Re: Does this animal exist?

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000

G Benage <gbenage@aol.com> writes:
> David, your missing the point entirely, because you aren't aware of the
> issue involved.  The game was *designed* as a wargame in which conquest is
> more important than combat--a trait which pretty much every good wargame
> shares.  You have to accept a game for what it is.

Wrong.  I can enjoy a game, or not enjoy it, entirely separately from
what the designer intended, or thought would make a good game.  It is in
fact highly desirable for reviewers to evaluate games from the basis of
their own particular tastes as to whether they enjoy playing such a
game.  This allows readers, who know the reviewers' tastes from reading
what they writing, to determine whether the reviewers' tastes match
their own, and to thus determine the extent to which the reviewers'
preferences are likely to match their own.  This standard mechanism
works perfectly in this case.  I can read Bob's comments, see that his
concerns match very closely with the things that I myself am concerned
with in a game, and then reason correctly from his comments that this is
not a game that I would like to play.  You can read Bob's comments, see
that his concerns are not the same type of concerns that are important
to you, and therefore you would not use his opinions as a strong
indication of whether or not it is a game that you would like to play.

> Such is the case with WWIV.  When played in the spirit in which it was
> designed, the non-disclosure of the combat percentages *reinforces* the
> positive aspects of the game.

This is a fundamental disagreement between players.  You feel this way.
I do not.  It is a matter of opinion, not fact.  You should therefore
not be surprised when I and others disagree with you and do not take
your "corrections" seriously.  Suffice it to say, as has been said here
before, that there are a substantial number of gamers who do not feel
that nondisclosure of game mechanics can ever improve a strategy game.

And you surely cannot claim that secret mechanics are crucial to a
wargame, since 99% of all wargames ever published contain all of the
rules in a form completely accessible to all players.

> All of this is beside the point, however!  The issue is whether or not, in
> the ten turns he played, Bob grasped the nature of the game and made his
> comments from this *informed* perspective.  Some of Bob's comments implied
> that he, at least, believed that he had:  Comments to the effect that the
> combat system was "mysterious" and that "in wargames, combat is
> everything."

Let me get this straight: because Bob said that he found the combat
system "mysterious," you therefore conclude that he was asserting a
complete and thorough understanding of the game system.  In that case,
you are in serious need of a dictionary.

> Experienced players, like Kevin and I, recognize that these
> comments reveal quite the opposite--that Bob was playing the game as
> something it wasn't, or expecting from it something that it was never
> intended to offer.

So what?  Once again, Bob has every reason to evaluate and review a game
based on whether he enjoys playing it, not on whether it accomplishes
whatever was "intended" by the designer.  It was absoultely clear from
Bob's comments that he was looking for something in the game that wasn't
in fact there.  What else is new?

> Amusingly, this misconception would have applied to
> every true wargame ever published.

After rereading Bob's comments, together with all subsequent
clarifications regarding the game system, I am convinced that his
comments do not contain any misconceptions.  They do contain a certain
element of hyperbole which is present in most of Bob's writings and, so
long as one has the sense not to interpret every word literally, adds to
the information content.

David desJardins
--
Copyright 1995 David desJardins.  Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.

References

Re: Does this animal exist?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 08 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Does this animal exist?
gbenage@aol.com (G Benage)
Fri, 08 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Does this animal exist?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 08 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Does this animal exist?
gbenage@aol.com (G Benage)
Fri, 08 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000