ZOMBIE STATE in Review Hot

If World War Z is "poorly written" then so are your columns, dude. You may not like the book, but "poorly written" to me denotes trouble stringing a sentence together.

I'm interested in trying this game out, but if it's that difficult, I don't want to own it. I'm still licking the psychological wounds from Lord of the Rings.

You have to love the irony there...

Nice review, Mike.

Totally fake teeth.

IN MY OPINION, it was poorly written. I didn't feel like the chapters were written by different people or from different perspectives at all and the author engaged in a lot of immature showboating...some of the jokey parts were just plain stupid (hey, I guess that "starlet with chihuahua" must have been Paris Hilton! Hiyo!). The anime chapter was embarassingly bad. And he did that thing where people impose their taste in music in things where it's not warranted...he just HAD to point out that "How Soon is Now" and "Avalon" were played over zombie footage. And I bet he's a big Smiths and Roxy Music fan, although the likelihood of a high school teen singing a Bryan Ferry song for any reason these days is practically zero.

The problem is really the same as this game- great concept, not really enough skill to pull it off. It's easy to confuse "cool" with "good" sometimes, and I think that WORLD WAR Z is a prime example of how a cool idea forgives a lot of not-so-good writing.

Don't get me wrong- there's some really neat stuff in the book. But I wouldn't recommend it to someone who's looking for great writing.

WORLD WAR Z might be a lot of things, but "poorly written" is certainly NOT one of them.

Sorry, I stopped reading the review at that point. It seemed to be another case of insulting just for the sake of insulting. Frankly, that's just gotten so fucking old it defies my ability to describe it in words.

There are actual standards regarding good writing. A well-written book might not be enjoyable to read, due to subject matter or maybe a boring plot. And a poorly-written book might still be enjoyable, due to one particularly good aspect, like funny dialogue or an interesting idea.

Certainly not poorly written. To me, that's like Dan Brown, who's writing is a whole catering service of shit sandwich. World War-Z may not have fired on all cylinders, but it's not on the level of Brown or that Vampire-Book-That-Can-Hardly-Even-Be-Called-Vampire-Book, which shall remain unnamed. Now those books are POORLY WRITTEN.

Regarding the mistakes in Michael's article above, that's my fault. A good editor is important to a writer. I'm not a particularly good editor.

A good game developer is important to a game designer. Personally, I feel that the reason we often see new and interesting ideas poorly executed by self publishers is because they need a developer to work with them.

Well no, neither would I. But I don't think anyone is going to think a book titled "World War Z" is going to be along the lines of Cormac McCarthy or James Joyce.

Anyways, this is another example of a red herring your reviews could do without that distract the conversation from the game reviewed.

Yeah, really...I'm not being insulting, I'm stating an opinion on the book. And it's totally salient, because I think it has the same problem as the game.

It's only insulting if you're somehow emotionally invested in the book. I'm not the only person out there that thinks it's not a very well-written book, you know.

The book strikes me as being very inauthentic, which is probably why every chapter reads like it's written by the same person- when it's supposed to shift viewpoints and characters. It reads like something a middle-class, suburban white guy would write, complete with his personal musical tastes and his naive view of how world politics work.

Sorry if you love it, that's cool and I'm with you on some of the scenes in the book that are really well done like the stuff in India and the Battle of Yonkers...but just because it's a cool story doesn't mean it's a good book, that's all I'm saying. Good writing is Cormac McCarthy, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Gene Wolfe, James Joyce, Jim Thompson, Sam Delaney, Jane Austen...not WORLD WAR Z.

Quoted for truth. Love me some Zombie Flesh Eaters.

Certainly not poorly written. To me, that's like Dan Brown, who's writing is a whole catering service of shit sandwich. World War-Z may not have fired on all cylinders, but it's not on the level of Brown or that Vampire-Book-That-Can-Hardly-Even-Be-Called-Vampire-Book, which shall remain unnamed. Now those books are POORLY WRITTEN.

OK, I'll agree with you there...but you know, there's plenty of people out there who would tell you otherwise...

Metalface- I actually agree with you too, I need to remember that when I'm stating an opinion that doesn't jibe with F:AT sensiblities that it derails the conversation. It's that whole hurt feelings thing again, I suppose.

Regarding the mistakes in Michael's article above, that's my fault. A good editor is important to a writer.

And how. I write all day for a living, it's impossible not to sprinkle typos and other grammatical crap all over the place...you've got to have somebody to catch it, particularly when you're doing a high volume of writing.

A good game developer is important to a game designer. Personally, I feel that the reason we often see new and interesting ideas poorly executed by self publishers is because they need a developer to work with them.

Hey look, talk about the game.

I do think this is a big problem with smaller designs, and it's one we haven't really talked about much in trying to get the little guys more attention. A lot of times with the smaller companies, you do see stuff like ZOMBIE STATE where it feels like it was created in a sympathetic bubble and without some development work, the result can come across as something very insular and with some loss in translation to a larger audience.

The flipside though, is a situation where a game gets OVER-developed, as was the case with DOMINION where there were a lot of hands involved in it and the result may be further away from the original design than was intended.

It's interesting though, because a developer isn't necessarily the same as an editor. So it kind of calls into question the "game designer as author" concept, and presents an argument that game design is actually more of a collaborative process. I think for the past 15 years or so we've gotten used to the idea of the Game Designer, what with his name on the box and all, but in reality they're closer to a screenwriter than a director or a producer. And then there's the whole question of how much_we_ author the games by playing them, and if in fact we are as involved in the creative process as much as the person who's name is on the box.

James Joyce sucks.

Fuck there are a lot of 'precious' pricks reading F:AT these days, as soon as certain people put forward an opinion (including people who EVERYONE knows writes opinion pieces) that upsets them then we have pathetic little sulky-tantrum posts. I'm absolutely sick of immature pathetic cunts tossing their toys again and again - fucking grow up .... if you don't agree just simply say you have a different opinion, give some/lots reasons if you want, and act like a fucking adult.

James Joyce sucks.

He said the same thing about you Bill...but it took him 500 pages.

if you don't agree just simply say you have a different opinion, give some/lots reasons if you want, and act like a fucking adult.

HA! That's not how the internet works!

Um ... saying we have a "different opinion" ... isn't that sort of what we're doing?

Fuck it. I'm just glad to have finally been TOLD what "good writing" is. I think I'll take the bus down to B&N later and see if I can find me some of them-thar writer guys.

Gotta agree with Barnes, Word War Z is pretty crappy writing, the main problem being, as he already pointed out, that there's only one "voice" even though there's supposed to be like 50 different people writing it. And the Zatiochi ripoff? Deep sea divers fighting zombies? Fucking retarded. The first 100 pages were cool, but they really could have cut the book in half and made it way better. Walking Dead it is not.

Can't read the review here at work, but from what I've read it definitely seems like something I WANT to love, but doesn't really sound all that fun.

DAMN IT, I keep forgetting, F:AT no longer wants subjective writing...got to remember to write flavorless objective pieces without committed opinions from now on so as to not offend the readers...

Great review, but the price of the game on the Zombie State website is $59.99 if you're in the US, $69.99 in Canada/Mexico, and $79.99 if you're in Europe. Considering all your points against it, in my opinion that's not "reasonably priced" at all. I'm one of those people who love games with a DIY look and feel, but the game can't be priced the same or higher than the latest Days of Wonder games. That's when production values and quality game design begin to count for me.

Interesting review. I played this and I enjoyed the desperation of trying to contain the outbreaks, making do with the limited (and shrinking) resources on hand and looking for ways to bring yourself back from the brink. The relentless nature of the zombies in the game captures the theme for me (I haven't read WWZ yet so I can't compare it to that).

I'm a big supporter of small press games and I'll take the rough edges for some interesting game play, not to mention that these publishers are usually the most responsive (Small Box Games springs to mind, sending rule revisions out without asking). Overall, this game works for me and I'd recommend it.

I didn't take the "diplomacy of the dead" that literally, but I can see where it can cause confusion. It felt more like the sense of fatalism found when dealing with the undead (such as the only diplomacy a zombie understands is shotgun or a nuke, using the cover imagery of course).

That's a good point that I didn't really consider, in comparison to a like-priced DoW game it doesn't look like such a value, does it?

But it is somewhere that economy of scale has to enter into the equation. I don't know how many copies of the game were printed (I'd guess between 500-1000), so it's tough to really hold a DoW print run (which could be 25,000 or even 50,000 copies) against the smaller game. For a DIY production at this level, it is a good value and it does have a good component density and the quality is good.

The bigger question there is if someone working at this level in the hobby should scale down and _not_ compete with the FFGs and DoWs in terms of component quality but instead take them on by offering similar kinds of games at substantially lower prices?

I see what you're saying though, if you're looking at the $60 DoW game on the shelf and ZOMBIE STATE, there is clearly a disparity.

People get so worked up when others say something they like isn't "good". It doesn't have to be. We all like our own kind of pulp. Some people want fantasy race X sticking a sword in fantasy race y, and some want chaste vampires who are all kissy-kissy. Whatever. Pulp can be fun and pulp has its place. Yet that doesn't mean a fun idea in a book equates to the book being well written, and it doesn't mean that acknowledging such makes a person elitist.

Well, World War Z isn't my favorite book of all time, so I don't know why I'm getting defensive about it. I think it's just a reflex to your response to anything zombie related in popular culture. It's just with the exception of the two chapters you mentioned, I think World War Z does a much better job of sticking to the Romero zombie themes rather than the memes of Plants vs. Zombies, Hello Kitty zombies, etc. And even Dawn and Day of the Dead had their silly zombie moments.

Mentioning the book in your review is OK I suppose, I just felt the interjection of "poorly written" in the opening paragraph was unnecessary but your opinions of the book would work better later in the review when you really start analyzing things in Zombie State.

Dare I perpetuate the zombies in popular culture topic more? I've got high hopes for AMC's adaption of The Walking Dead.

using the cover imagery of course

But the cover image shows what appears to be a Greek man sticking his finger in a soldier's rifle. Is that the titular "Diplomacy of the Dead"?

@Southernman, sorry, I didn't realize I was throwing a temper tantrum.

For sure, and it was a fun read too, it just wasn't exceptionaly well written and needed some fat trimmed off it to cut out some of the more redundant/retarded stories. And I can't wait for the Walking Dead show, it may just restore my faith in the genre.

I think we can expect good things from the Walking Dead show, the source material is great and AMC's Mad Men is phenomenal and I've heard nothing but good things about Breaking Bad.

Frank Darabont is involved too, there's lots of talent behind it.

My wife could have worked on it, but she had a couple of other gigs going on so she couldn't do it. It's shooting here in Atlanta.

WTF why didn't you just make her dude? This whole time you coulda been getting insider info. You're letting F:AT down man... :P

Appears to be, but actually is not -- two overlapping graphics. Not the greatest box cover, but then again I'm pretty forgiving of this. And I don't play the box cover.

When's the Small Box Games review coming? You've been teasing that one for ages. Lots of people around here having been talking about Irondale, but I'd like to hear more about the other games.

"Um ... saying we have a "different opinion" ... isn't that sort of what we're doing?"

I guess what Southernman was asking for is more, for example:

"Screw you Barnes, I like World War Z and you don't know shit. Also your photo on gameshark is fucking ugly."

and less:

"I think I'll take the bus down to B&N later and see if I can find me some of them-thar writer guys."

passive-aggressiveness.

When's the Small Box Games review coming?

Dang it, I saw John last night and I meant to ask him when his next preorder window is...I want to time it so folks can get in on his next print runs. Probably not next week (BoW more than likely),but after if it matches with his schedule.

People get so worked up when others say something they like isn't "good". It doesn't have to be. We all like our own kind of pulp. Some people want fantasy race X sticking a sword in fantasy race y, and some want chaste vampires who are all kissy-kissy. Whatever. Pulp can be fun and pulp has its place. Yet that doesn't mean a fun idea in a book equates to the book being well written, and it doesn't mean that acknowledging such makes a person elitist.

Well said, Mr. Bistro.

It's like the current trashdome about Rush... yes, some of their songs are very well-crafted, and their technical proficiency at playing their instruments is solid. But sometimes I just want to hear a shitty punk rock song that's fast and wild and makes me feel alive, even if they play badly.

First, WWZ is indeed well-written, and I enjoyed it both times I've read it. I read a tremendous amount due to my second home being an airplane and my third being hotel rooms. That being said, hey, opinions are like assholes; we all have them and most everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

I've got two on the Circus, Irondale and Politico:FoC, and John is sending me more games shortly:
http://superflycircus.blogspot.com/2010/04/politico-fall-of-caesar-small-box- game.html

Schweig! said:

I'm glad someome else said what I was thinking.

After all the crap over who has the best definition of this and that, in MY opinion I thought the best thought provoking bit of MB's review was that 'we should be supporting these new-publishers with fresh ideas so they can develop into better designers BUT do I buy a product that isn't quite there and/or that I know that I will not enjoy playing'.
From the 3 or 4 reviews I have read I know that the multi-player solitaire aspect of me would send me catatonic and I would covertly (maybe even overtly) play so bloody badly iwth the aim of losing my regions asap to end the game.

Actually, now that you pointed that post out...

That picture does make you look like a douche. In fact, it makes you look like a guy I got charged with ADW for when I broke his shit loose.... You didn't change your name from Randy or go to Hoover Middle School, did you?

Get a better photo, man. A professional writer shouldn't look like a San Diego homeless person.

I like the book and the game so fuck you man.

I've played this 5 times so far, and never personally experienced a position where I was completely or partially screwed or behind the curve.

The thing is, it is a puzzle game, and a really freaking hard one. In order to do well, you have to spend an inordinate amount of time counting zombies and work out the moves of a group of zombies.

The actual end result has a moderately small amount of randomness, with a few tweaks introduced each turn. Those tweaks are not overly chaotic for the most part.

The thing is, the number of options, and the movement is just complex enough to be nearly random for a lot of people. New players CAN be easily screwed, but the game is learnable. But still hard.

Which means that I'm quite fond of it. Totally my sort of game.

I like the book and the game so fuck you man.

This is all internet discussion forums distilled down to the purest form. All we need now is a nekkid picture.

Nice job pointing that out Southernman. I'm all for supporting the little guy, but there's got to be good substance, not just to support the little guy for the sake of being the little guy. Case in point, Colby Dauch and Summoner Wars. The game is a blast and the components are great, that map is a little off but doesn't detract from my fun. So I'll totally support him.

I started writing a more reasoned discourse, but then the majority of my points had already been made, so I thought succinctness was best.

The more I play I am developing a similar opinion to Frank, whereby the game is not too difficult and is more of a solvable puzzle. The key is making very good decisions in the first two turns reducing the first 3 outbreaks down to one, but if you don't you get severely screwed by the game system and the situation becomes very unmanageable, very quickly.

Tom has a great point. We can talk all we want about supporting smaller publishers, but it falls on them to deliver the goods. I'm definitely not for playing sub-par or poorly designed games just to stick it to the man. The little guys need to look at trends, what's going on in the industry, and what the big designers are doing. It's not enough to put out a cool-looking or sounding game. It's got to have what it takes to compete in terms of gameplay and quality.

SUMMONER WARS is a great example. They've put out a great product that is not only absolutely competitive with FFG, Z-Man, Asmodee, and so on, but it's also one that has differentiators that set it apart from what they're doing.

Who's Tom?

Tom is SouthernMan. However, I am not Steve.

Ah, I thought Tom Vassel had slipped into the conversation somewhere.

As far as the "Raised/Razed Border" thing goes, I believe it is because you can raise (or place) a border with the action as well as raze (or remove) a border with the action.

I like this game a lot better than Pandemic (which feels too much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle) and I do appreciate how a lot of the game is about herding the zombies away from your occupied regions (preferably toward opponents occupied regions) but I do agree there are times I was wishing for more capability to interact with other players (as Europe I could do nothing to stop South America's dominance--what happened to ICBMs for the nukes?).

T

Ah, yeah, that makes sense then...I was overlooking that you can raze the borders too.

I don't like this game better than PANDEMIC at all. PANDEMIC is much more tightly focused. The idea of having the tech trees, several available actions, and all that is really cool but it creates situations where there is literally too much to do. It's easy to say that you want the freedom to do all this stuff, but in terms of gameplay it winds up overloading you with possibilties. I think if some of the resource costs were less to do some of the things, it would probably make a big difference.

Every game I've played (of five), there's been at least one person that is almost practically DOA. And I'm not exactly sure that it always has to do with their choices. Sure, if you play the game 10 times you might get "better" at it, but the question remains if it's worth playing 10 times to begin with, or if you are likely to ever get to play it 10 times.

I always viewed the raised/razed thing as representing two different ways of stopping the zombies from crossing a border. Either you put a big wall there or create a huge wasteland on the border with no incentive for the zombies to cross.

The tech trees are what make the game playable multiple times. It allows what I like to call 'ownership of playstyle'. Everyone can develop their own way of playing the game, go for a more military plan, raise your borders, keep the number of zombies low with vaccination, etc.

I get the impression that you don't like the game because it was so close to what you wanted but not quite there so you focus on the negatives more than the positives. It has hit some kind of gaming uncanny valley. It has more interaction than games you do like, such as Agricola, a good theme and a huge variety of ways of playing. I do give it an 8 or 9 out of 10, and there is no chance of it disappearing from my collection any time soon.

As I have said in various places it really reminds me of one of my old favourites: San Juan. You can play it in a variety of ways, you have to cope well with the randomness present in the game and adapt to the challenges thrown up, different numbers of players change the game a lot, there is less direct interaction but it is noticeably present and you can force the other players to change their game to accommodate you. However my wife and I used to play San Juan a lot but don't anymore. We both developed good ways of playing the game and it tended to mean that we both played it the same way each time. Also the interaction did become problematic as if someone was doing really well or really badly not much could be done to change the game state.

But, to me the core game is strong enough that if there is an expansion to either of these games that brought more change into the way you are allowed to play that would both be up there with my other 10s. I think that Zombie State really needs an expansion where there are a few more tech trees, (but you still only get to use 3 per game, forcing you to play differently each time), and that allowed a touch more interaction, and allowed the territories to shift during the game (Africa is always Africa and it would be good to shift your area of control northward if Europe was weak).

DAMN IT, I keep forgetting, F:AT no longer wants subjective writing...got to remember to write flavorless objective pieces without committed opinions from now on so as to not offend the readers...I mean, I know what I write is the Voice of God and all, but I don't want to hurt feelings...

Mike, I really do appreciate the uncompromising manner in which you deliver your opinions. That's not sarcasm, I mean it. It's one of the driving reason why I come here and why I read your reviews every week: There's no bullshit. But it's sort like you told Aldie at TOS...You can't have a community of people talk about their opinions without opening yourself for some harsh criticism. Now I'm not really criticizing you for saying that a book was poorly written, but I, and I'm sure everyone else, is going to give our opinion in an similar, uncompromising fashion. Or at least that's the intent, I know mine is anyway. Anyone saying "No, Barnes, you're wrong, I'm right, how dare you tell me what's what" needs stop being a bitch or go to a different website that doesn't involve communication with other human beings.

F:AT is heavily made up of like-minded individuals like yourself. Alot of us removed ourselves from TOS because we were tired of not being able to speak in an environment that understood we want to express our opinions in way that shows that we believe them to be fact, that toning it down so that someone doesn't get hurt is lame. You sound off against some pretty well-liked stuff. Of course you're going to get a reaction.

Hell, man, I'd love to see you write something like a top 10 list of the most overrated AT games.

For me that is one of the strengths of the game, that you have a lot to choose from but precious little to spend. After my first game I was already thinking of what tech combos to try in the next.

I don't believe it takes 10 times to get it -- but it does makes you think -- and the replayability is definitely there.

I both agree and disagree with you.
There certainly are 'standards' to good writing, but I think when it comes to fiction then those standards aren't really important and in some cases should even be thrown out in the interest of spinning a better yarn (such as shortening sentences prematurely to create pace and tension).
The most important thing with fiction writing is keeping the reader engaged. Tolkien may have a higher standard of writing than George RR Martin (I'm guessing, I'm not an English professor so frankly I don't know) but for me, Georges' paragraphs sing while in a lot of sections (but not all) Tolkien dragged and I struggled to maintain interst. So for me George is the better writer.

For technical writing and other forms of writing that aren't purely for enjoyment (such as boardgame rules!) standards are much more important and easier to pass judgement on.

Ok, Peter Boyle singing Putting on the Ritz may have taken it too far comedically, but seriously is that any reason to hate?

I both agree and disagree with you.
There certainly are 'standards' to good writing, but I think when it comes to fiction then those standards aren't really important and in some cases should even be thrown out in the interest of spinning a better yarn (such as shortening sentences prematurely to create pace and tension).
The most important thing with fiction writing is keeping the reader engaged. Tolkien may have a higher standard of writing than George RR Martin (I'm guessing, I'm not an English professor so frankly I don't know) but for me, Georges' paragraphs sing while in a lot of sections (but not all) Tolkien dragged and I struggled to maintain interst. So for me George is the better writer.

For technical writing and other forms of writing that aren't purely for enjoyment (such as boardgame rules!) standards are much more important and easier to pass judgement on.

Frank, I agree with you regarding Tolkien and Martin. Tolkien's writing style would be good for a history book or a cookbook, but most of his characters lacked personality, and his pacing was often sluggish. However, Middle-Earth is a great setting, and the overall story arc of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is interesting and entertaining. And his best characters are truly memorable. Martin's Westeros is less original than Middle Earth, or at least displays its influences more clearly. In nearly every other category, I think Martin is a better writer than Tolkien.

The point I was trying to make before is that there are standards of quality in literature, and they aren't as subjective as many people think. This applies in other areas, like music or art or food. Let's take food for example. Sometimes I am really in the mood for a quarter pounder with cheese plus fries from McDonald's. And I am not the only one who feels that way, judging by the number of golden arches across the planet. But I'm not going to try to tell people that McDonald's deserves a four star rating in the Michelin guide, because that would be ridiculous. And while I really enjoyed reading Go-Go Girls of the Apocalypse and thought that it would appeal to the AT crowd here, I'm not going to declare that it's a literary classic.

Wow, since when did F:AT become a collection of literary critics?? James Joyce?? Really, are we looking forwad to Finnegan's Wake the Boardgame now?

World War Z was amazingly well written.

hold on. What I mean is that when a buddy leant me the book I expected the worst, the absolute worst. I generally despise genre fiction, I'm that snobby literature guy who would rather read Louis Ferdinand Celine over Stephen King any day.

But world war Z was doable. I was pleasently surprised that it didn't suck, for a Zombie novel... that's high praise.

But really, more talk about literature then the game?

It don't matter to Jesus, I'm sick of co-op anyway... plus Panedmic is a monotonous puzzel... not a game. Anything that gets compared to that holds no interest for me whatsoever.

The zombie picture is cool, but best zombie film. Zombie's are so stupid that there should be comedy in a zombie movie.

Best zombie movie... either Return of the Living Dead (can be seen seriously or not) or The Knigdom, which I suppose is technically a T.V. series.

I've played the game only one time thus far, but one thing that bugged me about the one play was how the theme fell apart as I approached the endgame. Once you can see an end in sight, you have to start thinking about population counts and not necessarily fighting zombies. At the end of my game, I had the option of clearing all the zombies out of Africa with nukes, or hitting the Middle East with a nuke to wipe the 6 pop my opponent had sitting there. No zombies, just humans. To try and win the game, I had to go after the humans. The whole game was this struggle to fight off zombies and then at the end I'm taking this thematically strange course of action to try and score the win. That was a little disappointing. I agree that some sort of co-op aspect would do some good.

That's because this game probably didn't start with a theme, it started with a Risk board and 100 plastic zombies. That's my honest-to-god gut instinct call from looking at this game and reading this review.

The end game is a touch problematic. In one of my games the timer ran out with Africa one turn away from eradicating all zombies with a nuke while Europe was huddled behind a wall with a huge number of zombies freely roaming through 2/3 of the continent, but Europe won by 19 population to 17. It would be good to somehow weigh up the number of zombie occupied regions, the populated regions, the number of zombies and the population remaining to get a better fix on who is winning, but that could lead to even more gamey situations (I suspect that the number of populated regions minus the number of zombie infested regions might be a better estimate of who is winning, but is probably just as problematic).

I totaly understand your point Shellhead, and while I may not personally 100% agree, I don't disagree either and I wouldn't argue against anything you are saying.
The only exception would be to your use of 'literary classic'. I think 'classic' anything just means something that was so popular it's popularity has endured in time. I don't think it has much to do with the actual craft. "Pride and Predudice" isn't a classic because Austin was a champion of the Queens English, but because she wrote what was a hugly popular series of works - the sex and the city of her time - which remain popular until this day. Of course for some such as Van Gogh that popularity takes a while to happen.

Harry Potter may be techically poor writing, but if lots of people are still reading it in 100 years it will be a literary classic. Same way Star Wars is destined to be a Classic Film, even though technically better films will not.

Umm, that's a theme. Zombies taking over the earth. If anything it started with a theme and mechanics were developed to support it, like all good ameritrash.

A Risk board and 100 zombies... sounds much better then the review to me. It may be worth a second look after all. I've had plenty of fun sitting around with a generic world map board and generic miniatures just making shit up. I'm sure plenty of good games can be made that way.

People with tools trying to create their own fun. That has to be one of the most pure game experiences possible.

I noticed that the 60$ price tag on the website includes shipping (to the US) which is nice. But I've looked at some pictures, and while it does look quite okay I can't understand how you can call it reasonably priced. Personally I don't mind paying extra for a game because the game is great, but I find it a bit inconsistent when compared to how much you bitch about pricing elsewhere.

Anyways. I like the idea, but there's just too much that doesn't seem to add up for me. And I absolutely hate games that require lots of counting to maximize your moves.

Well said, Skelly.

Too many people confuse 'writing' with 'prose'. They're not the same.

Does anybody want to read my newest poem?

Start a thread all about your poem. It will have more comments then the Board Game thread in about two weeks I'm sure.

But it better be in english!!

"But it better be in english!!"

Damn.

I too felt that the supposedly different "voices" in WWZ sound the same. For some reason that bugs me. Characters in novels need to sound like they are their own unique and independent personalities, and I haven't seen that yet (I haven't finished reading it).

Just bought this game as a present for a friend, so I'll get to play it soon. Lots of options and a tech tree sounds great to me (though the endgame does sound wonky).

WWZ was a dumb, fun read. There were no characters, though, in any meaningful way.

And WTF is all this about Tolkien's writing? His story and characters are still great. A cookbook? I'll grant his prose has an archaic quality to it, but to me that lends it a certain gravitas that is exactly the right tone to strike in an epic, mythic story. I certainly don't think it's flawless, but how do these not sing:

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

"The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls."

A Risk board and 100 zombies

I'm about 100% sure there was also a stack of SETTLERS resource cards as part of that assumed prototype.

It allows what I like to call 'ownership of playstyle'

You mean "emergent gameplay", don't you? ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I do like that the game gives you a lot of options and you can choose from a couple of different paths...but like what you and Frank Branham both are saying, it's a solvable math puzzle more than anything else and that means it's going to have correct and incorrect solutions. So all that freedom of choice is negated when you can make three bad decisions in the first two turns and be functionally eliminated because you didn't choose the right path given the situation.

I get the impression that you don't like the game because it was so close to what you wanted but not quite there so you focus on the negatives more than the positives.

To some extent that's true, because I don't think this is a bad game at all. It kept me coming back to it and I didn't dread playing it and I did have some fun with it, so I hope it's not assumed that I think this game sucks or anything like that. I don't think it lives up to its potential and I think it completely misses the mark in terms of the concept, but there are a lot of good ideas and interesting things going on in it, for sure.

But I've looked at some pictures, and while it does look quite okay I can't understand how you can call it reasonably priced.

It's a big-box board game for $60, which is just about the minimum (or increasingly, below minimum) buy-in price for a title of this class. If FFG were to do it, it'd be at least $80 or possibly $100. And also, like I said before, figuring in the economics of scale it's a good amount of varied pieces given that price point and low print run.

Well countered. I just think that while the components might warrant the price the overall look of the game - choice of meeples, graphics etc. - does not. Honestly I don't mind, but I wondered because of what you've said earlier about pricing.

I think something else that's important while we're talking about small press games is that it _is_ easier to overlook some production issues. The goofy little tanks in this game totally fly at $60 and for a tiny, DIY production. If FFG did these tanks in one of their $100 game, I would hope that people would be at the events center with pitchforks and torches.

That being said, we as consumers do need to be clear where we draw the line in terms of quality, and if the small publisher is trying to do something that's too expensive and not competitive, then they need to do something else.

I define 'ownership of playstyle' a game which you can play your way which is completely different to the way others play it (eg Fred always researches tech x, or loads up on unit y).

Emergent gameplay for me is more about a game that evolves during the course of your game or over multiple sessions, constantly giving very different experiences.

Eg Settlers of Catan has emergent gameplay but not ownership of playstyle, whereas Blood Bowl is the reverse (Orcs vs Elves in Blood Bowl goes pretty much the same way each time).