Unfairly Maligned Games

[Calandale]

I saw Gil Collin's coverage of Armada, and I feel this one always gets the shaft
for terrible rules. Never had a real problem playing by the original rules,
to be honest. It's still not a particularly fun game - but I think the rules complaint
was pretty poorly grounded.

Of course, poor Tito. One of the most innovative map designs - spawning all the
P2P designs (I think). Not a bad game at all.


Kaiser's Battle. Another S&T game that got a worse than deserved initial reaction.
I thought this was a lot more fun than Operation Grenade (as an example). Graphics
were nicer at least.

[Rockhopper]

GMT's The Halls of Montezuma seems to get ripped apart too. I look at it every year during the GMT Fall Sale, but inevitably drop it for something else.

What say the people who have played it?

I think MMP's Guadalajara has been picked on too, mainly because it was missing a chart (for air points, if I recall correctly). I solo'd it once, and it seemed fun enough.

[Calandale]

GMT's The Halls of Montezuma seems to get ripped apart too. I look at it every year during the GMT Fall Sale, but inevitably drop it for something else.

What say the people who have played it?

Even the designer basically admits it was rushed out the door.

It's got a significant number of errata, but is playable. It didn't hang together
terribly well though. Historicity's hard to tell from only two playings, but
the naive strategies seemed very ahistorical. I've also heard that it is
unbalanced in favor of the Mexicans; it certainly seemed the US had
a harder than expected task in my plays.

[Sluggonics]

I really enjoyed Tito.  Maybe at the time it was released it just rubbed the classic hex and counter grognards the wrong way, because the map sort of abstracts terrain and movement, so it takes a little more effort to visualize what's happening from a tactical standpoint.  Was there anything like it at the time among its contemporary titles?

[sparty]

I can't think of a game that's been *unfairly* maligned that I've been exposed to yet.  

I am guilty of not giving much of a chance to games.  After a few games of Labyrinth it was no longer one I wanted to play because of the sheer luck involved in moving the right levers to play the game as the US/Coalition player.  That said, I know many people who believe the game is well balanced.  Something isn't clicking with me and I *likely* unfairly maligned it!

In terms of an overall game that's been treated in that way?

I can't think of one off hand that didn't have it coming.

[Calandale]

I really enjoyed Tito.  Maybe at the time it was released it just rubbed the classic hex and counter grognards the wrong way, because the map sort of abstracts terrain and movement, so it takes a little more effort to visualize what's happening from a tactical standpoint.  Was there anything like it at the time among its contemporary titles?

Nothing PRIOR to it I think. Empires of the Middle Ages came out in the same year though.
A House Divided in the next. But, these expressed connections in what has become the
P2P fashion. Tito didn't represent locality except for within provinces. There may have been
some previous area movement games with 'locations of interest'  (does Kingmaker have
any multiple city spaces? I don't recall); I can't think of anything precisely like Tito even today.

[billyboy]

Case Blue!

[usrlocal]

Twilight Struggle.

[Calandale]

ASL - it's not that bad a game.

Just attracts a whole bunch of assholes

[rstites25]

Not a specific game, but Berg games--not to mention Berg himself--are maligned by a certain wargamers.

[anarchy]

Twilight Struggle.

So true.

Not a specific game, but Berg games--not to mention Berg himself--are maligned by a certain wargamers.

His games may or may not be unfairly maligned, but Berg himself, based on his CSW posts alone probably deserves the criticism.

[Calandale]

Not a specific game, but Berg games--not to mention Berg himself--are maligned by a certain wargamers.

Dude claimed he was God.

Dunno how much 'maligning' is needed.

[rstites25]

Not a specific game, but Berg games--not to mention Berg himself--are maligned by a certain wargamers.

Dude claimed he was God.

Dunno how much 'maligning' is needed.

I am unfamiliar with the God proclamation.

But I wasn't really thinking of people's opinion of Berg's arrogance per se. More just his general design philosophy.

[Calandale]

It was a joke - sorta. Something he posted on Josh Grossman's facebook.

[kira1y]

But I wasn't really thinking of people's opinion of Berg's arrogance per se. More just his general design philosophy.

I like a lot of his games. Dude's an asshole though.