kinds of results of this:

1) Book-keeping programs: Just something that makes it faster to run the game. Less fiddling, less billions of dice rolling, less "reset this counter and that counter and that counter and ...." and so on. Essentially, the game works perfectly fine without the program, the program just lets you play faster as it takes over some of the time-consuming book-keeping.

I think this a great use as it could easily be an extra. Something you could use, but don't have to if you don't want to.

2) Complicated Stuff Programs: These would be ones where the dice rolling or table looking or whatever are just so much easier handled by a computer because they are on the complicated side. This, while less financially viable since it would require the program to run the game, would open up some crazy new possibilities for boardgames.

Of course, with option 2 I think you run the risk of losing something there. One of the real cornerstones of Boardgame creativity is designing a system that runs REALLY REALLY simply but simulates something well. Having a computer along can make designers "sloppy" in that they don't need to worry about abstraction and simplification anymore. In a boardgame YOU the player are the CPU and you don't run all that fast.

This would lead to some changes in boardgame design. Maybe for the better, maybe not. Frankly I think it would just introduce a whole new type of boardgame design and the 2 would easily co-exist.

A boardgame with an iSlate sitting in the middle. Now that would be cool. It could eliminate so much of the annoying overhead associated with dice-rolling, rules lookups, etc.

These siftables might have some cool boardgame application. They talk to each other:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/457

I like electronic-enhanced board games, when they do the job fairly well (noticed I said fairly well- I am easily pleased).
The "crappy voice" telling me green sector is shutting down or such does not bother me- hell, it beats my obnoxious cousin yelling it out in a slurred booze-ridden voice any day of the week.

Craniac, those Siftables look neat. If they were inexpensive enough (not likely in the near future) I could see them being used to construct tile based maps, in which the content of one tile depends on adjacent tiles. The first thing that comes to mind is, say you're making an outdoor map, each tile could represent a terrain type (forest, plains, etc.), which would tend to cluster together. This way you wouldn't have a random mess of forests intermingled with swamps and tundra.

A simpler idea would be for a game like Dungeonquest, automatically orient the tile appropriately. (Not that doing so manually is even remotely difficult.)

More abstractly, they could keep track of the order in which you place the tiles...Don't know if there's any value to that. (Trace a path?)

Back when I attempted to design a MULE board game for some reason, I couldn't solve the problem of laying out Crystite deposits like in the computer game. I think these Siftable doohickeys could do it. In MULE, the map is a grid of land tiles, and some may have Crystite deposits. These locations of these deposits are unknown until you mine the land or sample the soil. Each deposit can have a high, medium or low amount of Crystite. The layout is not a random mess, but rather something like this:

L
LML
LMHML
LML
L

(H=High/M=Medium/L=Low)

Better get back to work before I get carried away here.

I agree with mjl1783. For me, boardgames are way better than computer games because I can understand how they work. In computer games, I cannot understand even how some brainless casual filler like Zuma works: I know nothing about the velocities, angles, rules for resolving conflicts (like "my object is at the midpoint between two possible options"), et cetera, et cetera. Of course, I don't need to know any of this to play and even to play good, but it feels much better when I can understand and appreciate the design and explore the relationships between game entities via understanding and reflection rather than trial and error.

There are good "computer boardgames", though, usually turn-based strategies (Civilization, Heroes of M&M, Panzer General and the like). But they also invariably fall prey to the complexity creep. So call me a luddite, if you will.