Real Gamers?

The First World War

I don't like writing about games after only playing them once or twice, but that's what I am doing. I have only played The First World War twice (once as Germany and once as German Allies). So I have little idea of how the game simulates Russia or the Western Allies from their point of view. Both times were played with 6 surrender points and that seems to be the way to play the game. Once we played with halving die rolls to minimize luck swings and the second time we didn't. Both times Russia complained that they didn't stand a chance.

Maybe Russia doesn't stand a chance and that's why they are only a separate player with 4 (both games were played with the full four players). I haven't played Russia so maybe that is a fair complaint. But Russia did reject Brest-Litovsk (which would have given them game assuming their side won, which they did).

Germany plays very differently from Austria. Getting bogged down in deadly trench warfare in the West. The need to communicate with Austria. The tension of fighting on two fronts. Much different than the usual blah German World War Two game.

We lost due to Austrian surrender. Our point total was higher and it was 1918. It felt like we lost when we were at our height (just as happened historically). The levels of casualties and length of game (enough time for reversals) seems right.

It is a "real" wargame. In each game, I could see how poor play (not just poor dice rolling) lead to the loss. Although that is hard to say definitely because of the game's fog of war.

All in all an enjoyable game for me. I can't wait to play it again.

Fast and Slow

I am a "slow" gamer. I enjoy building up a plan over hours and seeing how it plays out. It is also fun to see one's carefully constructed plans layed to waste.

When I'm enjoying my planning, another player can be engaging on a purely tactical level (turn by turn, but not "big picture" planning). This "dual-level" is part of what makes Le Havre so good.

I recently played Le Havre with a gamer who was neither tactical nor strategic. He didn't enjoy the game and made moves which hurt his own position. I felt bad because he had wasted 3 hours on a game he didn't enjoy.

We should have just quit as soon as he realized he didn't like the game, but we were stupid.

Later on, when we were playing Dominion (a game he enjoyed a lot more), I think I started to understand what he enjoys about games and how Le Havre wasn't satisfying for him. He played very strongly, controlling the tempo and pacing of Dominion, while I was seeding my deck with synergistic cards as part of my long term plans. We ended up with a tie game. And we had so much fun playing that the ending didn't matter.

I guess the main thing I took from this isn't a third category (to go along with tactic and strategy) but the idea that categories never tell the whole story. Just play games that are fun for you and don't worry about labels.

Replayablility and Reviews

There seems to be a shortage of good Age of Conan reviews, right now. Having now played the game as three of the four kingdoms, I can say some things about it, but not that much. Maybe the game is too "deep" to allow quick quality reviews.

On the surface Age of Conan looks like a Risk variant. Underneath that layer is a game about converting resources into victory points. You essentially have three types of resources: Conan bid tokens, cards, and the fate dice.

Conan bid tokens (plus a strategy card) convert to control of Conan (assuming you win the auction). Control of Conan gives you access to adventure tokens (which can be kept for potential end game scoring or converted to money/sorcery), Conan's aid in battle, and ability to drop raider tokens (negative points and/or make neutrals harder to take).

Fate dice let you do 4 things: move emissaries (main source of gold in the game), move armies (main source of VP in the game), get cards (which make your other actions more efficient), or effect Conan (either by dropping raiders, shortening the adventure track or moving Conan more quickly to his destination).

And cards (as I claimed earlier) aid your efficiency. Increasing your odds in dice contests, giving you special powers to sway events in your favor, and so on (I'm not that familiar with Stygia's deck so I'll keep things vague).

I am familiar with Aquilonia, Turan, and Hyperborea. I know what most of my opponents have hidden in their kingdom decks. I am not surprised when Turan plays Sultan's Gold (for example).

But all of this still feels like the surface of the game. I'd need a lot more plays to see how it all pans out. All these fun plays are just me getting a handle on the strategy and tactics allowed by the game.

I've tried a game where I tried to control Conan via lots of card draws (for the auction), tried a cash strategy (doesn't do much unless you have play on the table cards to fuel), and even tried a military only approach. Each has some merit and I don't think there is an optimal path through the game.

Multiple paths to victory and all that.

Maybe the reason there are so few good reviews of Age of Conan out there is that the game takes time to learn and enjoy (which is true of teaching and individual sessions). Maybe that level of depth will give Age of Conan a level of replayability that most new games lack.

But those new games do get quick quality reviews. Oh well.

Upcoming games

Valley Games has announced a release date for Republic of Rome. They say it will be out in Summer 2009. Call me a cynic, but board games seem to frequently miss release dates. I am okay with that. I'd prefer a quality product over one that hit a release.

Long time blog readers will remember that I posted a similar topic back in July of 2008. Hopefully it will be out before Christmas '09.

Speaking of games which aren't officially out in the US, how about them boats that Le Havre is on?

Le Havre was printed in Europe and got on a boat about 15 days ago. Since I ordered a copy from a local store instead of Essen copies, which were available on-line, I am still waiting for the boat.

It is kind of ironic that a game about shipping and a harbor town is currently on a ship at sea. At least I've gotten a chance to play someone else's copy.

Personally, I like Le Havre. It would seem like the kind of game that I'd dislike: engine building games where you have to "turn the crank".

Ah.

Maybe it isn't an engine building game, at all. The majority of actions are resource gathering or resource transformation. Maybe the game is about transforming resources into the most valuable stuff (while dealing with the overhead of feeding your workers).

If you are waiting for Le Havre, Republic of Rome, or something else, I hope your desired outcome happens soon. For me the funniest part of the game is in the playing, and we can't do that until the game, itself, actually arrives.

Long Games

Played Age of Conan and Android. I really enjoyed both games, but I'm not close to being able to review them.

I've been Louis Blaine in both Android games. They've been different cases (which make the game play differently), but same character. I even ended up with the same starting plot.

In the second game, I played Louis more in character. He didn't have the maga-happy ending with his wife, but did catch the criminal. Going for the marginally happy ending gave Louis extra powers (ability to move evidence after following up a lead), which isn't there if you resolve the first 3 days favorably. Being able to place evidence helped a lot (Louis was also obsessed with his suspect).

But there is so much more to the game: 4 other characters to try, many other cases, different strategies to try out with each character. Only problem is the length-phobic gamers make it harder to get played than other games.

Played a full game of Age of Conan (as Aquilonia). I seemed to be doing pretty good conquering territory, but the game ended shockingly: Stygia crowned Conan king. Last time I checked Conan hated Stygia, but they had enough "women" tokens to win Conan over.

I had also left 1 army unit alone next to Stygia. They were able to attack it for a Crom counts the dead token. This was enough to give them +3 points (instead of +1 for ties on Crom counts the dead). Did I mention that I lost by 1 point?

Although, if he thought he wouldn't win via crowning Conan the game would have ended normally and Hyperborea would have won. They had the majority of Monster and Treasure tokens (+10 points) which would have put them in the lead.

It is amazing to play a quick 3.5 hour game (with 3-4 players, one player left early), and still be within striking distance of each other. The "rubber banding" mechanism of the Conan bonus card didn't seem to come into play (although that might be because Hyperborea had it and they kept winning Conan auctions).

I'd like to play the game again as a different kingdom (probably one of the sorcerous ones) to see how the game changes, but as it is the game is great fun.

Not sure when/if I'll be picking up a new game. The current crop of games are very fun (at least the first few times) and need a lot of time. This is probably a good thing, why spend money on a "disposible game"?

Gaming Stores

I don't buy board games on-line. Well, except for Mordred, The First World War, Industrial Waste, and so on. (Those were games which weren't in stock at the local game stores.)

I tend to buy games from a local game store. I say local because there are three to choose from in my area (or at least three that I'm aware of).

Why this preference?

I research games on the web before making a purchase. My trip into a game store tends to be in and out. If they don't have the one item I'm looking for then I leave again otherwise I stop by the cash register and leave.

It is the same experience as buying on-line, but I get the game in hand a little earlier. Most on-line stores let you know if a game is in stock. Instead of driving between three stores, you just click to another site and check their stock.

The rational behind local game stores is that random people might stop in and become interested in the hobby. There's some truth to that. I grew up going to the local game store and when that closed I drove to the game store in the next town.

The internet is good for a lot of things, but it hasn't (at this point) been able to duplicate the experience of entering a good game store: pick up games in the corner, the feel of the carpet under your feet, the smell of games.

It's been years since I've felt that way, though. Maybe I support local brick and mortar stores so that others can experience it.

Motorstorm Pacific Rift

This is another in the semi-continuing series of video game reviews. Again it isn't by me, and again it is a game that wasn't on a lot of top 10 lists for 2008 (at least none that I could find).

But I think it was a solid game.

Note: this review is longer than youtube's 10 minute limit. Here's part I:





And here's part II:

Rules 2fer

Some game publishers release rules before the game is in stores. Some people feel like they can review games based on reading the rules. Maybe that is true for some games and/or some gamers, but I think it is like reviewing a film after reading the shooting script. Fantasy Flight posted rules for both Android and Age of Conan. I have played Android since then, but Age of Conan still isn't out.

So let's talk about the rules for Android. Are they long, complicated, and hard to grasp first time? Yes. Are they "strongly thematic"? A set of rules governing the behavior of Noir detectives seems questionable.

I was able to write 5 whole sentences about the rules. Like number of players or play time unless long "meaty" rules aren't enjoyable then there's nothing to scare you away. But the rules aren't the game.

Specifically there are lots of cards which have special rules on them which change the game for you. Without reading all the cards, you can't know how the game will play.

Even playing for the first time, I couldn't really get the system. It is big and different and hard to evaluate. After the game, I thought about what had happened for days afterward (which is something I enjoy in games).

The more I thought about what had happened to my character and how the game played out, the more I could see the theme in the game played.

I played Louis Blaine. He's a corrupt cop who let his partner die just before the game starts. His wife knew something was up and left him. I spent most of the first week trying to get Blaine back with his wife. This gave me 7 VP, but I was kind of confused with what to do. I was in a bad mood and that somehow translated into Rachel (the bounty hunter) having her car break down. I figured she was out of the game for the time being. And then I turned my attention to Caprice (the psychic).

For the second week Caprice was pelted with Nightmares and emotional trama. Her sanity began to slip (even though I was now in a good mood). Louis had decided to end his relationship with Mr. Li (the underworld guy who Louis sold his partner out to). During the beginning of the week, Louis managed to corner Mr. Tanaka and beat him to death with a lead pipe.

Louis's plot was going so well he as it entered the second part of the second week. Then I realized that Louis couldn't be corrupt any more and have a happy ending. The cards I drew to frame suspects and throw out evidence caused me to gain bad baggage. I couldn't even gain favors like I used to. I stuck it out and managed to resolve the plot for 7 more VP.

However, I'd burned all my favors trying to reconcile Louis with Sarah. With the favors spent I couldn't profit from the work I did uncovering the conspiracy either. And I couldn't sway guilt at the end of the game. I ended up with 14 VP. Thematically, I chose to stop being corrupt, but it meant that the criminal got away.

Which seems like a very Noir story, but I only realized the importance of my decisions after the game was finished. I would lost more points pursuing the happiest endings than I gained from them.

This is how Blaine played. I am sure that the other detectives play very differently. I'm interested to see how they play.

I've kind of rambled long enough about Android. Age of Conan isn't out yet. So who knows how it actually plays. Just like Android, Age of Conan has decks of cards. The rules for Age of Conan don't seem all that thematic (whatever that means), but the flavor could well be in the cards.

I am waiting anxiously to find out.

History of the Western World (part 3)

History could just be the study of cause and effect. Or maybe it is the study of how great people have shaped our modern world. Maybe it is about how advances in technology make the present different than the past.

In any event, Struggle of Empires is next on my list. It is a highly abstract game, but ultimately captures the feeling of the 18th century, in my opinion. Mechanically it is an auction game mixed with area control.

You start with very little money and few actions, but can grow your country with various tiles into a unique power. Building up your country's technology and economy are fun. Getting bogged down in wars in the German state can also be fun. But all of the games I've played have come down to the alliance auction.

Paying money to determine turn order and who can and cannot attack each other is something that is frequently under valued in the games that I've played. In the "limited wars" of this period, it is vital to have the correct allies (or pay money so they join your side).

Struggle of Empires has a lot of colonial growth. And it is possible for countries to end the game in a state of revolt, if you over tax the peasants or kill too many of their sons in battle. This leads up to the intensely studied French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. There are some good multi-player games about this period, but I've not played Empires in Arms, and it's out of print.

Speaking of out of print the next game is out of print, too. But it is a variation of a game that is still in print. It shouldn't be too hard to print out a copy of the map and find directions on-line. I am speaking of Colonial Diplomacy.

I really enjoy Colonial Diplomacy. It might be heresy to say so, but I like it better than the original Diplomacy. Instead of essentially equal starting positions, Colonial gives the UK a lot of units and territory. That is justified because they historically "won" Struggle and ended up with lots of colonies.

For those who don't like the player elimination of Diplomacy there are options to play faster games. These tend to allow more players to stay in until the end. Paying for alliances was important in Struggle, but Colonial Diplomacy removes the auction and anything goes. You can wheel and deal with any player in the game. You'd probably ask for good deals from Britain since they have such a good starting position.

But beware the stab. Any country can betray any other.

That brings us up to the 19th century colonies, but while Europe was fighting abroad technological improvements and industrialization was happening at home, but that will have to wait for the next part.

Positive Feedback

I recently picked up Dominion because I played a lot of San Juan.

No, that isn't too clear. Let me try again.

Last game night, I played San Juan three times in a row. That was a bad experience. San Juan is fun for 30 minutes, but 90 is pushing it.

San Juan is the card game based on Puerto Rico. I like San Juan a lot more than Puerto Rico. The randomness of card deals isn't a bad thing for a 30 minute game. It feels more dynamic than waiting for the person with tons of corn to finish shipping their goods while your coffee rots.

So I entered into the three games really liking San Juan. After 3 games, my opinion was somewhat altered. San Juan is still a good game, but not good enough to play three times in a row. Each time I played the game followed roughly the same flow. Same decisions. Same feeling. I ended the last game early by triggering a build because I just wanted the game to be over.

Now back to where I started this post: I recently picked up Dominion because I played a lot of San Juan.

I went to my local game store a few days after the triple San Juan day, and saw a new card game: Dominion. It plays 2-4 players and takes 30 minutes according to the box. Now I'd have something different if I'm ever trapped into 3 thirty minute games.

Opening up the box I found 500 cards (well that's what the box says there are; I didn't count them). And I found out that you only use a sub-set of the cards in each game. If my simple math skills from college are still working 25 pick 10 is 25!/(10!*15!) which is 3,268,760. So there are over 3 million different decks that Dominion can be played with.

Already the replayability of this title seems light years ahead of San Juan. But how does it actually play? Is the game hard to teach? (One of the reasons we played San Juan so many times is that Race for the Galaxy was considered too hard to teach.)

In a miraculous bout of luck we happened to have guests coming over that night and I was hoping to see how it played with 4 newbies. Teaching the rules was easy because there are about 5 of them. Everyone seemed to enjoy the game, but if you are looking for theme (as one person was) then this game will disappoint. There isn't much.

It is a game about buying cards from a common pool to add to your deck. Everyone starts with the same cards. Everyone has access to the same cards. And everyone seems to end up with very different decks.

Dominion feels like a stand up act. You get direct feedback from the game and need to adjust to said feedback to do well. I suppose after a while this adjustment will be unnecessary because the cards you buy will flow better.

You get feedback from the game, but no so much from the other players. This is very close to multiplayer solitaire. I don't mind multiplayer solitaire games, if they are fun. And the feedback loop of building your own deck while you are playing it, is fun for me. The 3 million different possible pools of cards to build your deck seems to solve the San Juan problem.

There are card combos and synergies but since the available card selection changes with each game, part of the fun is finding new combos. What do you do if a favorite card isn't available in this game? Better come up with a plan B.

Probably the most fun I've had playing a Eurogame since Galaxy Trucker. I probably should write something about Galaxy Trucker, but with the expansion out. I'll wait until I've gotten a chance to play with the expansion. Even without the expansion Galaxy Trucker is easily the best Eurogame of 2007, in my opinion.

History of the Western World (part 2)

When we last left our European nations Byzantium had lost Jerusalem.

That bring us to Saladin: The Fall of the Crusader States. It covers the period starting in 1174. People who have seen Kingdom of Heaven or a Robin Hood (Richard the Lionheart is included in the game, too) movie will have some familiarity with this time period. The only problem is that at this time only 50 copies of the game exist on the planet. I am not one of the lucky 50 people. I'll write an entire blog on this game if I ever get to play it.

Thanks to Richard's crusading his brother John (Prince John of Robin Hood fame) came to power without much popularity. John signed the Magna Carta and that charter laid the foundations for parliamentary democracy.

Continuing with the Middle Ages we have Kingmaker. This is a game about the nobility fighting each other to advance their royal heir, killing others in line, and gaining votes in both houses of Parliament to secure the throne.

A lot of negative things have been said about Kingmaker, as a game. But all of the "problems" that I've heard can be fixed by playing with the right combination of advanced/optional rules. If you think the game is too long then play the "short game" with a fixed time limit. I enjoy it for what it is: a good game about the Wars of Roses.

About 200 years later Revolution: The Dutch Revolt. Notice that I've skipped over Here I Stand. While I respect a lot of GMT's games, I tend to dislike Card Driven Wargames. I've never played Here I Stand so I could be in for a pleasant surprise. It plays 2-6 players (an expansion is needed for 2 players).

Main things that happen are the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism. Basically laying the foundations for everything that happens in Revolution.

The rise of the merchant class. Armies marching across the country. Merchants paying Water Beggars to attack enemy troops. Jesuits trying to hold back the spread of Protestants. The construction of Protestant Universities. Culture shaking changes.

This is one of the great games. It feels smooth like eating a decadent chocolate dessert. The joy of this game lasts for hours after it is done. Looking at the moves you made, seeing how the situation went your way or fell out of your control. Scores tend to be very close at the end. Although there is no luck, the consequences of your actions are so complicated it seems impossible to compute the results. I play by "feel". Each faction in the game has its own strengths and weaknesses. There are "natural" alliances, but I have even seen alliances between Protestant and Catholic.

We're firmly in the Modern Age now. Just as the Ancient World passed away so too are the foundations for a new social order laid.

Wow

I don't speak Italian, but wow. Age of Conan looks awesome.

2 Recent Games

I have still been playing board games (dispite the last few console game posts). Don't really have any reviews, but here are some impressions of games. Recently played 2 games which are "top of the class" to some people: Agricola and Descent: Journeys in the Dark.

Agricola is fun. It isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it is fun. If you remember my gripe about 7 Ages (seemed too gamey because when an empire you have in China produces, your empire in the middle east can only produce if you take a point penalty).

My feelings could also be the result of how I was taught Agricola. After going on and on about how difficult the game was, and how a score of 20 points was "amazing" for first time players, the two new players scored a minimum of 28 points. I had 32 on my first game (which was 2 points away from the winner).

I wasn't thinking hard at all. Maybe the game is like Blue Moon City and scores are automatically close. I enjoyed Blue Moon City better. The decisions seem harder in Blue Moon City. It is a no-brainer to take 10 wood if you have no fences and there's a pile available.

It is like In the Year of the Dragon (in that it is a role-selection and engine building game), except that there is only 1 path to victory: the balanced farm. You don't have the dynamic interplay between prestige and victory points. Unlike ItYotD you only score points at the end so there's no tension between banking points now versus setting up big points at the end of the game. As long as you sit to the left of a player that wants to go first, you also end up with decent turn order for free (slight seating issue).

Agricola is still a fine game. I'd play it again. But it isn't a great game for me.

I also played one game of Descent. Descent feels like a tactical combat game more than a dungeon crawler. Also the person playing Overlord gave us gold chests instead of copper ones so the adventurers were really overpowered for the adventure.

I never felt that the adventurers were in any danger, but figuring out the optimal approach to take out the monsters we did face was interesting.

The mechanics of the game were fun. But it is very hard to evaluate the balance of the scenario we played because it was played wrong. There seems to be a good mix of ranged, magic, and melee options. I specialized in ranged attacks so I might have missed something. Also we didn't have a melee character in the game.

I would play Descent over Agricola if offered both. With mistakes in the scenario, I don't think Descent was given a fair deal. It would be fun to play the same scenario with a different character or even as the Overlord.

Army of Two

Okay. So running negative reviews of non-PS3 games isn't really fair. Here's a review(ish) of a multi-platform title.

First Warhawk and now Army of Two have bluetooth mic issues. Maybe the USB mic included with Rock Band is the way to go (even though it is less cool to be wired).

Yet another console game video:

Fair and Balanced

It has been pointed out to me that by only mentioning Warhawk (a PS3 exclusive) in a prior posts, I've been unfairly slanting coverage toward PS3. To correct this perceived bias, I'm embedding another game review. This one is about Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Again, I didn't make this review, but (in the interests of fairness) I have to post it.

Enjoy:

History of the Western World (part 1)

I tend to game for narrative immersion. One of the easiest (for me) narratives is an historic one. Here is my list of games to play through world history with 4 players.

Start out with Pax Romana. Second edition is supposed to be coming out sometime (it's on GMT's P500 list so once enough people pre-order it will be published). Pax does have some problems with the physical materials. The money is basically bunk. If you flip your coins over accidentally then you don't know how much cash you have (different denominations on each side). It does do a great job of recreating a strategic view of the period. One thing to keep in mind is the time scale. With 25 year turns, a lot of unexpected "random" things can upset your plans, but it's still great fun.

Now that the rise of the roman empire is broadly covered, it's time for the fall. I actually have 2 games in this category, but one (Barbarian, Kingdom and Empire) is currently out of print. If you're interested, Decision games does have a pre-order program to spur their reprint.

Britannia is one of the best games to cover the transition from the Ancient World to the High Middle Ages (although much of the game is set in the Early Middle Ages). It focuses on the various invasions of the isle of Great Britain beginning with the Romans and continuing until the Norman invasion. You invade, you fight off invaders, you fight with neighbors, you have tons of fun. In a lot of games which try to convey a sweep of history this period is part of a lull between the glories of the ancient world and the dawn of the Renaissance.

Instead of being the "boring turn", Britannia is a joy to play.

One last game to round out the Early Middle Ages: Byzantium by Martin Wallace. It seems like something from right field (to me at least). We haven't had the east on a game board since Pax Romana; why go back? For me this game is a 4 player short hand for a lot of history which doesn't seem to be covered by 4 player games.

It covers questions like: what happened to the eastern empire, how about the crusades, what are the origins of the Renaissance, and so on. The short answer to the question of the eastern empire's fate is that Islam rose. The short version of the crusades is that the Arabs won Jerusalem from the Byzantines and then the Christians tried to retake it. The cliff notes origin of the Renaissance notes that Greek scholars fleeing from the collapse of the Byzantine Empire reintroduced classical learning to Western Europe.

Now, admittedly, there's more to it than that, but we can cover that in part 2 (which includes the Renaissance). See you then.

If there are any great games that I omitted or you disagree with the inclusion of one of the games then feel free to send a comment.

Republic of Rome Pre-Pre Impressions

There are a lot of games about winning elections. There are a lot of games about international diplomacy and wars. As far as I know, there is only one Republic of Rome.

You play a faction of senators in the Roman Senate (264-43 AD). You play for your own faction, but if Rome suffers a disaster than you all lose. Wars, financial mismanagement, and failing to keep the population content are all ways for everyone to lose.

The focus is on negotiation and politics of the senate. Wars are fairly abstracted, but the senator who leads troops into battle (making them veterans) can always return home to try and conquer Rome by force of arms (as a counter-weight senators out fighting can't vote on important matters of state while they're gone).

Political assassinations, gaining governorships (to corruptly funnel money to yourself), and other forms of corrupt government can all be prosecuted by the Censor (but whoever controls the senator elected to this position controls who gets prosecuted and who goes free).

You can call for land reform (basically a tax cut which continually cuts into the budget). They are very popular with the people and raise the politician who calls for them. Anyone who votes against it loses popularity. Forcing players who are leading in popularity to choose between their lead and Rome's interests is priceless.

Valley games is reprinting this classic game later this year. It's another game on my "can't hardly wait" list.

My Favorite Arcade Games

As part of my continuing efforts to alienate people who read this blog for some "insight" into board games, I am again devoting this entry to a topic other than board games.

These arcade games aren't really listed in any kind of order. These are just the most memorable ones for me. Note: a lot of classic games (Pac-Man, Q*Bert, Defender, Pong, Donkey Kong, and so on) aren't listed. They are good games, but I've played them a lot on home systems when they came out (not that 2600 ports were entirely faithful) so they don't have the sheen that these 4 games do.

Dragon's Lair, SMASH T.V., X-Men (arcade), Dance Dance Revolution (DDR).

I suppose that you could argue against DDR being on the list (since it's been on home systems since it released), but the experience of playing in the arcade is vastly different to playing at home. Anyway, I made up the rules for this list and I can break them, too.

SMASH T.V. is just pure chaos on screen. So many enemies. So many directions to shoot in. Even a bit of a story (3 stages to complete). It's almost impossible to beat the game in 1 quarter, but whenever you lose your last life, you feel like you could have gotten through one more room if you'd played differently. Almost the perfect difficultly level for sucking quarters out of you.

X-Men is the game to play with friends. I have played it single player, but with 5 other players the game is a beauty. Mutant powers, tons of enemies. Display that's 2 screens side by side. Memorable bosses. When I've seen old cabinets in bowling alleys or where ever, starting up a game is still magic. Even people who didn't play the game when it was first released (1992) jumped in and we all have a ton of fun.

Dragon's Lair is also special. First laser disk machine. First 50 cent game. I love the fantasy theme (something that wasn't as popular as sci-fi themes). It is 10+ years since I played the Sega CD version, and 20+ years after I played it in arcades. I just played Dragon's Lair recently and it is amazing how many of the patterns I still remembered.

Yes, I'm old (arcades are dead now). Now we have consoles which have the technical capacity to play "any game" (console exclusives prevent this, but that's not really a technical limitation). Instead of 25 or 50 cents a game, we have unlimited plays for $50+. Games are also easier, which makes sense. They aren't trying to suck quarters from you as fast as possible; they are trying to make you feel good about dropping $50+ on the title.

Honourable mentions: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Star Wars (1983 vector graphic game), and Time Soldiers. I'm sure that there are others that I missed. Feel free to let me via comments or whatever.

My Favorite Arcade Games

As part of my continuing efforts to alienate people who read this blog for some "insight" into board games, I am again devoting this entry to a topic other than board games.

These arcade games aren't really listed in any kind of order. These are just the most memorable ones for me. Note: a lot of classic games (Pac-Man, Q*Bert, Defender, Pong, Donkey Kong, and so on) aren't listed. They are good games, but I've played them a lot on home systems when they came out (not that 2600 ports were entirely faithful) so they don't have the sheen that these 4 games do.

Dragon's Lair, SMASH T.V., X-Men (arcade), Dance Dance Revolution (DDR).

I suppose that you could argue against DDR being on the list (since it's been on home systems since it released), but the experience of playing in the arcade is vastly different to playing at home. Anyway, I made up the rules for this list and I can break them, too.

SMASH T.V. is just pure chaos on screen. So many enemies. So many directions to shoot in. Even a bit of a story (3 stages to complete). It's almost impossible to beat the game in 1 quarter, but whenever you lose your last life, you feel like you could have gotten through one more room if you'd played differently. Almost the perfect difficultly level for sucking quarters out of you.

X-Men is the game to play with friends. I have played it single player, but with 5 other players the game is a beauty. Mutant powers, tons of enemies. Display that's 2 screens side by side. Memorable bosses.