Today a group of us caught The Simpsons movie. It was enjoyable, and I’ve spent $7.50 on far worse things in my life (magic beans, shya’right). As a point of reference I’m one of those folks who think the past several seasons have been pretty disappointing, if not just awful at times.

Is it something you need to see on the big screen? Not really. In the tradition of most pieces of entertainment that originate on the small screen, the movie provides a tad greater freedom due to the budget, but ultimately the impact is minimal. It’s basically a couple of back-to-back Simpsons episodes, commercial-free, with Futurama (which lives again!) level animation. Really the only television show that the big screen helped was Star Trek. Yet even though it’s not really necessary to see in the theater, there is something to be said about doing exactly that.

I suppose it’s something inherent to the human condition, but for some reason shared experiences—such as a comedic flick—usually elevate your enjoyment. Why sitting in the dark with scores of strangers, all laughing at the same jokes, is better than doing it solo on the comfort of your couch, I’m not sure…but it usually is. And for this reason my enjoyment for the movie was kicked up a couple of clicks on the funometer.

There are a number of activities that while as a spectator you are completely passive in their execution, are made much more enjoyable by partaking in them with a crowd. Concerts. Plays. Motivational speaking. Air show crashes. So why isn’t gaming much fun as a spectator sport?

Sorry, I just do not get any type of thrill from watching people play games. Digital, board, or role-playing. Well, sometimes if you get a good group of RPGers it can be fun to watch, but overall watching people play is an exercise in tedium. Do I really want to sit there and spend three hours watching someone set up the perfect summer offensive? Watch them pick up a stack of counters, examine them, put them down, pick up another stack, do the same, over and over and over again. Calculate odds, count up movement distances. Then, start it all over when they can’t remember if they carried the 2 in the calculations. Joy.

Digital games are just as bad. Playing Dominions 3? Fun. Watching someone else play Dominions 3? Not so much.

The difference between passively enjoying a game, and the other modes of entertainment I mentioned earlier, is of course the fact that those entertainment forms are meant to be passively enjoyed in the first place. Enjoying them with a group is just an added benefit. Games though are active forms of entertainment. You watch a movie, listen to a concert, but you play a game.

Now I know for years and years there’s folks trying to make gaming into some sort of professional competition. Oh, and let’s not forget Korea. I think legally you have to watch people play games over there. And you know what, I’ve never gotten that. Are there really that many people who enjoy watching others play games? Could we get to a point that it becomes just as acceptable as watching a sporting event? Would you pay a couple thousand dollars for season tickets to watch your favorite clan play in a first-person shooter season? And if we do get to that point, how did we get there?

I suppose you could compare watching people play games to watching a sporting event, but I feel the same way about that. Such as, you know, actually driving an Indy car at 200+ MPH would be pretty cool, but watching someone else drive one is pretty damn boring. But hey, there are those folks in the stands so I guess I just haven’t discovered the secret of enjoyment.

That’s okay though. I’ll continue to enjoy my gaming as nature intended; playing, not watching.

Tom Chick over at Quarter to Three recently posted his thoughts on Battlefront’s Combat Mission: Shock Force, which earned him quite a roasting from the folks at Battlefront. Now normally I wouldn’t want to comment on the subject for obvious reasons but when I read Steve Grammont’s response to Chick’s psuedo-review there were two lines that I think need commenting on.

Steve says:

“Somehow he forgets to mention that nobody is trying to simulate contemporary warfare except for cartoon like RTS and FPS games. Yup, we’re getting zero credit for doing what nobody else has the balls to do, and instead getting slammed.” [Emphasis mine]

Really? No one else is simulating contemporary warfare except for cartoon-like RTS games? Hmm, let me think about that for a moment…

You know, I think there is one developer who has been doing that for years. The name is on the tip of my tongue. Let’s see, they have a series of hardcore, ultra-realistic real-time (or as they prefer to call them, command-time) simulations on modern land combat. So realistic that the basic engine is used by elements of the US Department of Defense, Lockheed-Martin, and other professional organizations. Their games simulate air assaults, tank on tank action, infantry melees, the problem of refugees in a war zone, and much, much more. Their maps are based on real-world elevation data and could be used to accurately plot your course if you’re ever in one of these simulated regions.

Wait, it’s coming to me now…ProSIM. And why, look at our catalog here at Shrapnel…you’ll find Air Assault Task Force, ATF: Armored Task Force, BCT Commander, The Falklands War: 1982, Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War, and The Star and the Crescent. All contemporary warfare real-time strategy titles with zero cartoony elements to them.

But yeah, Combat Mission: Shock Force is the first game to have the balls to do contemporary warfare in real-time. Didn’t they also copyright “shock and awe” a couple years ago?

So look, if you want to play some realistic modern warfare simulations in real-time ProSIM have plenty to choose from. There is a learning curve, but every game comes with an exhaustive manual and once you’ve learned one, you’ve pretty much learned them all. So where do you start? A lot depends on what type of combat you’re interested in.

Air Assault Task Force is the most recent, and features three well-known airmobile operations of the past forty years. It uses a different UI from the earlier ATF series of games, but if you own any of them it will upgrade the titles to the new UI. Pretty neat. So, if you like blasting ‘Flight of the Valkyries’ this is a good starting title. Also, since it encompasses four decades of combat it includes a nice selection of opposing forces.

ATF: Armored Task Force, BCT Commander, and The Star and the Crescent are all good heavy metal titles. Lots of tank actions, and really great fun with close air support in The Star and the Crescent. All three games feature plenty of interesting weapon platforms, too.

The Falklands War: 1982 is infantry heavy, so if you like to see more knife fights than kills at a thousand meters, this is a good choice to begin with. Factor in the fact that this is one of the least modeled conflicts in gaming, and you have yourself a winner.

Last but not least, Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War gives players a mixture of elements; plenty of infantry combat, armor assaults, and death from the sky. The subject matter is also one of pure fun. While there have been a smattering of modern hypothetical Korean wargames over the years, how many base their premise on the US and ROK invading the North?

All ProSIM titles can be played against the AI (a right tough bugger), or against live opponents in a variety of ways. Scenario editors allow players to create their own games, and ProSIM is very supportive of their titles. How many other developers do you know of that ensure that their older titles are kept in line with their new releases, and not simply forgotten about?

So go ahead and grab the demos from their respective pages and give’em a shot. 100% realistic modern warfare, 0% cartoon.

As the war in Iraq progressed from its initial military campaign to the ongoing guerilla war, the topic of trying to simulate current events in game form has been thrown around amongst gamers I know. The problem has always been what’s the best way to represent the situation, yet manage to keep it playable? Ideas have been tossed around over greasy pizzas, in cars on the way to local game shops, and via email, all with no real results. The perfect system eluded us.

Until now. Recently I was playing Avalon Hill’s We The People, and that’s when it hit me…this is how you do the Iraq conflict!

If you are not familiar with We The People, it’s a card-driven game (CDG) by Mark Herman on the American Revolution. Not familiar with CDGs? CDGs, instead of a traditional IGOUGO sequence of play, revolve around the idea of playing cards to move, fight, et cetera. That said, they do not play like the Commands and Colors system, which is also driven by cards. Typically in a CDG (of which there are many) you play cards to activate leaders and their respective troop stacks, play events, and influence area control. Obviously, every game system tweaks what the cards can and cannot do, but most keep the general elements.

I was playing the independent-minded colonists in our game. The colonists have several advantages over the British, such as the ability to influence political control anyplace on the map. For the British, control is spread from existing areas of control. The colonists have more leaders, which in turn allows them to convert British markers at a more numerous rate than what the British can do in a given turn. The colonies also have the advantage of being able to sustain a steady rate of reinforcements throughout the war, while the British see their reinforcements peak, and then drop as the years go on.

British advantages run along the lines of better leaders, and initially many more troops. Troop quality, represented by a bonus in combat, is also present, but is negated permanently through the use of a particular event card. The British can often win battles, but have a hard time winning the hearts and minds.

Victory is determined by the number of colonies controlled, with the American player needing nine colonies to win. The end date of the game is random, dictated by event cards. The earliest end date allows for about six or seven turns of play though, allowing plenty of time for the players to have an impact on the game.

In our game I managed a colonial victory with nine colonies. The British had pretty much the south locked up, with both Carolinas dens of redcoats, along with Virginia and Maryland. Georgia did not fall, only because on the very first turn of the game I was able to secure the French alliance and landed French troops in Savannah. Due to the fact that the system favors the defender in combat (unlimited stacking, but leaders can only carry five strength points with them on the march), I did little with the French except build them up. That did have the effect of forcing the British player to keep a sizable force bottling them up, or risk having the French rampage through the south.

The north was completely dominated by my troops. Early on I marched Washington against Howe in a fairly even battle. Securing victory, the British retreated towards Canada, but fell victim to winter attrition. The next year I launched another attack on his forces, supported by the French navy, and wiped the Brits out. From that point on the only ports the Brits could reinforce from were in the south. I was given free reign to occupy the north, while the Brits had to spread themselves thin, and slowly progress north.

When you look at all the elements in We The People—especially the political control system, random game end—it could all easily work with a game on Iraq. You could even increase the number of players from two, to three or four: Coalition player, Sunni and Shi’ite, al-Qaeda, and Iran. Like the British in We The People, the Coalition would be better at combat, but have a tougher time spreading influence. Perhaps, unlike We The People, political control could be converted by the Iraqi side at a whim, instead of needing a leader. Event cards could portray typical current events, and instead of a random war end card perhaps a point track that when filled up forces the Coalition player to cut and run (of course you could still have instant lose cards, such as the ‘Hillary Wins!’ event card).

So, what do you think? Could the system work?

Origins Changes Name, Adds Clowns

Saw this post today. Origins is changing its name from the Origins International Game Expo to the Origins Game Fair, and adding a “fair element” for walk-in visitors to check out for a buck. While that may mean clowns, pony rides, and ferris wheels, I’m thinking that the sight of overweight fifty-year old men dressed up like Captain Kirk would be enough entertainment for most folks.

What’s interesting is it sounds like for that dollar you can also check out the vendor area and a games demo area.

GAMA will be adding a fair element to the show that will include food vendors and dozens of game demo areas where visitors will be able to learn new games from around the world in an easy and fun setting. Entrance to this part of the Origins Game Fair will be only $1.00, and the huge exhibit hall, with over 200 vendors of games, will be included in that price.

“Nothing is going away from the show everyone knows and loves,” Gallela said. “The additional demo spaces will be an invitation to the general public to join enthusiasts in their love of games.”

Will the general public be drawn to check out the show, even at the rock-bottom price of one dollar? I also wonder how good security will be in terms of those folks who are just walk-ins to the “fair”, sneaking into other areas of the con that everyone else is forking over sixty bucks for. I know here in Atlanta the last Dragoncon I went to I was rather irked at the number of people walking around the con that had just came in off the streets. Now, this was a while back, so maybe things have changed, but about the only place that they checked for a con ID badge was when entering the dealer’s room (although I think we were asked for our ID when signing up for tournament games), which seemed a little stupid since that’s the main place at the con where you’re spending money.

Recently one of my gaming groups has been kicking around the idea of a modern, strategic level wargame. Maybe project it a few years in the future, but other than that it would use current TOEs. Basically, we’re just interested in gaming out things like could the US, along with our allies Britain and Australia, take over the world? We don’t want to include diplomacy or any type of political machinations, and haven’t really thought about the nuke question. Probably don’t want them though, which then begs the question under what circumstances would a modern global war not go nuclear?

The problem with the game (besides the fact that it will probably never see fruition) is that if we did pursue it, we’re going to be making up all the counters. We can cannibalize maps from other games (current thought at the moment is ADG’s 7 Ages map…we’re shooting for a fast moving game, so area movement definitely has the advantage over hex based), but when it comes to pieces that’s going to be tough. Most games focused on modern warfare aren’t strategic in nature, and those that are are entrenched in the Cold War.

This got me thinking (smell those cranial hamster wheels turnin’!)…role-playing games are essentially worlds in books, right? While yes, publishers love to sell you expansion after expansion (and admittedly, that’s how they survive), you really only need to core books and your own imagination to play. Miniature games take a somewhat similar approach. You get the rules in a book, and then go out and buy miniatures to use with the book. Yet, you really don’t need to buy the official miniatures to play. Heck, you could even just make up your own miniatures out of cut up index cards if you wanted to. It may be as ugly as a truckstop restroom, but it’s functional. So why is their a dearth of wargames in a similar vein? Generic, DIY kits?

Obviously you can argue that every wargame is a DIY kit, and I would agree with you to a point. Some are just too tied in with their design structures that you can’t use components for other games. But what I’m thinking about is something along the lines of someone releasing nothing but countersheets featuring various organizational sizes, using a standardized mechanic for combat capabilities throughout the releases of similar types, with unit types throughout history. So, if you wanted to make a game based on some obscure conflict between Italian city-states, you wouldn’t have to go out and spend $60 on a game to do so (if you could even find an appropriate title), but rather you would order up a couple of specific sheets of counters. And yes, you can currently make your own DTP counters, but imagine the time saved if you didn’t have to design them yourself?

Could a counter creation service work? Or, do most people restrict their tabletop modding to the games they have at hand?

In a recent post I mentioned that not all casual games are bad. These are not those games.

Today, under the news column for Gamasutra, the top four stories concern themselves with the oncoming casual marketplace onslaught. Three of the stories are from the Casual Connect conference. One is just a general press release from Sony, although I would guess its release was timed with the conference in mind.

The golden goose at one point were real-time strategy games. Then it became MMORPGs. Now, casual games.

Bleh.

On the same day there’s an article about Civilization, with an interview with Sid Meier, also at Gamasutra. Here’s a quote from that interview that I believe makes an interesting contrast to casual gaming:

“Sid: Yes. It’s always fun to make computer games, but I think in those days we really hadn’t come up with the idea of a genre yet, so we would say, “Let’s do a game about pirates!” “OK! There will be sword fighting and there will be ships!” or “Let’s do a game about civilization.” “Yeah! We’ll have economics and diplomacy. There will be military…” We didn’t say, “What category are we going to fit this into?” There was a lot more experimenting. The graphics and the sound technology were limited, so the investment wasn’t so high to make a game.

You could only make it look so good, or sound so good. So we didn’t have to spend the millions and millions and millions of dollars like we do today. It was a little less risky, so we could take a chance with games because they didn’t cost as much money. That was fun; It was exciting.”

Experimentation. Chance. Excitement. Words that you will never hear uttered about mainstream casual gaming.

The sad thing is when you consider how young digital gaming is compared to other forms of entertainment, there’s absolutely no reason why it had to go down this route of pop music/reality TV/brainless $200 million dollar special effects orgies. Ah well.

The collector’s edition of Red Dawn was released today. I remember seeing it in the theaters when it was released, and while I can’t say it felt like yesterday, it’s still hard to believe that it’s been twenty three years! Dammit, I’m getting old.

Red Dawn was (and still is) a silly, yet enjoyable, movie. Back then I can recall my friends and I going on a World War III gaming spree for a while, fueled initially by the movie. With the Iron Curtain still in place and no end in sight for the Cold War, wargaming and role-playing against a backdrop of another world war, possibly nuclear, had an interesting feel to it. As Soviet armored divisions, represented by lots of red and brown counters, headed into West Germany, it wasn’t historical gaming, it wasn’t futuristic gaming, it was gaming something that could possibly occur at any moment. We were gaming reality—or at least one possible reality.

For someone growing up today games based upon the premise of Warsaw Pact and NATO going to the mats must seem rather bizarre. Thinking about all the Cold War made hot games, they do occupy a rather strange place in our gaming history. When they were originally released they were potential future conflict games. Today, they’re alternate history titles, and yet would any serious designer of a World War III game want his game to be thrown into the same mix as Nazis and Japs battling it out in the Mississippi valley? (For those unfamiliar, that’s the subject of Ty Bomba’s Mississippi Banzai.)

I also find it strange that during the ‘80s it was entirely common to find wargames based on potentially fighting the Russkies (the old 3N rule of what sells: NATO, Nukes, and Nazis…which also got turned into a Ty Bomba game, by the way), yet how many modern wargames focus on the immediate threats of our time? Yes, they’re out there (and in fact the majority of ProSIM games deal with realistic contemporary threats), but not in truly large numbers. Consider how many games—board, computer, and role-playing—that were released in the ‘80s dealing with the Russian threat, and now consider how many today deal with battling Islamic regimes or China. Not so many.

It’s also interesting that we’re beginning to see a resurgence in fighting the Russians. World in Conflict is a Red Dawn scenario. There’s another upcoming game featuring Nazis invading America during the ‘50s. Judging from the trailer for Call of Duty 4, those nogoodnik Commies are once again up to their old tricks, although there does appear to be some nods to the Middle East.

So, are we purposely ignoring today’s threats in large numbers because it’s not politically correct, or is it simply more “fun” to battle the Russians?

Tonight a friend of mine had asked what I thought about the upcoming Cthulhu movie that J.J. Abrams was doing. My response was a resounding, “Whatcha talkin’ ‘bout, Willis?” The guy who did Alias is doing Cthulhu? Really?

Having not seen Transformers I did not see the trailer for Abrams’ upcoming flick, Cloverfield/1-18-08/Parasite, and apparently have fallen behind on keeping up with the latest Intertubes kewlness. So we found the trailer and checked it out. General thoughts about it:

1. Looks cool. I like the “you are there” feel to it. One thing I always hate about horror movies is they use so many tricks (e.g. building music during a scene of supposed tension) that you never really feel the horror because you’re far too self-aware it’s a movie. Blair Witch Project, while it loses everything on repeat viewings, was awesome the first time because of this.

2. Okay, it works. You got me wanting to see the movie. When you think about it, how many trailers actually do that for you?

3. What the heck does it have to do with Cthulhu?

That’s when I’m told he got that from several forums, like AICN. AICN, well, that makes sense. If you have not delved the stygian depths that comprise the AICN forums, let me put it to you this way: take the worst forum you can think of populated by gamers, and multiply the idiocy factor by a thousand. Yes, be afraid. Very afraid.

So I make my sanity check and start browsing the forums. Yes, Cthulhu pops up quite frequently, and you even have the ubiquitous Wikipedia links. Joy. From the postings it seems fairly obvious that most folks have very little knowledge of the works of HPL, and many have possibly kept the belt on a little too long when performing autoasphyxiation.

Okay, here’s why I don’t think it has anything at all to do with Cthulhu and yes, I’m just another yahoo on the Internet spouting off stuff, but hopefully you will find logic in what I say…

1. First of all, Cthulhu is still pretty much geek territory, extending somewhat into the literary world, but even then you’re talking the fringe. Sure, it’s been touched on before in “major” releases (if you define films like Mouth of Madness as major…Hellboy probably fits better) but overall Cthulhu is still confined to the indie film circle and Stuart Gordon. I just don’t see J.J. Abrams as doing Cthulhu.

2. The idea of Cthulhu as a giant, rampaging monster is just so silly. This is an alien creature, vastly superior to mankind, whose dreams can send men into insanity. He’s not going to climb to the top of the Empire state building with some chick in his claws. It’s just stupid. If he was freed the world would fall from the madness that would sweep over the globe. Considering the means of destruction we have at the moment, that basically means man destroying man, not man in suit destroying man.

3. Cthulhu is trapped in the Pacific. The film takes place in New York City. Let’s say that number two turns out to be true and he does go rampaging. Why would he be attacking NYC? Does he cross the Pacific, and then like Forrest Gump, run across America? Maybe he went through the Panama canal? Or did he travel across the Indian ocean, and then into the Atlantic? It makes absolutely no sense, and for this reason alone the idea of Cthulhu should be discounted.

Ultimately who knows what’s going on…is it a giant monster, aliens, or Rosie O’Donnell attacking the city? Not knowing the geography of the city too well, what exactly would be big enough to create the explosion? We can only hope it’s the United Nations building getting whacked.

I also thought it was amusing that some of the folks thinking it must be Cthulhu reference the guy shouting, “It’s alive!” because, you know, the general man on the street is well aware that Great Cthulhu is dead but dreaming.

That’s also an interesting statement in itself. “It’s alive!” Why would someone say that unless whatever it is would normally not be alive? Since we see the Statue of Liberty head come flying I’m guessing it’s not a redux of Ghostbusters 2.

I will say that some folks did bring up some Biblical references dealing with Revelations, and the “It’s alive!” could be heard as “It’s a lion!”, which is actually what I heard. Saying “It’s a lion! and “It’s huge!” actually makes somewhat more sense. Isn’t the Beast, which rises out of the sea to destroy Babylon, lion-headed? That could make for a cool movie. Maybe they’re onto something.

Whatever it turns out to be (and as much as I like Cthulhu I really hope it’s not…) I will have to say that the marketing is doing its job. Doesn’t hurt it has the whole ARG angle. ARGs just seem to suck people in, yet strangely, tabletop RPG sales have been steadily going down. When will people learn that ultimately a gamer beats in all our hearts?

Ah well, it’s like 4:30 in the morning, time to crash…