-
Patrick Carroll
United States
Carver
Minnesota
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." (GK Chesterton)
"That's how the light gets in." (Leonard Cohen)
-
My wife sometimes tells me to stop living in the past. She's not the only one who seems to feel that way--not just about me, but about the march of time. There's an idea embedded in our collective consciousness--the idea of progress. It tells us that whatever is new is likely to be an improvement over whatever has gone before.
Of course, there's a contrary idea as well: that "they just don't build 'em like they used to." In other words, people are lazy and tend to cut corners, so there's a pretty good chance that anything new will be shoddy in comparison to what has gone before.
So, how is it with games? Is the art of game design a progressive thing, where clunky systems of the past are abandoned in favor of modern, streamlined systems? Or do most of today's games pale in comparison to the great games of yesteryear?
I'm in no position to answer such questions. I haven't seen or played most games; I've only played the few that somehow made it into my little world over the years. So, I'll have to focus just on those.
Some of the games I played earliest in my life happen to also be some of the older games in the world that are still popular--e.g., checkers, chess, traditional card games, dominoes, and backgammon. I still like those games a lot; it seems to me they're some of the very best games in the world. There are good reasons why they've stood the test of time. In every case, they're reasonably short and compact, fast-paced (or "interactive," to use a more modern term), challenging, interesting, easy to teach, language independent, and potentially fun.
While people continue trying to improve traditional games, and sometimes succeed, few modern variants take off in popularity. The vast majority of players think the game of go is fine just the way it is; it doesn't need to be improved. Maybe no game is perfect, but some of these classic games have apparently reached a point of excellence that's difficult to surpass.
But what about modern boxed board games? Are the older ones better? Or worse? To answer that, we'd have to establish some criteria. Better or worse in what ways? I'm going to sidestep the issue and take my usual subjective detour instead.
The other day, I started a "favorite memories" thread in the Wargames subdomain. And when I thought back, I came up with three strong memories connected with Waterloo, The Battle of the Bulge, and Squad Leader. The first marked my earliest awareness of wargames, opening up all kinds of possibilities in my mind. The other two were memorable for the game play.
Bulge '65 is an especially interesting case. It was the first historical wargame I ever bought (I'd previously picked up Kriegspiel just as a learning device--a stepping-stone to wargaming, as it were). It was a tough choice, as there were at least a few other titles in the Avalon Hill catalog that I wanted just about as much. One factor that tipped me toward Bulge was that my father had fought in that battle, and I'd been hearing about it all my life. Dad was still alive when I bought the game, and we ended up playing it together once.
Besides covering a subject I'd already heard something about, and having a family connection to the historical event, I found Bulge a really good game to play. I loved the lopsided initial setup--the pent-up power of all those massed German units, and the scattered American units barely able to delay the advance by holding road junctions. As the German player, I was always looking for a way to break through and make big advances. As the American player (I played that side much less often), I had to be smart and creative and sometimes attack against the odds to get into or hold a key position.
Everything about Bulge just felt right to me. Waterloo and Afrika Korps felt a little "thin" in comparison. Blitzkrieg felt just about right--and no wonder, as it was released the same year as Bulge and looked and felt somewhat similar.
But in 1981, a revised version of Bulge came out. I bought it right away. I played it and liked it, and I took for granted that it was an improvement over the previous edition. In fact, I sold or gave away my 1965 version without ever thinking twice. Why settle for less than the best? Why ever go back?
Three years later I was still playing Bulge '81, and I still loved it. What I didn't yet realize was that I partly liked it because it brought back memories of the older game.
After getting distracted by many other games and going through a long SL/ASL binge, I got to where I longed for a return to simplicity. And just around that time, a third edition of Bulge came out. So I bought that. And played it. And liked it at first.
The '91 edition, however, was smaller than the other two, with a markedly different rules system. Once the novelty wore off, I started seeing problems with the victory conditions, and I had to write house rules for the game. Several years later, I came back and tried playing the game again; but even with my house rules (which I still felt were needed), the game seemed bland. I couldn't get into it.
One thing I didn't realize then was that this newfangled Bulge just wasn't bringing back the memories of my early games of Bulge '65.
I've never played any other Bulge games, even though there are a lot of them around. One of the best, I hear, is Bitter Woods (fourth edition). I've considered buying that, and I've thought about others as well. Most all of the others (except for the light games like Memoir '44) are considered more realistic than the games I've played. And I'm all in favor of progress. If I can have a new and truly improved version of something, that's the version I want.
And yet--there's a flaw in that line of thinking. No matter how improved a game is, it never gets perfect. And no one knows how close to perfect any game is. Perfection is an elusive and problematic concept. So is historical accuracy. Realism, it seems, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. And besides, what do I want from a wargame--a serious study of history, or a good game to play? Both, if I can get them both; but what if I can't? There are always trade-offs.
If I owned the Bulge game that's thought to be the last word in historical accuracy and streamlined game play, I know I'd worry about it. I'd be tuned in to the critics and their complaints about how this or that was sacrificed for playability, or how some other Bulge game got things right and this one missed the mark. And all that would bother me. It probably shouldn't, but it would.
Meanwhile, that latest, greatest Bulge game would probably be a far cry from the one that's most special to me simply because it's the one I played and enjoyed all those years ago. In pursuing improvements in historical accuracy, I'd be discounting my own personal history. Shouldn't that count for something?
For many people--maybe most--it's a big factor. People fondly remember games they enjoyed when they were kids. Even adults who haven't played games in decades often remember a childhood or teen favorite, and they'll sometimes be up for playing that particular game again, if only to find out if it's as good as they remember. And even if it turns out not to be that good, they'll favor it anyway, just because they have a long history with it.
I used to look down my nose at that attitude. To me, it was the reason Monopoly continues to be popular in spite of its shortcomings. It's a glorification of mediocrity, and it always struck me as a bad thing.
But lately, and especially today, I'm looking at that through new eyes. There's something to be said for snapshots of the past, for family history, and for personal history. Games are not just for mental exercise, and they're not just for escape or just excuses to get people together. Besides all that, playing a game is supposed to be a happy experience; it's supposed to have the potential to make players feel good in some way or other. And one thing that can make a person feel good is a fond memory.
Aging factors into that too: when you get beyond a certain age, it gets to where you have more past experiences than future ones, at least in the context of this particular lifetime. Memories, rather than future dreams or plans, are what you end up focusing more on and talking more about.
One of my fondest gaming memories (and the only one I'll discuss here, since this is already running long) is of playing The Battle of the Bulge back in high school. A year ago, I played it again for the first time in about forty years; and it was a wonderful experience. If I played Bulge '81 or any other Bulge game instead, it would never be as full an experience for me; it would never seem quite right, because some aspects of it just wouldn't be the same as in the good old days.
Not just any old game would do, though. I don't have the same fond memories of Kriegspiel, for instance, even though we probably played that many more times than we ever played Bulge. Kriegspiel was an intro game that I bought with the intention of soon setting it aside. Waterloo brings back memories, but it was my friend's game, not mine, and it didn't make as strong an impression on me. Bulge '65 is my own personal root in wargaming; it's where I planted myself decades ago--and in a sense, all my other gaming has grown out of that.
In honor of that--and for all the joy it brings me--I just may make Bulge '65 an annual tradition. It won't be a family tradition, since I don't have kids to pass it on to. And it'll probably be a solitary tradition, since most all my wargaming is solo these days. But I played a game of Bulge '65 last year, and I'm getting in the mood to play it again as this year comes to a close.
Over time, I may discover other pieces of my gaming past that deserve to be kept alive. Today, I believe Bulge '65 is a great starting point. And with that in mind, I'm going to sign off here and go reread this inspiring review and this motivational thread reply.
Here's to all the great gaming experiences of the past! May the best of them return again and again to bring joy to the present and the gaming days to come.
|
|
