Quick personal observation…

My dentist sent me to see an oral surgeon because he thinks it’s time for my wisdom teeth to be extracted. So I had a consultation with the oral surgeon about doing such a thing. The total it will cost me to get them removed? Nearly $2400.

Wisdom teeth. Nature’s scam to pad the pockets of dentists oral surgeons around the world.

Today the Virginia Tech Review Panel turned in their report on the mass murder spree, and the mental health history of the killer, Seung Hui Cho. As we all know folks like Jack Thompson enjoy trying to point the finger at gaming as the cause of school shootings. Oddly, they never seem to point the finger at gaming when it involves shootings at inner-city schools. Apparently it’s only in middle to upper class schools that the shooters must be under some outside influence, because only good, decent law-abiding folks live in the suburbs and go to the universities, right?

Anyway the report completely shoots down any possible link to gaming as evidenced in Chapter IV which can be found here. There was one statement that piqued my interest. Page 2, second column, first paragraph says:

“None of the video games were war games or had violent themes.” [Emphasis mine]

I remember after Columbine some media outlet throwing out the fact that those two losers were into “wargaming” and Battletech was mentioned. I know that’s what I think of when I think of wargaming! Oh, speaking of Battletech, the new edition with plastic minis is now out. Looks pretty sweet.

I just find the misuse of “war games” amusing. Someone needs to do a PSA…

INT. KITCHEN. AFTERNOON.

Three kids, BOBBY, JOHNNY, and TED are playing Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. BOBBY is playing the Germans, JOHNNY the Allies, and TED the Russians.

BOBBY

Here it comes, no more Phony War! I’m invading France and the Low Countries! Suck it down beyotch!

JOHNNY

Aww man, why don’t you go pick on the Soviet Union!

TED

Moltov-Ribbentrob pact, for the win!

JOHNNY and TED high-five each other.

INT. SCHOOL GYMNASIUM.

Low shot. Bloody corpses are scattered about. BOBBY, JOHNNY, and TED are amongst them, although they are clutching weapons in their cold, dead hands. JOHNNY has the Third Reich player aid table stuck in his front pocket. Can see the legs and boots of SWAT OFFICER 1 and SWAT OFFICER 2 standing in front of the bodies.

SWAT OFFICER 1

Another tragedy. Dammit, why do these kids keep throwing their lives away?

SWAT OFFICER 2 reaches down and picks up the player aid chart from the pocket of JOHNNY.

SWAT OFFICER 2

Here’s why. Another damn wargamer.

GRAPHIC: THE MORE YOU KNOW

VO: Remember kids, this week you’re annexing Czechoslovakia, next week you’re on a murder spree! Wargaming, just don’t do it!

Oh, thinking about Jack Thompson made me dig up this correspondence I got from him in ’02. I need to set it up before you enjoy his amusing antics. His response to question number 3 is priceless.

I was emailing a self-proclaimed videogame addict counselor at the time who had been talking in the media quite a bit about the suicide of Shawn Woolley. It was quite evident from articles that Shawn had many problems, but because he also played Everquest that was, according to this “counselor”, the true reason for his suicide. He was also working with Jack Thompson, and I said that I’m sure Thompson chased after Woolley’s family, and not the other way around. After all, it would seem that most families would be more interested in grieving than filing lawsuits. He said oh no, he was sure that Thompson was contacted by the family.

Please see Thompson’s response to question 7 on who contacted whom first…

Note: I’ve highlighted my original questions to make it easier to read.

—– Original Message —–

From: Scott R. Krol krol@XXXX.net

To: jackthompson@XXXX.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:25 PM

Subject: Woolley’s suicide

> Hi Jack:

> You’re representing Elizabeth Woolley on her son’s suicide, correct? I

> was hoping if you have a few moments you could respond to a couple

> questions concerning this matter. I’m writing an article on this

> subject and your input would be most appreciated.

>> (1) What is your stance on the issue of violence in the entertainment media (music/movies/games)? I stand in front of it, saying “NO.” If you were a father, as am I, you would, too.>

I stand in front of it, saying “NO.” If you were a father, as am I, you would, too. 

> > (2) Do you believe Everquest contributed to his suicide? Yes, it was part of a causal chain of events. We only have to prove it was one of the links in that chain, not all of the links.

> > (3) If so, what about his mental illness? Wasn’t that the real reason?He wasn’t mentally ill, since he didn’t read Wired.

> (4) Do you want to see the entertainment media censored, warned, what? I want them to be in the same boat that any other manufacturer is. If you make a dangerous product, fail to warn of its dangers, such as addiction (it’s called EverCrack, you know), and someone gets hurt as a result of your failure to warn, then you are liable for damages. Everybody who makes every other product in America plays by that rule.

>(5) What’s the status on the suit, have you actually filed anything? Haven’t filed it yet.

> (6) Considering that all lawsuits against computer game companies have been dismissed as baseless, what makes you think this one will be any different? We’re in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on our Paducah case, and we’re going to win the appeal. I’m sure you’ll contact me when we do, right?

>(7) Did you contact Elizabeth Woolley or did she contact you? I contacted her because the suicide occurred in my wife’s hometown and my mother in law sent me the article. I simply contacted her to help her try to find out fully why this happened. That’s all I have done so far. I’ve written Sony and asked them to give us their data pertaining to Shawn. Did you send his mother your condolences? Or don’t you care, just like Sony?

> (8) Have you ever attempted to sue the entertainment media before? Yep,
always successfully. See above, plus I got the first decency fines ever
levied by the FCC, way back in 1989.
>> (9) Roughly how much will this cost Elizabeth Woolley? Her son.

In Panzerschreck 15 Art Lupinacci interviewed Don Greenwood and I found the following segment particularly interesting:

Panzerschreck: How do you rate the importance of the Fall of SPI in 1982?

Don Greenwood: Throughout the heyday of wargaming I gained a reputation as the “Boy who cried wolf” bemoaning the game glut that SPI was generating by churning out so many games. I argued that the market was being saturated and it would soon come back to haunt everyone. It did, but it took longer than I expected. AH thrived with a ready market for its products when it released two a year. But we soon joined SPI in a race to turn out product with what to me were predictable results. The quality of the games declined as did the sales. As each succeeding title sold less and less, more and more titles had to be produced to make up the difference in volume. It was a vicious downward spiral from which the company never emerged.

So I was not sorry to see SPI go. To be sure, nature and markets abhor a vacuum and if it was not SPI it would have been someone else. Success spawns competition. The wargame gravy train would have ended eventually but SPI’s prodigious output certainly hastened the end.

The entire interview is a fascinating read so be sure to find a copy of the ish. I believe it may still be the most current issue, even though it’s about a year old.

I can understand what he’s saying about oversaturation of the market, that seems to be a common problem in the world of gaming. Second edition AD&D was plagued by dozens of splatbooks near the end which probably hastened TSR’s financial woes, scores of CCGs erupted after Magic: The Gathering became so popular (with their publishers soon crashing and burning), and in the computer world there was the flood of RTS and MMORPG titles. While too many choices sounds like a gamer’s dream, ultimately you only have so much time and so many dollars to spend, forcing gamers to pick and choose. For those publishers unlucky enough to not be the producers of product being chosen, well, better luck next time, unless you’ve banked everything on that one product line…

Here’s the thing, though, where did the gamers go? When there were an endless parade of RTS clones trying to mimic Blizzard’s or Westwood’s successes, and everyone had enough of them, it wasn’t like the bottom dropped out on computer games. Likewise, role-players who felt burned by TSR typically either switched systems, or continued to play but without purchasing every single terrible book that was being put out. Yet that’s not what happened in the world of wargaming.

You know the rest of the story. Wargames went from print runs of 30,000 copies—with possible multiple print runs—to pre-order buy-ins of 500 today, and it’s not unusual to see it take nearly a year for even that to be reached! Even assuming an aging population that can’t find time to game anymore, that’s a terrible bleed rate.

Was the decline in quality in the ‘80s what drove folks away en masse? Or was it simply time for something else? I have yet to hear a truly good explanation for this, and probably never will. I have a feeling no one really knows. We all just woke up one day and realized, crap, the party’s over. Sure, we still get together once in a while, but the venue keeps getting smaller and smaller, and the music isn’t quite as loud as it used to be. I’m not leaving though.

One problem I’ve had with many shooters is the onset of shooter fatigue around the 80%-85% completion mark. By shooter fatigue, I mean there’s that point where suddenly the magic and excitement that has been carrying me is stripped away, and I’m left with a feeling of drudgery for the rest of the game. Even Bioshock, with as much hype as it’s getting, left me with this feeling. I reached a point and the thrill was gone.

As I thought about this today I reached the conclusion that I end up feeling this way because shooters are just so damn formulaic. By the time you tip past the halfway mark and start on the final levels you’ve seen all the bad guys, experienced the coolest levels, and have an arsenal which has reached its maximum. The only thing left is the requisite face off against hordes of enemies until the final level with the always uninspiring boss battle. Why are shooters locked into this?

When you consider the early shooters they were nothing more than arcade type games with a different player perspective. DOOM could have easily been a top-down action game, and well Hell’s Bells, Wolfenstein 3D was literally a 3D reimagining of the 2D 8-bit games that shared its name. Realizing this it’s understandable why shooters used a typical arcade scheme of the player growing in power (exemplified in shooters by more powerful things that go boom), because deep down that’s what they were. I’d also toss in D&D as an influence, since that works the same way. Higher levels = nastier spells and +12 Hackmasters.

So why in 2007 do shooters still play the arcade game, no matter what type of pretense they have for attempting to, as Rich of Digital Eel is fond of saying, “Create the holodeck without the holo.” (Or is it without the deck? Sorry if I screwed that up! )

Typical feature bullet point list of a modern shooter:

• Interactive environment!
• Free roaming levels!
• Multiple weapon modes!
• Train rides!
• The Havok Physics Engine!

What they neglect to mention is the fact that the player always starts off with a weasely little popgun/tool from This Old House, and then moves onto pistol, then the shotgun, then the grenade launcher, and so forth. And as an aside, why is the crossbow suddenly the cool weapon to have in a game? And oh, the bad guys will start off easy but then get harder as you progress, usually in the form of more hit points and stronger weapons, not in terms of better AI.

Minor Bioshock spoiler: Bioshock does this too. For all the talk about trying to be the next generation of shooter you start off with a simple melee weapon, quickly find a pistol, and from that point on acquiring weapons is just like clockwork. Worse, for all the creativity that was poured into the art direction, none of it trickled into weaponry. Oh sure, some of the designs are clever, but from a functional viewpoint there’s absolutely nothing unique about them. You’ve seen them in every other shooter you’ve played. Shotgun. Grenade launcher. Machine gun. Crossbow. Zzzzz.

Isn’t it about time that shooters start trying to be truly interactive games and stop being pretty looking arcade games? Start mixing things up. We’re playing larger-than-life heroes, right? Instead of trying to create gameplay balance based on the power of the player’s weapons and how much damage the enemy can take, just make the entire game balanced from the get-go. Give us a sandbox to play in, with the cool weapons right from the start. Keep us surprised, since half of the fun of a shooter is the discovery factor. I want to think that there’s something cool around the corner when I’m ten hours into the game, just as I felt when I was one hour into it.

And please, definitely no more boss battles. One of the most impressive climaxes in a shooter I thought was the end Russian level in one of the Call of Duty games. Sorry, can’t recall which one—they sorta all blur together—but in it you were defending a train station. Now that was an end level! All types of crazy stuff was going on. Stukas screaming from the sky, tanks blasting away, krauts charging your position, and it rarely let up. That’s what shooters need more of in the end, unrestricted chaos, not bad guys pumped up with an insane amount of hit points.

Bioshock finished! Life goes on.

Turns out there’s more than just three instances of “I saw that coming” in the game. In many regards it’s a very conventional shooter (and in some ways it’s actually quite retro, such as the lack of encumbrance checking. The least they could have done is say the good scientists of Rapture invented a Heward’s Handy Haversack.), but no other shooter can match it for its atmosphere, which at times borders on genius. And hey, it’s been a loooong time since I’ve played a shooter that when I wasn’t playing I started to jones. I also will probably play it again at some point, which is something I don’t think I’ve ever done with a shooter. So yeah, it’s a must-play game. Not perfect, but really good. The kind of good that makes you want to talk about your game experience.

But enough about Bioshock, let’s talk about how two different games can provide players with essentially the same game mechanic, but because of presentation, it is often judged differently by players. What got me thinking about this was Battlelore and Men of Iron.

For the uninitiated, Battlelore is the latest Commands and Colors game from Richard Borg, and combines history and fantasy with a mythical take on the Hundred Years War (though you can play it as a purely historical game). Previous C&C titles include Battlecry (American Civil War), Memoir ’44 (World War II), and Ancients (you got it, men in skirts with swords). Listening to an interview with Borg from last year it appears that the next game to be released will focus on the Napoleonic Wars.

Men of Iron is Richard Berg’s (please note the vowel difference) game of medieval warfare. While Battlelore features overlying tiles that allow players to construct a variety of maps, Men of Iron features six individual maps, each specific to one of the half dozen battles included in the game. Men of Iron is first in a series, although it’s been two years and other than some chatter on the CSW forums, there hasn’t been much official news about a sequel.

There are a number of other differences between the two games besides the maps, but for the sake of this discussion they’re not important. What is important is that both games are about warfare in the middle ages, and one is more pure game (Battlelore) while the other leans towards simulation (Men of Iron), although it’s very light in rules. And what’s truly important is how command is dealt with in each game.

Battlelore, like all C&C games, divides up the playing field into three sections (left, center, right). Players alternate playing a single card, which either allows them to activate a number of units in a section (or sections), or provides special movement and bonuses to specific unit types.

In Men of Iron units under your command are differentiated by color, representing all the forces beneath a specific commander. For example, in the battle of Bannockburn the English have two colors (commands). The starting player chooses a command color to activate and then performs movement and combat with that color. He can then activate another command, but not the same command, by rolling lower than a commander’s rating. If the roll fails then the second player becomes active, and may freely activate one command. After that command is played, he attempts to activate his next command. If he fails, it goes back to the first player. In Men of Iron it is entirely possible, thanks to good die rolling, for one side to activate over and over again.

There is one other aspect of the Men of Iron command activation. A player can attempt to steal his opponent’s activation. Doing so simply involves announcing the fact and attempting to make an activation on your side. The danger is that if you fail then your opponent automatically gains his activation, which in this case, can be the same command he just activated.

So both games have random activation schemes, although the Men of Iron one is actually far more brutal than Battlelore. Sure, you can complain about holding a handful of bad cards in Battlelore, but you’ll get new ones. And the worst your opponent can do is one action. In Men of Iron it’s possible to sit there and watch your opponent hammer away at you activation after activation after activation while your units do their best impression of targeting dummies.

What’s interesting is listening to gamers debate how the C&C system is unfairly unrealistic since you don’t have the normal God-like powers found in most wargames, and instead are at the mercy of the cards. I’ve always thought it was a clever, easily understood mechanic to represent the inherent friction of battle, something too few games really try to do.

Men of Iron, while you do hear gamers bitch about the activation scheme (again, many of the same folks who think combat should unfold perfectly according to plan), you don’t hear as many. I think a lot of this is because Men of Iron, with hexes and counters, is viewed as more of a “real” wargame, while Battlelore is too much of a “game”. Why is that? Both systems feature the same mechanic, random command activation, just presented differently.

It’s funny how gamers filter things. If you like pushing cardboard and hate plastic soliders, then Battlelore’s command activation system is gamey, but Men of Iron accurately portrays the confusion of the medieval battlefield. If you like kewl miniature swordsmen and hate clipping counters, you take the opposite viewpoint. If like me you like both, you appreciate both game’s systems.

In the end we just to realize that mechanics are mechanics, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a production heavy game with tons of plastic or a good looking cardboard game using them. “Real” consims can contain plenty of gamey elements, and “gamey” wargames can contain plenty of sim elements. What matters is how much fun you have playing them.

Last night I had planned on writing about how perception of a game mechanic can be changed when viewed through a lens that takes itself more seriously, but then Bioshock arrived yesterday afternoon and well, productivity went down. Way down. So I’ll visit the perception issue probably tomorrow, because as I played Bioshock I noticed something that I wanted to talk about instead. Don’t worry, I’m not going to discuss spoilers, it will all be rather generic and quite limited.

So far in Bioshock there have been about three sections that I saw telegraphed; spots where I went, “Okay, this is going to happen and then that will happen.” Each time one of these incidents cropped up I hoped I was wrong, but unfortunately I was not. So no, Bioshock while supremely mega-awesome to the tenth degree, is not perfect. Perfection would be being totally blown away at every corner, instead of 97% of them.

I don’t blame Bioshock though, as this happens constantly in gaming. There are elements of games that as players we just expect to see in a game, and know exactly how they’re going to turn out. No form of gaming is immune from this.

In my decades of gamemastering RPGs this happens far too often than I like. I will have carefully planned out a scenario for the players to enjoy, but upon discovering it they already know what’s going to happen next. Sometimes it’s because of my personal GM style. We are all creatures of habit to certain degrees, and I know that there are things that I like to repeat in my game worlds. Game with me long enough and you’ll probably spot them, too. Another factor is there are typical gaming conventions that get passed down over the years, until they become part of the game’s lore. For example, the chessboard trap. How many times have players groaned when they come across a room patterned in black and white tiles? It may have been a classic in 1977, but in 2007 it’s just played out.

Board gaming suffers from this, too, although it’s typically tied into the game itself. If I’m playing Twilight Imperium and I see one of my opponents amassing a large collection of fighters, it’s safe to say they’ve been building up their fighter-tech. In Wings of War when you’re about to perform an Immelman Turn it’s so blatantly obvious that there’s no need to even keep your maneuver cards hidden.

The way to combat the problem of telegraphing is easy: surprise the player! In every instance it happened in Bioshock I was able to think of ways they could have done it differently, surprising the player’s expectations, and yet keep the plot/story/scenario flowing along just as well. While there is nothing new under the sun, there are ways you can shake up your players. For example, take the chessboard room. Instead of it doing bad things to players, have it do good things and smirk with glee when your players do everything in their power to not touch the floor when encountered.

Of course there’s another thing to consider here. Part of the reason we look back fondly on our old days of gaming is because everything felt fresh. There were surprises to be had. Decades of gaming though sorta kills all that. You’ve seen everything, you’ve done everything. Even if a developer chooses path C, instead of path B, in time this too will become standard fare. Or will it? Can we still be surprised by our gaming experiences, or has that ship sailed long ago?

Cowboys: The Way Of The Gun (Worthington Games)

Next to the Middle Ages there is probably no other historical period that is romanticized as much as the Old West. From movies, television shows, novels, and comics the tradition of heroic gunslingers taking on dastardly villains against the backdrop of a the freedom that was promised by heading “out west” is a rich one. Strangely, while ripe for the gaming world, the frontier life has been largely neglected in gaming although two recent systems have sought to change that. Aces & Eights is a new role-playing game from Kenzer and Company that deals with an Old West seen through an alternate history lens (or if you prefer the current buzzword, counterfactual), and then there is Worthington Games’ Cowboys: The Way Of The Gun, a relatively new board game.

Cowboys is a skirmish level board game of individual combat set against the backdrop of both historical and fictional Western scenarios. It is first and foremost a game, and not an exacting simulation, and as such there are elements that may turn off folks who want to see the exact trigger pull weight of a Smith and Wesson 44DA taken into account. If you’re not one of those folks, and you just want to shoot something, you’ll find Cowboys to your liking.

The basics of Cowboys is dirt simple. Each player controls one or more cowboys, set up on a modular board system. Each cowboy has four hit points worth of health, and for each hit point lost the cowboy loses one movement point. There are three weapons in the game: pistol, rifle, and shotgun. Each weapon differs in ammunition and chance to hit, which is computed by rolling 2d6 and taking into account the gun, range, and any die-roll modifiers and consulting the shot chart. A natural twelve is a critical hit and scores two hits, while any other form of successful hit only takes one hit point off the target. And yes, this means a shotgun at point blank range does one point, as would a pistol or a rifle. This may rile some gamers, and there are a number of ways of explaining this away, but it all boils down to this: would it be much of a game if scenarios were decided with one shot? Correction. Would it be much of an enjoyable game?

During a turn a player can either perform a move action or a shoot action with each cowboy, but not both (there is a way around this, but more on that in a moment). Movement actions include moving, mounting/dismounting or moving with a horse, and changing weapons. Shoot actions include shooting (either one or two shots), drawing from a holster and shooting, spinning (change facing) and shooting, and finally reloading. Since you can only do one action at a time on the list it’s important to carefully plan your actions, since having to spend a turn reloading right in front of your opponent is a good way to end up poked full of holes.

And that’s the basics. Either move or shoot. If that’s all there was to Cowboys it wouldn’t be worth the nicely crafted German components (heavy linen counters and map boards, high quality cards) it was printed on. Thankfully Worthington Games adds a few twists to this simple formula with the use of cards, and the extensively varied scenarios and optional rules.

Cowboys comes with a complete deck of playing cards specifically designed for the game. You’ll find all the cards you would normally find in a regulation poker deck, including jokers, but they’re more than just playing cards. Each card is an action card that can be played at various points in the game, depending on the card itself, that will either break the rules or enhance your options.

Card examples include ‘Adrenaline’, which allows one cowboy to either move twice, or move and shoot in the same turn. ‘Speed Load’ allows a cowboy to reload and shoot in the same turn. ‘Health’ gives one cowboy one hit point, and can be played even when the cowboy is hitting zero. ‘Town Folk’ lets a player either add a town folk to his side or take away one from his opponent. Town folk become active participants for the controlling side, armed with a rifle that never runs out of bullets, but only one hit point. Then there’s the ‘Critical Hit’ card that allows a shot to do double damage, and is played immediately after taking the shot and seeing if it hits, which means it is possible to take out someone in one shot after all. Roll a twelve and have the card playable and bam! One dead hombre.

All told there are fourteen different card events, and wild cards that allow you to duplicate any of the fourteen. Besides their role as event actions you can also play poker with them, which is one optional rule for determining who becomes the first phasing player. Unlike many games that include cards, in Cowboys the cards in your hand are not replaceable, but are usable only once. The exact number of cards you receive is dependent on the scenario, but typically it’s one card per starting cowboy, although scenarios with a limited number of cowboys usually give out a few more cards.

The use of cards means that every scenario has the chance to play out differently each time it is played. The timing of playing the cards also greatly enhances gameplay, since you only get one shot with a card. The proper use of ‘Adrenaline’ can make all the difference in the world. Likewise the ‘Speed Load’ card is a godsend when both you and your opponent have blazed away with the last rounds in your chamber.

The included scenarios (and there are rules letting players know the best way to construct new scenarios) are both numerous and a blast to play. There are twenty-six in total that run the gamut from one-on-one saloon gunfights, to an open-ended scenario that supports up to ten players for some maximum levels of mayhem and carnage on the streets of Virginia City, Nevada.

What makes the scenarios enjoyable is the fact that with the exception of the first few scenarios, all include special rules and victory conditions. Some scenarios may be an all-for-nothing shootout, while others may only require a specific kill. As an example, ‘The Ambush of Wyatt Earp At Mescal Springs’ hinges on one side eliminating Wyatt Earp, while the other side loses if “Curly Bill” Brocious is gunned down. There are scenarios involving running a gauntlet and making it off the map, lynch mobs, jail breaks, and of course the quintessential stagecoach robbery. Combine all these scenarios with the cards, and you have plenty of gaming that can be accomplished, and never get stale.

Another nice aspect of Cowboys is the fact that it plays as advertised; fast and fun. Set up for even the most involved scenarios only takes a few minutes (if that), and the game plays out almost as quick depending on the number of cowboys. Even crowded maps should take experienced players less than a half hour to game, making Cowboys a perfect pick up and play game.

It’s interesting how exciting the game can get, even when dealing with something as simple as Jack Mackall attempting to plug Wild Bill Hickock in Deadwood, South Dakota. The scenario begins with Wild Bill’s back to Mackall, who is the phasing first player. It can be quite a rush to watch what should be an easy kill turn to disaster, based on a bad roll or poor cards. It’s here, in the heat of the gunfight, that Cowboys really shines.

Actions must be carefully considered, and targets chosen for the best effect on gameplay. Who’s more of a danger to your side, the ‘slinger carrying the pistol, or the rifle? If you remember Clint Eastwood’s A Fistful of Dollars you know who you should be targeting. What cards do you have? Is Lady Luck with you tonight?

Cowboys: The Way Of The Gun is a great game built around core mechanics that are easy to learn, and easy to teach. The action cards provide plenty of replayabilty, and the scenarios are well thought-out, varied, and exciting. Crafting your own scenarios is a simple matter, and it would be just as easy to create your own house rules. Don’t like the way damage works? Grab some dice and make it variable. It’s always easier to layer house rules on top of a game that is not already drowning in mechanics, and Cowboys fits the bill.

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen a tactical game on the Old West, and Cowboys: The Way Of The Gun is a welcome addition to any gamer’s shelf, especially if you’ve ever felt the need to shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Gamers like to complain, and one of their favorite subjects has always been the cost of gaming. How many times have you seen someone lead off a conversation with:

“I won’t buy game X because it’s $45. Now, if it was $35 I’d snag it in a second.”

So let’s say the publisher drops it to $35. Everyone’s happy, right? Of course not. The truth of the matter is that if it was $35 someone would come along and say they wouldn’t buy it unless it was $25. If it was $25 along comes the gamer wanting it for $15. So on and so on. You could then whittle the price down to nothing and someone would whine that the developer should come over and install the game for them because clicking on ‘download now’ is too much trouble.

Not everyone expects something for nothing. There are those folks who simply think that anything about $20 is too much for a game, regardless of its quality, and spend their days waiting for titles to hit the bargain bin. So they’ll spend money on a game, but have their limits.

Naturally, everyone has their own financial limits. Not limited to only the cost of gaming, throughout life you pick and choose what you’re willing to spend money on, and how much. Because of this you can’t really fault anyone for feeling that $__ is too much money to spend on a game. If that’s how you feel, so be it. That’s your choice. Just try not to complain too loudly that games are too expensive nowadays.

Over the weekend I pulled out an old Dragon magazine to peruse. It was issue number 65, which came out nearly twenty-five years ago: September 1982. It’s been a long time since I’ve considered what computer games used to cost, but when I got to the computer game review section I was greeted by the following:

Notice Wizardy’s price? $49.95. In 1982. Now admittedly this was on the high end of retail cost back then, although not by much. The majority of games tended to run between $35 and $40.

Twenty-five years later what’s the average cost of a computer game? About the same, isn’t it? Can you think of any other form of entertainment that has cost roughly the same amount for a quarter of a century? Magazines? Cost more. Movies? Way more. Concerts? Don’t even get me started on what concerts run today. Music? A night out on the town? Board games?

The list could go on and on. Next time you run across a gamer complaining about the high cost of computer gaming today, point out that in your day they cost the same damn price, so they need to stop their bellyachin’. And then tell them to get off your lawn.