geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
35
5 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
Monsters Menace America » Forums » Reviews
Monsters Menace America -- a wargamers view
I have a bit of a split personality when it comes to wargames. While my main interest is and has always been historical wargames, I have an undeniable weakness for parody and humor games as well.

So, as a long-time owner of Nuclear War and The Awful Green Things From Outer Space, it's probably no surprise that I have a copy of Monsters Menace America. I probably would have picked up the AH version (Monsters Ravage America) except that its publication occurred during a lull in my game-buying. Still, I think I like the newer version anyway as its production values seem more attractive to non-wargamers and it looks like it stripped out some of the "fiddly" elements.

The game uses an idea occasionally seen before in wargaming to handle the problem of asymmetric situations by having each player play both sides, In this case, each player controls one monster but also controls one branch of the Armed services trying to stop the rampage (Army, Navy, Marine Corps of Air Force). This cleverly gives everyone plenty to do and especially lets everyone have fun stomping around the country as a monster.

The game is very Hollywood cinematic in its theme, and as a matter of fact, Hollywood is one of the places monster can end up. Monsters gather strength by chomping cities and accumulating powers through mutation, while the armed forces try to chip away at the monsters strength. Once enough place have been stomped the game moves into a final showdown phase where the monsters duel until one remains standing.

There's been a fair amount of criticism about this final showdown, with many players suggesting the first part of the game hardly matters and everything comes down to the how the dice fall at the end. To the extent that winning through skill is important to a player, I think they will tend to dislike this mechanism. On the other hand, I can't help that feel that sort of serious player really isn't the target audience here. All parody games seem to have a high random element to them and have rules that are simply unfair. Just the other day I was eliminated from a game of Nuclear War during the opening play of Secrets/Top Secrets before I even ha d chance to play a card. Players of Munchkin know that player skill is no match for lucky cards and the fate of the stalwart crew of the Znutar in Awful Green Things depends an awful lot on the draw of weapon chits.

No, for a parody game the point is to have fun during play, have many entertaining twists and turns, hopefully with plenty of opportunity for mocking, jokes and sound effects. Final victory is just an excuse to end the game at some point and start a new one. One aspect that's common in these sort of games is a short playing time. At 90 minutes, Monsters Menace America is at the longish end of the scale for this sort of thing, but still short enough that a group can plan to play at least twice in an evening.

There's no player elimination, so everybody gets a chance to play the whole game and the final showdown will only take a few minutes, so even the losers don't have too much down time.

There are different strategies available, so players are not merely pawns at the mercy of the dice, and players can affect their final chances, so it's not just Snakes and Ladders. But it's also not chess or Bonaparte at Marengo, either. Luck will play a major role in the outcome. Personally, though, I think just playing with Zorb or Toxicor is cool enough that it really doesn't matter if they get thwacked in the final showdown.

It's a good game for what it is. You don't go to watch Godzilla expecting high concept, so you shouldn't expect it in MMA, either.

From my gaming blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com
Last edited on 2008-08-26 11:46:05 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Paul
Ireland

Cork
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron07
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the sensible review :)

wargamer55 wrote:
There's been a fair amount of criticism about this final showdown, with many players suggesting the first part of the game hardly matters and everything comes down to the how the dice fall at the end.


I always feel that I should be irritated at the randomness at the end of a game of MMA, but Im not. The only time that it has really bugged me at all is when the game takes to long (over an hour).

With three players it has a play time of about an hour in my experience and it tends to be a fun time. I dont really ever remember who won 20 minutes later anyway, it doesnt matter.

As you said, fun but not really a big test of skill. Thats fine, I have other games for that if I really feel that I need to prove something. Which (thankfully) I usually dont.

Stephen Sekela
United States
Camp Lejeune
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
wargamer55 wrote:
IPersonally, though, I think just playing with Zorb or Toxicor is cool enough that it really doesn't matter if they get thwacked in the final showdown.


Well said!
Raoul Thomas
Belgium

flag msg tools
Hello,

after reading your reviews is doens't seem to be a bad or tedious game. Why then the low rating? Production value seems allright too...

greets
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't consider a 7 a low rating. That's a "good" game. The next level up is "very good" and I can't quite call it that.
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.