Negative reviews of well-loved and commonly-played games like 'Tactics II' are typically an expression of 'hard-core-ism', the tendency for opinionated gamers to represent the 'hard-core' element of any gaming community. This is just as true in poker as it is in video-games. Eventually, game-makers confuse the desires of the 'hard-core' community with that of all gamers and the result is products that are increasingly opaque to new gamers. And, over time, the gaming community gradually just becomes that small group of hard-core gamers who die off leaving almost no gaming community behind.
I think there is definitely an element of that. At the same time, Tactics II doesn't really follow all the modern learnings and developments in game design. So it is a flawed game, and I'm OK with that. But agree that the language we use to talk about such game can critique the game, but at the same time show respect for the design.
I used to play Go. And even in a game with as few rules and as refined as the rules are, there is still something called a ‘Ko situation’ where, without a special rule the game would be deadlocked into the players just trading one space back and for forever.
Is that bad game design? Or is that an emergent result of rule-bound systems where it’s not always possible to extrapolate all of the interactions between the rules.
If a game results in the kind of repetitive outcomes that critics seems to think is ‘bad design’ it seems to me that just maybe it’s the sterility of the thinking of the players might be just as much to blame.
But it’s easier to blame a game’s design than one’s own capabilities.
There is value in learning from old games, but probably not from old rules mechanics. They will have something worth improving on, even if it is just that fact that people are interested in playing it for whatever reason. You mention trying to improve Candy Land, and I have done the same thing (Candy Land XTREME is what I called it). The game I keep mentally returning to is Myth, from MegaCon games. It was mechanically broken, but it also had some rules mechanics for handling the enemy forces (it is a coop game) that to this day have produced the most exhilarating rounds of coop play I have ever experienced in the moment. The experience would just always fall apart in the end due to other parts of the rules. But I keep thinking there is a way to improve it somehow, to fix the broken stuff and keep the amazing. Maybe if I win the lottery and can retire early I will actually make the time to get down to brass tacks and really try to fix it.
This was my first wargaming experience too. My dad bought me a copy back in '75, he was my regular opponent for several years. I "graduated" to Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader a couple of years later.
Negative reviews of well-loved and commonly-played games like 'Tactics II' are typically an expression of 'hard-core-ism', the tendency for opinionated gamers to represent the 'hard-core' element of any gaming community. This is just as true in poker as it is in video-games. Eventually, game-makers confuse the desires of the 'hard-core' community with that of all gamers and the result is products that are increasingly opaque to new gamers. And, over time, the gaming community gradually just becomes that small group of hard-core gamers who die off leaving almost no gaming community behind.
I think there is definitely an element of that. At the same time, Tactics II doesn't really follow all the modern learnings and developments in game design. So it is a flawed game, and I'm OK with that. But agree that the language we use to talk about such game can critique the game, but at the same time show respect for the design.
I used to play Go. And even in a game with as few rules and as refined as the rules are, there is still something called a ‘Ko situation’ where, without a special rule the game would be deadlocked into the players just trading one space back and for forever.
Is that bad game design? Or is that an emergent result of rule-bound systems where it’s not always possible to extrapolate all of the interactions between the rules.
If a game results in the kind of repetitive outcomes that critics seems to think is ‘bad design’ it seems to me that just maybe it’s the sterility of the thinking of the players might be just as much to blame.
But it’s easier to blame a game’s design than one’s own capabilities.
There is value in learning from old games, but probably not from old rules mechanics. They will have something worth improving on, even if it is just that fact that people are interested in playing it for whatever reason. You mention trying to improve Candy Land, and I have done the same thing (Candy Land XTREME is what I called it). The game I keep mentally returning to is Myth, from MegaCon games. It was mechanically broken, but it also had some rules mechanics for handling the enemy forces (it is a coop game) that to this day have produced the most exhilarating rounds of coop play I have ever experienced in the moment. The experience would just always fall apart in the end due to other parts of the rules. But I keep thinking there is a way to improve it somehow, to fix the broken stuff and keep the amazing. Maybe if I win the lottery and can retire early I will actually make the time to get down to brass tacks and really try to fix it.
It's a fun activity. I believe there is something to be learned from every game, even if that learning is what not to do.
Good luck on the lottery! :)
This was my first wargaming experience too. My dad bought me a copy back in '75, he was my regular opponent for several years. I "graduated" to Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader a couple of years later.
Thank you for sharing this! Sounds like a great memory to have, and one that is similar to my own.