Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stronghold Games is a new game company, but lead by veterans of the industry. Learn what this new company hopes to achieve and what they have coming out this fall as the D6G team interviews co-founders Stephen and Kevin.

Later it's time to head out to Japan and tackle the conquest game Shogun that has a REALLY innovative mechanic.

All that and our usual 'not too horrible' humor, with features such as:

- The Hollywood Minute
- Rapid Fire
- What's in the News
- Total Fan Girl
- & More


Link to the episode: http://www.thed6generation.com/d6g_ep_58_stronghold_games_interview_shogun_detailed_review


Please let know what you think!

Thanks D6G, just in time.

I'm about to leave to catch a flight and was kicking myself for not "saving" some podcasts to pass away the time (I'll be stuck on a commuter jet with no in-flight entertainment). Then, suddenly, Juice starts downloading D6G Ep. 58. 4 hours should be more than enough to get me through the flight and the trip to the airport. Russ, you're a life saver.

Nice episode - you guys were cracking me up with that vuvuzela. I must have missed you guys talking about it at first, because I kept looking around my office going "what is making that damn noise?"

Raeph - the actor you are thinking of is Simon Pegg, and yes, he's awesome. It's worth looking up episodes of "Spaced" which he was on before his movie career as it's full of some really funny Star Wars stuff.

*edit for link*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUQfHRfX2o8

Another good episode -- I also enjoyed the vuvuzelas!

Thank you Russ, Craig, and Raef for another great episode.

I'm so glad to hear that Stronghold Games interview. I have great memories of playing Survive! with my sister and cousin when I was a child - might have been the first game I looked forward to getting together with others to play. Very cutthroat. With Stronghold Games bringing it back I'll be first in line to purchase....

Mez

So... I've decided that I can no longer listen to your show in publc. I'm pretty big and scary looking to start with. But while listening to your show I have to try to hide the huge grin going across my face, as fight back bursting into laughter. Other pedestrians in downtown Chicago find themselves crossing the street more when they see this 300lb guy walking down the street with a sinister grin on his face... Its starting to hurt a bit.

seriously though, another great show and keep up the good work. I just wish the gen con play by
mob was not during the ex-illis tourney. As much as I love you guys, I gotta try for that $1000 prize

P.s. Russ I was really hoping you switched the achievement sound at the end of the show with the horn, that whole bit was hillarious.

just listening to the Black Library contest segment where you had to identify the primarch of the Space Wolves and the statement was made that, "if there's a model for him, he's not a primarch cause you can't play a primarch on the table." Not entirely true... Leman Russ had a model in the Rogue Trader days and there were models for Epic of some of the primarchs that became daemon princes.

bbb wrote:just listening to the Black Library contest segment where you had to identify the primarch of the Space Wolves and the statement was made that, "if there's a model for him, he's not a primarch cause you can't play a primarch on the table." Not entirely true... Leman Russ had a model in the Rogue Trader days and there were models for Epic of some of the primarchs that became daemon princes.

When the Leman Russ model was made, he was only a Chapter Master, IIRC.

I very nearly had to kill my mp3 player amidst 'Achievements in Gaming.' Is it not enough that we have to endure the accursed plastic horn while we try to watch 90 minutes of soccer/football?

Since I the fortunes of my wife and myself have fallen below that of being able to buy games as they are reviewed, I've been forced to come up with a new strategy; for I really want to play Shogun and Dungeon Lord. I target suggestions (e.g. - "Remember that one computer game you used to like? There's a board game that's very similar...") to folk who will hopefully take up the burden. Otherwise, I shall have to take over a government agency with promises of reduced fees.

Another good episode, thanks guys.

Great show. I'm still waiting for a detailed review of Future War Commander.

Thanks for the kind words, guys. Sorry/You're Welcome for the vuvezula. Regardless of what side you fall on . . . that was all Russ.

Sorry we embarassed you, MadNes. Perhaps if you listen to it at 50% speed, we would sound more serious and weighty . . .

And sorry, Ned, but I don't think you'll be seeing much more of a review of FWC than you saw in the limited mention in the Mulling Mechanics segment last episode. Russ and I were both very . . . disappointed in FWC, at least as far as what we were looking for in a small-scale mass-wargame. I hear that both Blitzkrieg Commander and Cold War Commander are great, but FWC just really didn't stand up.

But there are several reviews out there of people who DO like the game, so I'd go to the company's website and check those out, if you're interested.

Went to Origins and was doing some pre-con gaming back in the hotel room with Ep 58 in the background. Excellent episode guys. You greatly heightened our con experience with your not too horrible humor. Anyone else love the pre-con tension and after-con in-room gaming more than the actual con? Guilty...
The vuvuzela shoulld be an ongoing thing. I was at a loss as to what it should represent, but since the US was defeated by Ghana, I think it should be the de facto sound for the negative achievement from here on in.
Also played my 1st game of RuneWars. I see the potential but was scarred by my 1st game being played against a couple of mouth breathers and a bullet head. Now that I'm home I may go pick it up- there is a lot in this game, I know it.
Anyway, looking forward to the next Ep. Thanks for everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also any reactions to the Origins award winners? Mmm... Space Hulk...

Best Historical Miniature Figure or Line - Wings of War: Albatross
D.III by Nexus Editrice

Best Historical Miniature Game Rules Supplement - Flames of War: North
Africa by Battlefront Miniatures, LTD.

Best Historical Miniature Game Rules - Wings of War: WWII, Deluxe
Edition by Nexus Editrice, designed by Andrea Angiolino & Pier Glorgio
Paglia

Best Historical Board Game – Conflict of Heroes: Storms of Steel! By
Academy Games, designed by Uwe Eickert, John Hill & Dana Lombardy

Best Game-Related Book – BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction by
Catalyst Game Labs, written by Randall N. Bills, Jason Schmetzer &
Matt Heerdt

Best Game Accessory – Knights of the Dinner Table by Kenzer & Company,
designed by Jolly R. Blackburn

Best Miniature Figure or Line – Marvel HeroClix Hammer of Thor
Expansion by WizKids, designed by Eric Englehard, Kelly Bonilla, Jake
Theis & James Szubski

Best Miniature Game Rules - BattleTech: Strategic Operations by
Catalyst Game Labs, designed by Herbert A. Beas II & Randall N. Bills

Best Role Playing Game Supplement - Big Damn Heroes Handbook by
Margaret Weis Productions, designed by Cam Banks, Jennifer Brozek, Jim
Davenport, Jason Durall, Tony Lee, Nathon Rockwood & Clark Valentine

Best Role Playing Game - Eclipse Phase by Catalyst Game Labs/Posthuman
Studios, designed by Rob Boyle & Brian Cross

Best Children’s, Family or Party Game - Are You The Traitor? By Looney
Labs, designed by Andrew Looney

Best Traditional Card Game – Poo by Catalyst Game Labs/Labs/WildFire,
LLC., designed by Matthew Grau

Best Board Game - Space Hulk by Games Workshop

Now you too can constantly enjoy the wonder of vuvuzela's while you browse!

http://www.vuvuzela-time.co.uk/www.thed6generation.com

Personally I'm just glad England are out of the competition. Thankfully my eardrums can begin to recover from their damage now.

Yeah . . . the Origin Awards . . .

Come to find out, there's a lot of politics behind Origins that I knew nothing about, and I think you can see those strange and murky behind the scenes movements in some of these award winners. Firstly . . . best children's game OR party game? what kind of category is that? And as big a fan as I am of Space Hulk . . . best board game of the YEAR?

And I don't have to say anything about the presence of Are You The Traitor on this list in any category. I get that it might have its fans . . . but best party game?

I'm pretty comfortable dismissing the Origin Awards as inconsequential on that award alone, really

Agreed- Space Hulk should win some kind of "Lifetime Achievement Award", not the Best Boardgame of the year.
Space Hulk is the Sidney Poitier of boardgames.

Excited to see Flames of War- North Africa get some love.

Thanks for the kind words everyone!!

Origins Awards:

It is my understanding that the Origins Awards are ballot based, i.e. attendees simply vote for their favorite game from a list of nominees.

Some companies do heavy lobbying around the ballot boxes, and it is very much a popularity contest based on name recognition.

I think they can be thought of as the "Peoples Choice" awards.

Other Con's have panels which review the games, debate their fav's then cast votes. Closer to the "Oscar" model in Hollywood.

I'm about halfway through the Stronghold interview and I have to say: SURVIVE!


I will be purchasing this game when they release it, as the original (VERY worn-out) version I have resides at my parent's house. I would love to have an updated version of this game for my own collection as I love it dearly from my childhood and it not just because of its sentimental value. It is a really fun game and I'm looking forward to it...Go Stronghold games!


Oh, and Russ I've been thinking about your rating system for a while now and I have to say that you don't give it enough credit for being all-encompassing. I know Craig gives you crap about doing split ratings, but what I'm saying is that your rating system already encompasses those split votes, but you're not looking at it with the right mindset.

Your rating system essentially says that you're hading a die to a random gamer and having them roll to see if they'll like the game or not. So if you're giving a game a 4+ you're saying that half the gamers who try the game (roll the die) won't like it and half will.

But the fact is, there are REASONS those gamers will like or not like the game, and that is what the roll is representing.

So when you say that someone who likes Fantasy Games will like a game on a 2+ and someone who doesn't like Fantasy Games will only like the game on a 4+ then you should actually be rating the game something like a 3+, because you're saying that an average gamer who may or may not like Fantasy (you don't know) is the one rolling the die. If you say that the game is a 3+, your rating system is already representing that two out of six gamers won't like this game and all you need to do is to explain the reasons why your rating is a 3+ to justify this point.

So I'm not saying you shouldn't point out that someone who doesn't like Fantasy games is probably going to like this game less than someone who does like Fantasy, quite the opposite! Instead of doing 'split' ratings, you should give a game one rating and then go on to explain why the game isn't a 2+ with a re-roll. In other words, for every 'excuse' you can think of that someone might not like this game is probably a reason to knock it 'up' a point on your rating system.


So instead of saying: This game is a 4+ for gamers who don't like Fantasy games and a 2+ for gamers who do like Fantasy.

You would say: This game is a 3+, because if you don't like Fantasy games you're probably going to be one of the people who don't like this game (along with any other reasons you have someone wouldn't like the game).


Anyway, the thought just crossed my mind the other night...you don't give your rating system enough credit. You should give your (one) rating and then explain the reasons WHY some people would be either attracted or not attracted to the game, which gives the basis for making your rating what it is.

Survive: It's funny, I'd never heard of the game prior to the interview, but it's clear from your reactions that it is a great title and Stronghold was wise to pick it up. Now I'll have to give it a go!!

Yak: Good tips on the rating system, perhaps I'll try that method next time.

I think that's a great point on the rating system, Yak!

That's my great curse, really: I can sense these massive cosmic wrongs, I just can't articulate them beyond snide and sardonic comments aimed at Russ.

It's both a curse and a blessing, I guess.

I think that I prefer the split rating system -- though perhaps having a single rating is more elegant.

@Craig - I feel I suffer/benefit from the same curse/blessing; although not necessarily targeted at Russ. Perhaps there is some way that it can be declared some form of disability, getting paid time off for sufferer.

Do you think so? Hell, I bet there's SOMETHING in the ADA about Comprehensive Sardonic Syndrome. I mean, if you can get paymbents for being FAT . . .

Ok, so we recorded the next episode last night, and I used my new, Yakface approved, single rating system.

I don't think Craig liked it as I kinda gave a rough rating to a game he really likes.

That's the problem with not splitting...if I have to go with my gut number on the 'gamer populace at large' it really makes it difficult to give a nice score to niche games.

I may go back to splitting...

I was just surprised, is all. And I said I understood your points. And it was Raef who made you 'split' your rating.

Just for the record, I mean.

Just an opinion from a new, and fanatic, listener, I appreciate the split rating system and have felt it was a positive method since its' initial use. My gaming group is incredibly varied in taste so it becomes hard to judge a game after reading or listening to a rating that is too broad since I usually need to analyze which aspects of individual games would appeal to each of my fellow gamers.

The variations in the rating systems between the three of you: Craig's no-nonsense single rating which attempts to be both as fair as possible to a each game but also be critical of the enjoyment of it overall provides a solid grounding; Russ' then more specific ratings that delineate the game along the tastes of specific gaming styles allow for an even more informed rating; and lastly Raef's rating allows for a viewpoint which I've always felt represents both the casual gamer crowd overall while still allowing for a game to grab his attention and make itself stand out.

Personally I think the three of you have fallen into a well rounded system all on your own, though I am looking forward to 58 and hearing the banter of the Yakface approved system. Much hilarity.

Thank you for a fantastic podcast, one that informs me about my loves, entertains me while my work day drags on and inspires me to further my gaming lifestyle. You guys are great.

Thanks for the great feedback. I have a feeling the split rating will return.

Thanks for listening & happy gaming!

(this post entered on an iPad in the apple store with an interesting level of difficulty)

The split seems to derive from the necessity to diverge the overall quality of the game (components, theme and mechanics) from its target audience (wide or narrow). On that basis it seems entirely feasible to split the rating if there is an obvious fault line in the overall gaming audience which will likely divide it.

Personally, the more complex the rating system, for me, the better. So if reviewers are prepared to put in the effort to split their reviews between the elements of the game and/or the likely audience, then I am more likely to gain an overall understanding of their opinion of the game.

A general "this game rocks/sucks if you are like me", is less helpful than a "if you like this, then its good, if you like that then its bad" review for me.

I take Yak's point, but none of us are "the average gamer", so the more granularity in the review, the more useful it is (in my view!)

Sorry Raef and Craig...

Obviously whatever Russ and the gang ultimately feel comfortable with they're going to stick to and I wouldn't have it any other way!


But I do want to reiterate what I was trying to say above, especially to Daihmon (posting above), who is concerned that a single rating wouldn't give the same level of information to his diverse gaming group. My point wasn't that giving a single rating would or should result in less information being given out to individual groups of gamers.

Instead, when doing a single rating for the average gamer (which is what they've always said the rating is based on) and then explaining which types of gamers would fall on which side of the roll and for what reasons would end up in the same amount of info being given out, just in a different way.

So after you'd tell us whatever rating the game is getting and then explaining why, at that point you'd basically say that if you were a 'board gamer' (to pick a random example), then you'd likely be one of the people who wouldn't like it because of 'XXX' reasons. This would essentially be the same thing as saying the game is a 2+ overall, but for board gamers a 4+.

IMHO that would bring the rating more in line with the way the 'standard' idea of a rating is handled in the world...You give an overall snapshot of the product with the abbreviated stars/numbers/D6 roll, etc, and then you provide the information along with that snapshot to allow individual readers/listeners to know what to do with that rating (whether they match the tastes of the reviewer or not).


Ultimately it was just a random thought I had about the rating system so I thought I'd throw it out. I really like the system and it just seems like it already has the 'split' built into the basic rating...so why not use it and explain why people will or won't like a game in full?

Because Russ has a compulsion to break things down into smaller categories.

Thats my impressino besced on the way he reviews and discusses his game buying categories.