Barnestorming #23: Ikusa in Review, Gears 3, Troll Hunter, The New Goth Hot

Martha is the best of the new assistants for the first half of that season. However in the second half she becomes awful and loses the spark. I also initially hated Donna, but she does really grow on you and in the end I like her the best, just because I can't stand Rose and the second half of Martha's season really brings her down.

My only memory of Samurai Swords is attempting to start a game and finding out a lot of the pieces were missing.

Out of the "new goth" stuff, I'm actually most impressed with Demdike Stare. Also, I think a lot of this has a definite Cold Meat Industy/Soleilmoon/Staalplaat vibe to it which I really dig.

I love Ikusa. It was the best of the GM series, behind Axis, and even then I'd debate that Shogun was cooler. The update is epic.

The reason to play it with better, cooler shit out there? Because old doesn't mean bad. Antiquated and not worthy? No. I disagree.

It's been reprinted and upgraded not once, but TWICE. How many games have that longevity?

The game had more cool shit in it than any of the others of its time, and it still has a lot going on that a lot of new games miss out on. Experience for generals? Check. Bidding for the assassin? Check. Secret deployment of FUCKING MERCENARY SCUM?? Oh, yeah. Big time check.

The game's totally worth playing. I've played it 3 times recently, in fact. Were it not for my Risk review coming out, Ikusa would've taken its place.

I agree about Troll Hunter -- we saw a pre-release at a film festival. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I think that it was the documentary style that didn't mesh with the fantasy trolls. Pick one or the other.....

I went through a goth phase years ago, so I really appreciate the new goth recommendations. I have to say, the synthesizers on some of these tracks have a particularly early '80s sound to them. I heard similar stuff when watching Escape From New York last week.

I hate to say it, but you sir, are old.

Not your best work Michael, a bit short and to the point, but I guess you felt you didn't have much to say. Glad you qualified why you felt it was too long, wouldn't want you to fall into the 'short is better at all costs' game churner category.

I disagree though, due to nostalgia. Fortress America was the best, Shogun next, but both got played hell of a lot. As you say, they were streets ahead of the field at the time.

P.S. #22 again? :)

We played the hell out of Shogun and A&A in high school. I kinda agree that no matter what the updates are, I really don't need to play it again.
Speaking of Cannibal Holocaust, I remember seeing this in college. The rumour was that it was banned in the US because they supposedly really killed the animals in the film. I think the scene with the turtle lasts over 5 mins- any idea if the rumours are true?

Yeah, animals were really killed in Cannibal Holocaust. It's certainly a movie I could only watch once, and I sort of regret watching it at all.

I agree with Michael on Troll Hunter. I watched it last Saturday night, and while I liked the concept and certain details here and there, it's pretty boring when you get down to it. I kept sitting there thinking, "Great, another shot from inside a moving car."

I don't think games like Ikusa get obsolete. Even though there are faster games out there that still have the same epic conquest feel, and even though I have less time than ever, for me there is still room for the slower and longer contests. Sometimes it's nice to submit oneself to a long game. (Though I could only do that maybe once a year.)

That's what I'm saying, Hatch. If people are still playing Twilight Imperium, there's time to play this too. There's a lot of very, very cool shit in there.

I do agree that you need to reduce the territory-to-win number to keep it from being a 6 hour game, but people still play TI and Advanced Civ, so there's a market for it still, I think.

Totally agree on Ikusa: missed opportunity. When I first heard it was coming, it was immediately a must-buy. But "straight reprint" (not to mention "sans swords") brought me back to my senses.

Michael Gray did some great, progressive stuff back in the day (Fortress America is still my favorite). Too bad they didn't take his attitude and bring some new ideas to this.

Ikusa is, sadly, totally obsolete. Without cards to spruce up the gameplay, it gets very, very repetitive over the course of its 4-5 hour runtime. The combat and positioning on the map are interesting, but with literally nothing else going on for that span of time, it starts to get really old.

Nexus Ops took the part I liked best (tiered combat--expensive units fire first, casualties, next tier, casualties) so don't really need the old girl anymore. Shame though, 'cause some good memories there.

This is me too. As a matter of fact, I think that Nexus Ops is the only DoaM game that I've ever really loved. I've had some good Risk memories in my day, but they were almost always about 90 minutes of fun followed by another 210 of tedium.

Let a younger guy chime in here, with no nostalgia for it and a fresh set of eyes.

I played Shogun once, not this reprint, but I bored to death playing it. I'm the same way about Axis & Allies and (*gasp*) Talisman. By the time I got around to playing these "classics" that I had never played as a kid, I had already played the likes of Nexus Ops, War of the Ring (which, while not WWII themed, does large-scale warfare way better than A&A, plus the WotR doesn't punish you for not following history), and Runebound, which I don't like but would play over Talisman. With the exception of A&A, which I find *no* redeeming quality in, the only appeal I typically find in old games is strictly cosmetic, especially in the case of Shogun, yet I'm always able to pick out a more current game and say, "If I hadn't played that, I would enjoy this more." So yeah, games *can* be made obsolete, and Shogun is especially obsolete.

Agree about Donna. She starts out a bit shrill, but by the end she was my favorite. She's very real and just ordinary. I can relate to her.

To be fair, there is the hidden allocation phase every turn, which can be very tense and interesting. This is one area I think could have really been stretched in interesting ways. I see that there are "quick play" rules (ending on first elimination seems like a no-brainer), but a face lift of Shogun needs to go further ("skip ahead" a few turns, fewer map spaces at the very least). Some ideas from Senji or Dune are also appealing: hidden traitor generals, bartering hostages, etc.

I don't really disagree with you, though. Bottom line, there needs to be more to do and less time to do it.

I loved Samurai Swords like nothing else back in the 90's, after playing Axis & Allies and thinking there could be nothing better than that. But it was too long. Very cool in many ways, and I think the system in general still holds up well against many newer games, but I think others are right that Nexus Ops and War of the Ring surpass it for providing similarly great gameplay without being 6-8 hour games.

Ikusa is 110% past its sell-by date. It has nothing to do with it being old, it's just simply obsolete. THere is absolutely no compelling reason to invest the amount of time it takes to play it when you can play games that have far more narrative, variety, and complexity with half the play time and shorter rules.

It's laughable (and naive) to mention games like TI3 and Advanced Civilization in the same breath with Ikusa/Shogun or to compare their content as equivalent. Advanced Civilization is a vast, sweeping epic filled with very dynamic situations and it _needs_ the long play time to capture what it sets out to do. Ikusa does not. It drags out simple processes and tug-of-war over territories into an absolute grind.

TI3 brings in politics, complex diplomacy, tech trees, racial abilities, planet exploration, trade, and tons of detail in what is a sometimes SHORTER game and with not really that much larger of a rules base.

Nexus Ops does pretty much everything Ikusa does but in a quarter or less of the time and with short-term objectives.

Conquest of Nerath- shorter, more detail, more narrative...and questing, even more variable units, magic items, faction cards...why would you play Ikusa again?

Then there's War of the Ring- again, shorter than Ikusa but with far, far more narrative than a fucking ninja figure can impart.

Waddball really summed it up- there needs to be more to do and less time to do it in. Game design has come a long way since 1986, and holding on to this dinosaur just because it's old or whatever is foolish. There is no historicity, the setting is really very thin, and well, Risk does it better. The plastic swords, the Ronin, the executive theme...so what, when they're in a terribly obsolete game that is at this point, quite frankly, a waste of time.

I like it, it's one of my old faves from the GM series, and with the new look, it's even better. But that's me. You see, I'm the guy who goes back and plays System Shock even though Bioshock is out. Plays Fallout when Fallout 3 is out, and better. Plays Might and Magic 2 because I like the operatic music.

But if you disagree with Barnes, you're a simpleton or naive. The arrogance continues to astound. How is it that Chaostle is a total success, "fresh", "irreverant" when it's essentially a "rethemed Pacheesi" that uses decades-old mechanics, but somehow a classic design like Ikusa is obsolete when it takes ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS CHAOSTLE, is far more interesting, and is 10x prettier?

Bull. Shit.

I'll jump in to stop the piling on against Ikusa. I still think it is a good game and will play it anytime anyone wants.

Yes Nexus Ops has similarities but it lacks a certain something that Ikusa has. I love the fact that daimyos progress and become able to move faster and fight more often. I love the bidding, especially when the ninja comes into play.

Mike you say that TI3 can be played in a sometimes shorter time than Ikusa and I call bullshit. Maybe if you are playing with the Imperial card it is shorter, but then it sucks. I have played about 10 games of TI3 with the expansion and a variety of the alternate roles and it NEVER gets done faster than a game of Ikusa would.

Hey, if you don't want to play Ikusa, that's fine. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm just sticking up for a game I love for reasons beyond nostalgia.

On Cannibal Holocaust- yes, it's true, there are some real animals including a turtle killed in the film. It's utterly reprehensible in that regard, and I don't recommend anyone see it for this reason. There are also some extremely questionable acts of highly sexualized violence (faked) in the film.

But it is utterly brilliant and it may be the ultimate horror film. It really reaches back to this kind of ultra-dark part of the human mind that's fascinated with barbarism and death and at a much, much deeper level than other horror fils. It calls into question spectatorship and the act of watching violence in a way that literally nothing else has ever touched. It asks some very, very tough questions about modern culture, imperialism, and what "truth" is in a world where images can be manipulated or recontextualized.

There's an inherent subtext of modern audience watching a film about savages and cultural taboos...but being "entertained" by real death that is presented in the context of an objectively factual narrative. It's _amazing_ how this film works, and it is absolutely film-as-art at its utmost.

It's about these reels of footage that these anthropologists were shooting in a remote area of the Amazon. THe framing device is that these reels were found, and we're essentially watching what they shot. What happens in them is that the anthropologists sort of instigate some hostility between these two native tribes and all kinds of really awful stuff happens.

It also presents the anthropologists as savages, which is pretty interesting. They kill the turtle. There's also a particularly nasty killing of a coatimundi and a monkey. It's really interesting (and revolting) that the ACTORS actually killed the animals.

All of the non-animal gory parts in the found footage are fake, but it's completely convincing- the authenticity is _terrifying_. The practical effects work is rather astonishing. In Italy, the filmmakers actually had to demonstrate how they did effects in court to prove that it wasn't a snuff film.

It's a fascinating film, completely amoral, irresponsible, and revolting to an extreme. It shocks and offends in ways that I think would upset even the most jaded, cynical film viewer and it's so psychologically beyond anything that gets called "horror" today that it remains a one of a kind experience.

Do not watch it. It can't be unseen. But I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't very glad to have seen it one time, on a 23rd generation VHS bootleg in the mid 1990s. It really changed my perception as to what the limits of cinema and the horror genre are.

TI:3 can end in 3-4 hours. I've seen it. 3-4 player TI:3 is quite quick. Shogun can go 4, I've seen that too. Yes, TI:3 can be shorter then Shogun. However it is admittedly not as good a game with 3-4 but it's still better then Shogun. Runewars however is directly competing against this for time, so is Chaos, so is Imperial, Conquest of Nerath... there is no reason to play Shogun today. I have to agree with the group consensus here.

Like Risk, it deserves respect, but not quite as much as Risk does.

It's such a shame because if they changed the gameplay to modernize it a bit like so many Risk variants have done in the past I would have been very interested. As is there is just no way. My buddy still has a copy of the Samurai Swords version at his house, sat there for like 6 years now and we never choose to play it. I think he might have sold it in his last yard sale.

Runewars is one I didn't even bring up, but there again you've got a game that's so much more dimensional and content-rich than Shogun...that again, plays ina bout half the time.

I really wish that what would have happened was that they did something like what Eagle did in Conquest of the Empire. You can play the full game as it was originally written, or the updated edition with all-new rules.

WD- it depends on who you're playing TI3 with. If you play with a table of people that have played a couple of times before, TI3 can definitely be shorter than Ikusa with, say, four players. The last FULL game of TI3 I played was a four player game and it was 3.5 hours. Of course, we had Will Kenyon at the table, which dramatically shortens the game.

But still, time is just one of the issues. Content is the other. There isn't sufficient content in Ikusa compared to other games in its class at this point.

Ikusa isn't obsolete because it's "old", it's obsolete because it was designed at a time when "design technology" for lack of a better term was at a point where "long and drawn out" was often conflated with "deep".

Crystal Castles featuring Robert Smith- Not in Love -- is an awesome jam.

I haven't played Shogun in probably 20 years. I still have my old copy and see no reason to get the sword less reprint.

I can see the issue of game length popping up. I've played Fortress America the last few WBC and the thing it has over Shogun is the lasers and dwindling reinforcement rate for the invaders cleverly put a clock on the game, much like the Ringbearer does in WotR.

Michael Barnes wrote:
"Ikusa isn't obsolete because it's "old", it's obsolete because it was designed at a time when "design technology" for lack of a better term was at a point where "long and drawn out" was often conflated with "deep"."
Yeah, and these days a civ game that plays in half an hour is considered the epitome of the genre. And two months later players are saying that they're done with the game as it has nothing else to offer. I know which school of design I prefer.

What happened to the days when you treasured a classic just because it was a classic? Clearly you're suffering from the Euro-madness, there's only one suitable reply "he fucking dick then bullshit"!

Pete: Invade his home at an early hour and teach him some respect for Shogun. I suspect anal use of the Taternator would prove most convincing.

Adrian, you're addled. Tell me what sense it makes to play a game designed in 1986 that does LESS in MORE TIME without any kind of greater payoff in terms of depth, content, or narrative? Civ games don't enter into it, and I think you're mischaracterizing Ikusa by suggesting that it's comparable to a civilization building game. It's not. It's a take over territories game. That's all. Building castles does not impart an epic sweep.

Another example of how Ikusa is outdated. Warlords of Europe. Exact same kind of game, but it has reasonable victory conditions and playtime, AND it has cardplay.

The Cult of the Old can be just as full of it as the Cult of the New.

Crystal Castles featuring Robert Smith- Not in Love -- is an awesome jam.

Yeah, I thought it was nice to have an elder statesmen on the list working with a new band. Great track...it's one of the tracks in FIFA 12, surprisingly.

Awesome idea to do a Spotify playlist, btw.

Yeah, just watch that Ken B. steal it...

If Nexus Ops and Conquest of Nerath both took 4 hours to play, you wouldn't have any solid basis for recommending either of them over Ikusa. In the aggregate, they do not do more. They do the same thing, just for less time.

Don't give me this "short-term objectives" and "alternate victory condition" crap, either. That kind of thing has been part of the genre since "Secret Mission" Risk.

It's perfectly reasonable to write something like Ikusa off for the simple reason that you don't have the patience to play that kind of game for 4 hours. If, however, you're going to declare its actual gameplay obsolete, you've got no room to praise games that do nothing but take the very game you're criticizing and truncate it without having advanced "game design technology" a fucking millimeter in 20 years.

I think that Pete brings up an interesting point, and I think that it demonstrates the need for a coherent set of definitions and a framework for evaluating games. Inherently, all reviews and assessments will be subjective, but you seem to be pushing for a more consistent and coherent method for evaluating games than other reviewers strive to achieve. Occurring at a more academic level, then it isn't unreasonable to expect a consistent rubric.

Pete's question of why Ikusa fails and Chaostle succeeds when both are reimplementations of old designs (yet to be fair, Chaostle is an adaptation of Parcheesi while Ikusa is just a reprint of a what was its own design) is a valid one. What is the defining difference between them? Why is one acceptable and the other not? I think that creating a set of defining characteristics will help crystallize your views on game design, as well as what designers should strive for.

Truncating _is_ progress, MJ. I get what you're saying, but in almost all things advancement has more to do with things getting smaller instead of bigger. It's a refinement process, and editing down of things to what matters most.

This is why the whole Civ-lite thing has been a failure. Because the epic scale, length, and narrative curve required needs room to breathe and develop.

I'm not so sure that a game that is fundamentally about rolling dice and switching territory cards needs that by necessity. And more recent designs- like what you've cited- show that you can accomplish the same design goals in less time and with MORE content.

That _is_ progress.

You are absolutely correct though, if NO or Nerath were as long as Ikusa can be, the basis would be slimmer. That said, Nerath can run pretty long yet I'd still recommend it over Ikusa, if only because there's more content there to get into.

Space Ghost- comparing Chaostle to Ikusa is ridiculous, it's an entirely different set of expectations and any suggestions that my opinion on the two is somehow inconsistent should be regarded as suspect.

FOr one thing, Chaostle is not a 4-5 hour game minimum, and for another there are other issues like setup, process, and game flow that shut it down, at least for me. For another, Chaostle is an entirely different genre of game where I have different parameters for what I like and don't like.

Chaostle is totally a Parcheesi evolution, and that's absolutely OK. Remember, old does not equal bad. And Parcheesi, in comparison to modern games, doesn't demonstrate an obsolescence because there aren't reductive, editorial designs that have taken what it does and made it so. There is nothing comparable to the relationship between Ikusa and TI3 or Nexus Ops.

And there is a subjective element, playing Chaostle is _fun_ and playing Ikusa is a _drag_. There is also nothing else quite like Chaostle in terms of process or the kind of gameplay it offers (it really isn't much like Talisman at all), whereas there are NUMEROUS alternatives to Ikusa.

But to argue on the other side of the fence, a gamer with more than a couple of years' experience would be able to point to Magical Athelete as a smaller, more efficient alternative to Chaostle. But my counterpoint would be that that big, baroque nature of Chaostle is part of its charm. And I'm sure some fans of Ikusa would argue similarly for their game.

The reimplementation issue doesn't really figure into it. Ikusa is exactly the same game it was in 1986, it's not a reimplementation at all. It's a straight reprint.

Michael Barnes wrote:
"mischaracterizing Ikusa by suggesting that it's comparable to a civilization building game"
Not at all. I wasn't suggesting it was a civ game; it was the only example (7 Ages of course) I could think of that highlighted a short play time as desirable in and of itself. And from what I've read it doesn't have "any kind of greater payoff in terms of depth, content, or narrative".

As for Warlords of Europe, I don't recall it exactly getting a good review. When you say "AND it has cardplay", you sound like you're saying any game with cards is bound to be better.

What on earth is wrong with having short DOAM games and long ones? Then players can pick the pacing that they're in the mood for. I don't think shorter is always best. Okay, you're arguing for games doing more in less time, but I'm not convinced it's as black and white as you claim.

Pete: Better use the extra-large Taternator.

I was guessing that is what you would say (and in this case, that is exactly what I think beween the two); however, I think it is good to layout all the parameters.

And, I agree, that Chaostle is nothing like Talisman. It reminds me strongly of Aggravation with special player powers -- which is basically the same thing you are saying since Aggravation is basically a version of Parcheesi.

Aggravation was a huge hit with our family, from kids to great-grandmother. Most people will have played the "regular" Aggravation and see the similarities with Chaostle. The fate mechanism of Chaostle is basically similar to the Red/Blue decks in Super Aggravation, where the Red would be the "bad" fates and the Blue would be the "good" fates. And, the multiple paths of victory is also similar to regular Aggravation with the beloved (to me at least) "Winner's Circle". However, it is almost an identicle reimplementation of Split-Level Aggravation.

So, the only thing that really sets Chaostle above the various versions of Aggravation is just the individual player powers.

Warlords of Europe got a review actually very similar to Ikusa, if you'll recall. Outdated, old fashioned...but the cards did help, because it simply gave you more to do and think about.

I think you're kind of hung up on the time thing. If a game needs to be six hours, then it needs to be six hours. If the game is two hours of content stretched out to six hours by an inefficient, redundant, or cumbersome process or a stunted game flow, then it's an issue. And if those six hours aren't consistently worth sticking around for, then something has gone wrong.

If Ikusa had more detail, more content, and more narrative its length wouldn't be an issue because it'd have some meat on the bread, so to speak. But it doesn't.

It is a black and white issue. Some games are worth playing for six hours, some aren't. Of course, when you factor in things like who you're playing with and the social element that can shift dramatically. But I review games, not your friends.

SG, I wasn't thinking Chaostle as a direct re-implementation of Aggravation, but you made a pretty convincing case.

Here's the rub, Mike:

Nerath has things that Ikusa doesn't, but Ikusa has things Nerath doesn't. I'd say they're on par with one another, nearly, with Ikusa coming up just short for a small variety of reasons. I'll readily admit Ikusa is not as good as Nerath. It's just not obsolete or not worthy of playing.

But you evaluate Nerath as good because it's shorter (due primarily to the fact that you take a territory and get a VP, where to get a VP in Ikusa, you need to KEEP IT) but you don't evaluate Ikusa on the same basis. Ikusa has short play rules as well, so if you're going to compare apples-to-apples, you have to either use the short rules versus the short rules, or you have to take the long rules versus the long.

If you did that, they'd be much closer in playtime.

Then, you have to consider that Ikusa is good from 3-5, whereas Nerath is only good for 4, by your own evaluation, and even then it's essentially a team war. Ikusa is an epic bloodletting exercise for 5 players, where Nerath is a 2v2 team game.

Then there's the ninja, which is a truly cool bidding and treachery mechanic, not to mention the hidden deployments of Ronin (which adds even more strategy because there's a set pool of Ronin), and that's not even considering the fact that generals get more experience, which totally changes the game by allowing more options. Those two mechanics ALONE are awesome sauce distillates.

All of these things add up to a tremendous game. I'll grant you that the flow of play is a stuttering pace due to the fact some actions are group actions, some individual, but at the end of the day, it's a great game. Fully worthy of a reprint.

I think I take exception to your review primarily because your assertion seems to be that "because there's better games out there in the genre, you shouldn't play this." That's akin to saying "Don't play Halo because Call of Duty: Black Ops exists." That's some bullshit.

I still don't know of a game that captures the feel of conquest in feudal Japan like Ikusa does. It's a fucking spectacular game, and it's singular flaw is that it runs about an hour too long if played using standard length rules.

Possibly. It has never felt overlong, not when it came out and not when I last played it several years ago.

By contrast I doubt you'd say that Fortress America is obsolete. It has the balance point of the attackers logistical crash. A&A and Conquest of the Empire were updated. B&BP is languishing. Makes me wonder why Shogun wasn't updated.

I can think of plenty of areas where advancement has meant things getting bigger, but that's a digression we don't really need to pursue.

I just don't see where Conquest of Nerath has refined any the processes of a game like Ikusa. It takes just as many die rolls to resolve a battle in one as it does the other, generating income requires the same amount of counting, in either case, you wait while another conducts 7 turn phases in sequence, etc.

The only thing that seems to be getting smaller here is the number of repetitions you go through, and possibly the size of the armies you can field. That's not the result of any huge mechanical difference between the two games, it's just that one has a rule which forces a conclusion and the other doesn't.

Again, I'm not arguing this point. Some things that are fun to do for 90 minutes are painfully dull after 4 hours, no question.

I'm hung up on the time thing because you haven't really articulated what makes these more recent designs better games other than that they don't take as long. Yes, yes, apparently some of them have more "content," but what the fuck does that mean?

OK, CoN has air and naval units, and recontextualizes the old "neutral territory" conceit and passes it off as questing. NO has secret objectives. Ikusa doesn't have those things, but it does have espionage and a sort of character development, so in terms of the amount of content, it looks like a wash to me. When it comes to the actual gameplay processes, there's very little to distinguish any of these games from the other.

So if we consider the designs themselves without regard for play time, what is it about these other things that indicate progress in any meaningful sense of the word?

I agree, Shogun is long and boring. The Ninja and stuff is cool at first, but it just drags on, unless someone is really good and runs away with it. They definitely should have given it some sort of potential update.

I still have an unpunched Samurai Swords that I'll probably throw into my purge pile.

Uh, I'll go on record and say that I believe this is *almost* always true. When it comes to Dudes on a Map, give me cards to go with my dice. Nexus Ops, Starcraft, Twilight Imperium, Game of Thrones, Star Wars Risk, Risk: Godstorm, Risk: 2210...all of them to a one better because of the cardplay that's also involved.

Samurai Swords + cards + optimization of play time = insanely better game. Missed opportunity.

And MJL, optimization is a part of progress. When you can deliver the same experience in a shorter period of time, then it is quite frankly, "better." Of course, if you trim out too much stuff to hit that shorter time, well, then the feel is gone, so of course the game suffers.

But I absolutely get just as much satisfaction from a 90-minute game of Nexus Ops as I do a five-hour game of Samurai Swords. No question.

That is, quite frankly, horseshit Ken. By this logic, all you have to do is reduce reduce the number of territories it takes to win Ikusa and voila! Progress. Hey, it's the same experience in less time, i'nnit?

And anyway, it's not the same experience. There is no long-term strategy in newer DoaM games, it's all short-term tactics. Whether that's better is beside the point, it's not the same.

Well, Ikusa *could* do with fewer territories. Just sayin'. It's too long for what it is.

Twilight Imperium is longer, but feels shorter. Make any sense at all?

What!? Donna is cool. Martha is lame. She's my least favorite of the companions. Donna gets serious mega points for 1) Not being young and pretty 2) Not falling in love with the Doctor. Also all the storylines with Martha's family are lame while Donna's grandfather is super awesome. And he plays a big role in the end of David Tennant.

Well obviously it does, because TI isn't as repetitive as Ikusa, and the turns are threaded in a way that keeps downtime to a minimum.

But TI is dramatically different from the other game. The combat resolution is roughly the same, but other than that, they have very little in common. There are significant differences in the way even basic processes like movement and unit purchases work.

Even if you set the tech, exploration, and political stuff aside, you can still look at TI:3 and point at specific examples of progressive design. There isn't a rigid sequence of events that gets followed each turn; the administrative processes are integrated into the game round more fluidly, and play passes around the table much more quickly. It doesn't have long, drawn-out battles of attrition because the game considers logistics; the bigger your fleet, the harder it is to mobilize, because you only have so many command tokens, and they can only be used for one or the other. Also, you can't build cheap cannon fodder (fighters) without some way to supply those units (carriers).

That's optimization, and even though it's abstract, it's logical. These things are not true of CoN and NO. Those games are, in every way that counts, the same as Ikusa except for the victory conditions.

To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I do not disagree that Ikusa is too long for what it is, and for that reason, is not worth playing. I do take issue with the notion that the gameplay itself is outdated here, but not in CoN and NO.

Again, what exactly makes either game better aside from the time it takes to play them?

Here's the thing Pete. This is exactly what I need from a reviewer. If games were lattes, I wouldn't read Mike's reviews (or yours Pete), I would just buy the damn $5 latte, and consume it in 15 minutes. But sadly, this isn't the world I live in. If I'm going to assemble the lads for a night of gaming, tell them to set aside eight hours from family and work, the game has to fucking rock, cause we only get half a dozen shots at this a year. Right now, the bar it has to clear is Runewars, epic variant, that game fucking rocks. Sounds like Ikusa won't clear that bar, so it won't get played. Thank you Mike for saving my time.

It does sound like Risk Legacy may be worth our time, I'll investigate further. Thank you Pete.

BTW, you were both dead wrong on Conquest of Nerath. A shitty two hour tatical exercise/race for VP's. I owe the lads a round of drinks for that one. So you see, there are real world consequences for false positives.

It's interesting that when it comes to a lot of other AT classics being reprinted much of the discussion is: "I hope they don't ###@@!! change anything!" And with Ikusa it's why didn't they ###@@!! change anything!"

It would be smart - although not easy I guess - to have included a well-working modernised variant like Conquest of Empires does -- just to attract a wider range of potential buyers and get over the 'nostalgia hump'!

I'm with mutagen about CoN I think: our single play so far was ok but actually little underwhelming. I don't know what I expected but so far I prefer the far deeper exprience of Runewars.

I don't know about false positives or not, I only tell you how I like stuff. The scores I give are the arithemetic mean (which is sometimes modified by up to 1 point, my sole discretion, but very, very seldom) of the scores people give that play it with me.

If I were to go back and look at my polling notes, I'd bet 10:1 that I gave it a 9.5, personally.

Cards, man! Cards, cards, cards. Cards add another element to gameplay that keeps the pace, procedures, and outcomes varied over the course of gameplay.

So maybe in one fight I play a card that lets me hit better, and I plow through what you thought were sufficient defenses. In another battle, you play a card to prevent casualties, making my victory take longer and be more costlier.

Ikusa is just a grind. Territories change hands endlessly until someone reaches their goal. In between, turn to turn, is very much a similar set of actions that repeat themselves with little variance.

Now again, if that played *shorter*, the repetition would be acceptable. Because we're not performing the repetition over as long a period.

Nexus Ops succeeds because not only do you get card-based variance in gameplay from turn to turn, but the whole game wraps up in 90 minutes. In fact, Nexus Ops could actually very easily sustain a *longer* playing time, if we're looking for potential complaints here.

(BIG note: I can't speak for Nerath, haven't played it, so none of my arguments apply there. Don't know enough about it.)

Ken B. wrote:
"When you can deliver the same experience in a shorter period of time, then it is quite frankly, "better.""
Earlier Michael, said about being hung up on time. Yet again, here we are, shorter is better. I think this is a bad trend. If the reprint of Nexus Ops says it plays in half an hour. By the earlier logic that's more optimisation, more progress. Presumably everyone would be happy with this?

"Cards, man! Cards, cards, cards."
Er, weren't we against cards and for dice two months ago?

We should all be playing Quarriors and Spot It, I guess.

No one is saying shorter is inherently better. They're saying a game can be too long for what it is. For an extreme example, who'd want to play Yahtzee if a single game took took 4 hours?

1. No, that's not necessarily better. Same experience in shorter time is better. That's the whole meaning of "too long for what it is." Twilight Imperium is much, much longer but would suffer from much of the trimming that would make it shorter. Nexus Ops, as I said above, may have the crime of occasionally being too *short* for what it is. You get those freak games where someone racks up 7 points in a turn and boom, it's over.

2. I think you'll find that I voted cards, but love dice. I want them both.

Ken, those are pretty good explanations that still manage to miss the point almost completely.

I can see the point that many people are making that longer for the sake of just being longer doesn't make the game a "deeper" experience. And no doubt, there are games that probably do the DoaM mechanics better in some aspects over Ikusa.

But I also can support Pete's point... an enjoyable game can be more than just the sum of its mechanics. I think the things that you can do in Ikusa flow very nicely with its theme. The art is great and the game has a strong "period" feel playing it. It feels alive. Nexus Ops may have a fluid mechanic and glow in the dark pieces... but I'll take Ikusa every day over it simply because I like the way it evokes a sense of history through its gameplay.

My point is that while some elements of Isuka seemingly exist as remnants of so-called older game design, it doesn't mean that the game itself is suddenly flawed to the point that it can't provide a very enjoyable experience. The remake looks fantastic and I will be buying for sure.

I agree with Ken that if you can truncate a game to make it completely equivalent yet shorter, it can be a good thing. That's why I think Nerath hit it out of the park with the way they used VPs to limit time and added a second win condition with the exploration.

If Ikusa had 2/3 the territories and 2/3 the territorial control bogey, maybe it would be better, but maybe not. Just as people said Battleship-G was not "big" enough because there wasn't much room to manoeuver, the same can be said for epic DoaM games. The larger the play area, the more nuanced and intricate strategies can be developed.

The whole point I'm trying to get across is that if a design was excellent 20 years ago, just because other games exist that are similar in theoretical scope (Risk Legacy is a good example) it doesn't mean that the truncated game size or time allows the same development of strategy. And it certainly isn't obsolete, just different, and it surely isn't somehow invalidated.

Again, Ikusa is scalable just as Nerath is, and it seats five, and it's got unique design elements such as the experience upgrades, the assassinations and counterassasinations, the bidding on the limited, shared resources that are ronin and ninja, development of cities and fortifications, scaled battles, and large-scale epic war. It's was a great game, and it is a great game still. Just maybe not for everyone.

Some people don't like Battleship-G. Some people don't like Heroscape. That doesn't make them invalid, just means that you don't appreciate them, personally. Just as some don't like Agricola or Puerto Rico, it doesn't make them antequated or invalid, it's a matter of taste.

More to the point, I think what the overall tone of the detractors seems to boil down to the fact that they feel longer, bigger games are the past and smaller, shorter games are the future. I just happen to disagree.

Okay, MLJ, if I'm missing the point (extremely likely), then enlighten me, my friend.

Because I'm not arguing that shorter = better. Just that if a game can be shorter and lose nothing for it (in fact, even be enriched by the shortened game time) then that's desirable. But not if the truncation in game time causes something important and tangible to be lost in the process.

So I'll chime in with my two cents, that is completely unrelated to the high falutin conversation about the gameplay --

We're Frankensteining a cooy of Samurai Swords and Ikusa. We're keeping the swords and the cards. I want to keep the board and the player screens, but the old player screens don't fit in the new plastic bins, and the art of the new screens don't match the old board, so I don't know what to do. :(

I think MJL's point is something like this (correct me if I'm wrong): if you set the issue of game length aside completely, and just pretend for a moment that game length has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is better or worse, it seems that Ikusa is just as good as the other games. In other words, given that the complaints about Ikusa would be settled if game length didn't factor into anyone's preferences for one game over another, the complaints about Ikusa not having cards etc still amount to complaints about game length.

The whole "cardplay" thing kind of vexes me too, in the sense that cards are just another mechanic, so what the argument seems to say is that "games need more mechanics", not "cardplay is critical to a good DoaM game"

Is that right, Ken?

In my mind, it's a cost/benefit thing. If Ikusa takes twice as long, but doesn't offer anything (game play-wise) above another DoAM game that is shorter, why would I choose Ikusa? Longer games like Civ or TI3 have more elements, strategies to explore, and mechanisms (which might make the game better, or not) which may offset the cost in time of playing the game by giving you a richer gaming experience. More bang for your buck, basically.

Why would I choose to read a particular 1,000 page book when I could A) Read a shorter book with the same amount of character arc and richness in story, or B) read a book of the same length that has greater character arc and story?

It's not that Ikusa is necessarily a bad game, it just has to be weighed against the other options that are out there.

I think the back and forth swings in player dominance in longer conquest games forces players to think in the long term. A different layer of strategy opens up.

Believe it or not, after the first 10 times you guys said you're not arguing shorter = better, I kind of assumed you weren't arguing shorter = better.

On the other hand, I did get the possibly mistaken impression that, after saying flat out that shorter = progress or advancement, that you actually meant shorter = progress. Maybe we need to nail down a definition for those two words, but whenever I've hear those terms applied to something like game design, they suggest the introduction of fundamentally new ideas, or at least some new synthesis of existing ones.

Now, I'm sorry, but sticking "take that" cards in a DoaM game is not a new idea. It wasn't even new when NO first came out. Fuck, Amoeba Wars is five years older than Ikusa, but still has cardplay and takes much less time, so using you guys' logic, Ikusa was obsolete even before it was first published.

If both games were an hour long, I'd probably take NO over Ikusa, because in that short a time frame, the randomness of the cards of the former are going to be more exciting than the advanced planning and leveling up aspects of the latter. But if you're seriously going to argue that 4 hours of Nexus Ops isn't going to be every bit as fucking boring as 4 hours of Ikusa by the end, please give me the number of your drug dealer.

The pace, procedures, and outcomes are more varied because the game is 90 minutes long, and you're not going to get to play the same Energize card 50 times before it's over. Extend the game's time significantly, and the repetition is going to become just as apparent.

I think Clockwirk hit some nails on the head as to what the difference is in the positions.

Totally agree, but let's remember that people have different metrics for what defines a benefit.

Gameplay isn't everything, or no game would require a theme. Plus, not all gameplay is equivalent. For instance, Quarriors and King of Tokyo have similar gameplay, yet some prefer one over the other. KoT takes an hour or so, according to reports I've seen, where Quarriors is a half hour affair. Yet, many have stated that KoT is better.

This doesn't even begin to get into theme. If you really like Japanese culture and history, and you like big, epic DoaM games, where else can you get the same bang for the buck? If theme didn't matter for anything in the equation, why would any game have one? Since all games are abstractions in one sense or another, per Barnes' argument, then no game should even bother with theme, since it doesn't count for anything, right?

But there's mechanics that they don't have, and if you really like the mechanics of Ikusa, you can't get them in TI3.

Here's the crux. By this argument, I could read Cliffs Notes instead of reading War and Peace and get the same thing. Maybe that's a but hyperbolic, so let's put it more real terms: I could read The Hobbit, or I could read a 200-page Salvatore novel. Both are fantasy, both have rich characters, and both have compelling narrative. But they're not the same. There's something to be said about enjoying the journey versus getting to the end as fast as possible.

Totally agree, but at the end of the day, it's a matter of taste. My real gripe is someone stating that a game is invalid because it's long or old. That's the height of lunacy.

MJL, had I known about Amoeba Wars (or something similar) back when Shogun/Samurai Swords was out, I may well have considered it obsolete. We didn't live in a perfect information society back then.

Yes, Nexus Ops would suck as a four-five hour game. Precisely due to repetition. The only thing to save it at that length would be, of course, more cards.

That's the crux of the argument, I think. Repetition is bad over the longer haul. You've explored the game space effectively but it just... keeps... going.

I never get that feel from TI3 because turns aren't particularly repetitious. And to me it ends right when it feels like it should, when all players are reaching their threshold for the gameplay offered in the amount of time.

Right, so when we cut through all the crap, what you're really saying is that it takes too fucking long.

That is it. That is the only argument you need. Just man the fuck up and say the game is old and boring and takes forever, and therefore is not fun to play.

If Nexus Ops never existed, Ikusa would still be too long and boring.

Wasn't setting out to do that, but they are really similar -- and I imagine that is why I am so fond of Chaostle. Both have the same general theme of racing while trying to knock others back to start with a heavy dose of luck. Chaostle just ups the complexity slightly by giving each dude a set of powers.

But yeah, I can't imagine a person liking one of those games but not the other.

Yeah good point MJL, the thing is that Shogun was just never that good. It was fairly fun in middle or high school along with other gamemaster stuff, but there's really no reason or desire for me to play it now.

bfkiller wrote:
"No one is saying shorter is inherently better."
Yet here Ken is, saying exactly that:-

Ken B. wrote:
"Same experience in shorter time is better. That's the whole meaning of "too long for what it is.""
And redundantly too.

As I said before, it's not an absolute. Why should every game have to be shorter? Just so the CultoftheNewites can play as many games as possible once? Yes, some longer games have the right duration, some don't. Isn't that obvious? And again, it's not black and white. Why not? Just look at this discussion. I've never felt Shogun to be over long, Michael does. Other posts here clearly show it's not unanimous. It's opinion, not fact.

This is why MJL said I'm repeating myself, because apparently it's not clear.

Every game shouldn't have to be shorter. It should be exactly long as it needs. Game of Thrones at 2.5 hours-3 hours is perfect, and that's what my games of it run. My games of Nexus Ops are 1.5 hours, and that's perfect for what it is. My games of Twilight Imperium are 6-8 hours. Those are perfect for what *it* is. Scramble those times amongst those three games, and guess what? Doesn't work anymore.

I'm not sure honestly that this is difficult to understand, but apparently it is.

Bottom line...yes, MJL, I will concede that Samruai Swords is too long for what it is and becomes boring because of this. You repeat the same actions over and over for 4-5 hours. I have great memories of the game, but that's before I knew of other options.

And again...I would play TI3 at 8 hours before Shogun at 5 hours. See? Does it make sense yet, Notahandle?

To be fair....it was reprinted three times....

just sayin'

How many times has Risk been reprinted, Superfly? You lining up to play that? (the non-sharpie version, that is...)

Typical complaints about Risk: "Too long. Same thing over and over."

If I'm going to play a game for four hours, I'd better feel like hour 4 is different than hour 3. Some sort of growth or change, instead of simply "this time for sure! *roll* Aw, fuck."

If I've got that many people committed for that much time, I've got plenty of long games I want to play more than Ikusa/Samurai Swords/Shogun of Harlem.

The question then becomes of how long before repetition pushes the game from good to "too much"?

That's a good question. Complexity and game options easily help push that limit forward in terms of length. When turns seem truly different from each other, it stops feeling as though you're spinning your wheels.

Take Game of Thrones again. There reaches a point in the game where you've seen most of the event cards, you've battled with everyone a little bit, you're played all your house cards and regenerated, and the push/pull of territorial battle starts to feel repetitive. Right about then, it ends, either through the 10-turn limit, or because someone's won. Honestly, for me it ends exactly when it needs to. And between the orders, special orders, house cards, bidding, wilding attacks, sea battles, land battles, alliances, support...well, you're given plenty to do during your time with the game.

Look, man, if you want to dick around with this dusty old fucker for 6 hours out of some sense of duty to The Classics, go ahead. I'll be over here doing something more fun, like sandpapering my balls.

The game isn't good. It never was. The only reason we thought it was is that we didn't know any goddamn better. Nowadays, we do. Awfully sorry, Ikusa, but you suck. No, you haven't "aged poorly," you're not obsolete, you're just not fun to play.

That's what everyone's really saying here, Notahandle. Just be glad that they've bent over backwards to come up with bullshit reasons why the game sucks that sound more diplomatic.

Well, I refuse to play the new version because it is called Ikusa....

A good game should, just like a story, have a beginning, a middle, and an end. This may sound stupid, but what happens in a lot of overly long games (like Samurai/Ikusa and old school Risk) is that the middle and the end just end up being mushed together.

Seems to me this is the crux of the misunderstandings that may be going on here. Some of you seem to be saying that because they "didn't know any better", it actually made it good, even when it might not have been.

(I've never played it, so I can't comment. I once moved into a flat in which, to my astonishment, there was a pristine copy of Samurai Swords left in the cupboard under the stairs. That night we had a house-warming party and got horribly drunk. The next day, we were horribly hungover and attempted to play Samurai Swords. It was a train-wreck: no-one could be bothered to read the rules properly and we lasted about two turns before we gave up and never looked at the game again. Moral: do not attempt to learn new long and complex games when hungover.)

Anyway, it seems to me that that's the argument. Does having fun with a poor game because there's nothing better on offer actually mean it should be counted as a good game? Seems a fairly pointless argument to me, especially to spend so many column inches on, but there we go.

Ken B. wrote:
"I'm not sure honestly that this is difficult to understand, but apparently it is."
My post immediately above yours said "Yes, some longer games have the right duration, some don't. Isn't that obvious?" You then claim it's not clear to me and essentially rephrase my words back to me, adding examples. Perhaps it's you who are having the difficulty in understanding.

"Does it make sense yet, Notahandle?"
To repeat your quote two posts running: "Same experience in shorter time is better." Do you understand what you're saying? If it's the same experience then guess what? It's the same experience. So what you're actually saying is shorter is better. An absolute. And as I've already said, it obviously is not for the simple reason that there is no agreement. It's opinion, not fact.

Is that any clearer?

mjl1783 wrote:
"if you want to dick around with this dusty old fucker for 6 hours out of some sense of duty to The Classics"
Sense of duty? What're you on?

"I'll be over here doing something more fun, like sandpapering my balls."
I have no doubt that you'd enjoy such activity immensely.

"The game isn't good. It never was."
Again, an absolute.

"That's what everyone's really saying here"
Hardly everyone.

"Just be glad that they've bent over backwards to come up with bullshit reasons why the game sucks that sound more diplomatic."
Why? Because of all the wasted time writing posts?

I have no problem with anyone who says it's too long and repetitive for them. My issue is with the pretence that it's an absolute fact, not opinion. You say it's "just not fun to play". That's great, an honest opinion, because you're not claiming that it's "just not fun to play" for everyone on the planet.