"Visual Feasts and Convention Games inquiry" Topic

No doubt I'm trodding down well travelled 'terrain' here, but just curious what the current general thought is these days on games at conventions being visual stand outs.

I am of the opinion that if you are going to put a game on at a convention you should go all out and create the most fantastic looking game you can within the limits of the budgets of time and money. And, certainly, there will be different levels for different individuals/groups. However, when I go to a convention I want to see games that just blow me away with the effort put into them.

Yeah, rules are nice and different flavors of games to sample is good. But are we moving away from that in general and more to just a large gathering of gamers running the same games they'd run at home or at the local club.

The recently posted photos of Fall In, which had other challenges courtesy of Mama Nature, showed games that would never tempt me to travel to play them. Of course, you have to understand I live in an area with a great club where I can play games at least as good as in the photos every month plus other games in peoples homes plus a great store with a HUGE gaming area. So, maybe I'm spoiled. And I certainly don't mean to belittle the efforts of those putting on the games – having run many convention games, I know the effort it takes.

But I do wonder if the Spectacle game has become a more rare item than in times past? And spectacle games can be just as playable as any other game – they just look a lot better (and take a lot more effort).

Thougts?

Depends.
Demo games should be very nice to look at if you are unable to play.

Participation games less so aslong as the experience is good.

Thing is one mans excellent terrain is another mans poor effort.

"But I do wonder if the Spectacle game has become a more rare item than in times past?"
Maybe the bar has been raised and we expect more now

I'd rather see a game, either demo or party, actually being played rather than these dioramas pretending to be games that we see so many of nowadays. To paraphrase a famous saying:

"il peut ętre joli mais c'est pas un jeu!"

As long as the figures are painted and the terrain is more then just colored felt I'm good. I go to PLAY, prefereably as much as I can stand before the noise level in a crowded room gets to me. (gotta remember earplugs next time, not a complaint – I think I am more noise averse then average)

Anyway, back on point – painted figs, and more then felt for terrain = good enough for me.

EDIT – decided to get a bit snarky. Those who COMPLAIN about the games that others generously bring for the rest of us to play really have some gall. You don't think the games at a con look good then bloody well go out and run your own. [snark mode off]

THere are probably as many reasons to attend major conventions as there are gamers. Some are most interested in the dealer's area. Some the Flea market as sellers and/or buyers. Some want to try out new rules or new periods. Some want inspiration from master GM's and terrain builders. Some just want to schmooze with buddies from across the country, maybe in a f=game, maybe the bar, maybe both. Some want a Holiday of total gaming immersion. Some go mostly to run games themselves, including ones that are too big to run at home. And a few saints go to run the whole mess so that the rest of us can enjoy them.

Having said that, I enjoy looking at (but generally not playing in!) some of the truly inspiring games from a modeling standpoint. These games are a heck of a lot of work, and to justify the investment of time and money (and transport difficulty), they almost have to be run either a number of years in a row, or at multiple different cons (both of which are fine with me).

Perhaps an award or two *soley* based upon a "wow" terrain/visual presentation might be considered. At present, these are factors in bestowing GM awards, but only one of many (and appropriately so, I'd say).

Disclaimer: I've been fortunate enough to win a number of GM recognition awards at Historicon over the past several years. I think my games look good, but honestly they're nothing you could not reproduce at home with modest talent and finances (and a lot of figures, LOL). It was much more the excellent team of supporting Asst GM/friends and amiable players that made the games special than anything physical.

Peter

If its a fun game,I dont care if it has some felt in it.The only gaming I do at cons are in the open gaming in the evening with friends,as I can go as big as I want.They are not games that are advertised in the schedule,but anybody could play if they wished.So,if I used felt,and somebody didnt like it-tough!

If you find yourself in a game with gorgeous terrain and beautiful figures but with a bad scenario, bad rules, or both, I guarantee that looking at the table will not keep you entertained for the four hour time slot of the game. On the other hand, if you are playing in a game with a great scenario, well prepared GM, and well thought out rules, you are likely to barely notice if the terrain contains some more "portable elements".

A convention game referee can have spent his time on writing, researching, and playtesting his scenario and that will give me a great game experience that I might not get at home. That is every bit as good a reason to travel for that game as showpiece terrain

Why do convention games need to be spectacles? I agree that spectacles can be fun to play in and look at, but I don't have a lot of opportunity to play in many games at all. Just because they are horribly blemished by felt doesn't diminish the fact that they can still be a fun game. That is what it is all about to me. If it is fun, who cares. It is a game.

Well a spectacle can also be a bunch of people laughing and having a good time around a table.

I do agree the presentation should be appropriate (i.e. I personally do not like seeing bare tables or unpainted minis for example)… However as mentioned above, the game has to be fun too, or the spectacle wears off quick if you are a player.

There are many reasons to go to conventions. The figures, new rules, the latest in game theory, good conversation, presenting games, and good opponents are all reasons I attend. Attractive game set-ups and terrain have always been a large part of the experience for me as well. I am always checking out how the terrain effects were achieved, especially the home made variety. For me, the visual aspect is what attracted me to gaming in the first place (and a justification to still be able to play with toy soldiers). When I run a game I always endeavor to make it as visually appealing as possible. Besides, making terrain is enjoyable to me and does not have to be expensive to be visually appealing.

That said, I will play any game that sounds interesting no matter how much it appeals visually. Some of the best games I have ever played have had little or no terrain. Conversely, I have played in some really beautiful games that were so poorly executed, and tedious that massed suicidal charge was the only easy way to make it all end. Ultimately, it is the game play and camaraderie, win or lose, that make or break any game.

I think, in general, there are far less impressive big games at conventions than in the past. Overall the quality of games has improved but the kind of game I think you have described, spectacle games, have become fewer and fewer, particularly 28mm games. On the other hand I think you're rushing to judgement on the overall quality of games at Fall In based on a spattering of pictures…I haven't seen any of my 40mm AWI game for example. Overall I didn't think the quality of games at Fall In was better or worse than at previous conventions.

db

pancerni2, I readily admit that I had only a of sample photos to pose my question – and I hope it was not a 'rush to judgement' – but it wasn't just the photos from Fall In, that was just the catalyst. I've noticed at local cons and at con AARs fewer and fewer really stand out visual games. And I agree with most of what has been said above about what makes a good game – for me it is first and foremost the people gathered around the table that makes or breaks the game – but my query is really focused on if there has been a pronounced shift away from the gorgeous game. Perhaps since I am in the midst of trying to create a tremendous spectacle of a game I am more alert to what I am seeing – fortunately I am getting lots of help from the local club – painting figures, painting structures, working on the rules, and help with the terrain as well. Personally, I am with corporalpat, I want my games to be as visually appealing as possible but will play in any game that is fun and entertaining and certainly the terrain is not the only key to that. But it sure improves everything else when it's in place – for me at least. Just wondering how others feel on the subject.

So, when do the pics of the 40mm AWI game go up? : )