HoNoToGroABeMo Day Thirty-One: It Is Done
5 years ago
3:03 PM
As some of you might know, the Games Magazine Top 100 end of the year buyer's guide is on the newstands now. What you might not know is the role that I (me, MrNizz) have in compiling that list.
About five years ago I was asked to start contributing end of the year reviews for the GAMES 100 list in the category of historical wargames. I have contributed a column every year since then.
The current list (for 2006) can be viewed here
For various reasons (outlined later), I chose FRIEDRICH by Histogames to be the winner of the Historical Wargame list. The publisher of Friedrich, Richard Stubenvol, seemed bowled over at the honor, and initially puzzled:
(letter to John McCallion, my editor at GAMES):
| dear john,
|
| i just wondererd whether there is a games magazine review /
explanation why
| friedrich received the best historical simulation award ....
|
| Is there one? Can you send it to me, if there is one?
|
| thanks a lot!
|
| cheers
|
| richard stubenvoll
John forwarded this to me and I was happy to respond. While I was writing this, it occured to me that maybe somebody else out there might be interested in how these awards are picked. So here's my response:
Greetings Richard. I'm Walt O'Hara, the wargaming correspondent for GAMES magazine. I review wargames from time to time and I put together a list for the best "buys of the year". John McCallion suggested I reply to you about my selections for games this year, and I'm happy to do so.
The buyer's guide is on its way to you containing my somewhat altered article in published form. I tend to be a lot more wordy than John requires so he usually has to take the hatchet to my written efforts.
If you like, I'll dig around for the original text.
To answer your question directly, the choices are usually made by me by June or so, and John approves or disproves them (he has rejected one of my choices in the past, btw, so it's not just a rubberstamp). I choose a group of five or six standouts from the world of wargame publishing, RIGHT UP TO ABOUT THE MONTH OF JUNE OF THE YEAR THE ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED (the timing is important, so I usually visit the World Boardgame Championships to help finalize my selections).
What is my criteria? As you can guess from the "upbeat tone" of Games magazine, it isn't hypercritical.
1. I think a "winner" must have an historical subject, and really show depth of knowledge in that subject (or it's just another game of colored blocks with historical flavoring)
2. I think the game has to have some clear impact on the gaming hobby, and by that I mean a positive one-- a rapidly developing fanbase, raves and great reviews, lots of people playing it at the big gaming conventions, increased sales, most probably a combination of all of that. But the REAL definition of "impact" is: "Did the game create a situation where a lot of people had a lot of fun?". Some of my choices in the past have been roundly criticized for not being "wargamey enough" or "not a historical simulation", such as MEMOIR 44 from Days of Wonder. I won't take a stance on that, except to say-- I see a lot of people playing this game, and a lot of people talking about it and tinkering with it. That's a positive impact. Publishers who can create games like that need to be rewarded.
3. The game itself should be clever and innovative, not a cookie-cutter imitation of previous games on similar subjects... thus, you will likely not find me voting for another game on the Battle of the Bulge, Gettsyburg, etc., unless the game designs bring something wildly innovative, fun and new to the gaming hobby. I can always hope.
4. Perhaps the most intangible aspect is: did I (me, Walt O'Hara) play it and enjoy it? I'm just another guy-- I have as much time as most people do to play games during any given week. I do a reasonably good job of keeping track of publishing developments but there is not enough time in the world for me to play EVERY game that gets published in a year. So the ones I pick have to be standouts in my own experience.
For the reasons outlined above, I selected FRIEDRICH as our top historical wargame for the year. I'm sure this decision will be controversial with some people-- that's fine with me, I get that every year. I do think Friedrich deserves every bit of the recognition it has received and I predict a bright future for your company based upon this start. Keep making games, Richard!
V/R
Walt O'Hara
About five years ago I was asked to start contributing end of the year reviews for the GAMES 100 list in the category of historical wargames. I have contributed a column every year since then.
The current list (for 2006) can be viewed here
For various reasons (outlined later), I chose FRIEDRICH by Histogames to be the winner of the Historical Wargame list. The publisher of Friedrich, Richard Stubenvol, seemed bowled over at the honor, and initially puzzled:
(letter to John McCallion, my editor at GAMES):
| dear john,
|
| i just wondererd whether there is a games magazine review /
explanation why
| friedrich received the best historical simulation award ....
|
| Is there one? Can you send it to me, if there is one?
|
| thanks a lot!
|
| cheers
|
| richard stubenvoll
John forwarded this to me and I was happy to respond. While I was writing this, it occured to me that maybe somebody else out there might be interested in how these awards are picked. So here's my response:
Greetings Richard. I'm Walt O'Hara, the wargaming correspondent for GAMES magazine. I review wargames from time to time and I put together a list for the best "buys of the year". John McCallion suggested I reply to you about my selections for games this year, and I'm happy to do so.
The buyer's guide is on its way to you containing my somewhat altered article in published form. I tend to be a lot more wordy than John requires so he usually has to take the hatchet to my written efforts.
If you like, I'll dig around for the original text.
To answer your question directly, the choices are usually made by me by June or so, and John approves or disproves them (he has rejected one of my choices in the past, btw, so it's not just a rubberstamp). I choose a group of five or six standouts from the world of wargame publishing, RIGHT UP TO ABOUT THE MONTH OF JUNE OF THE YEAR THE ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED (the timing is important, so I usually visit the World Boardgame Championships to help finalize my selections).
What is my criteria? As you can guess from the "upbeat tone" of Games magazine, it isn't hypercritical.
1. I think a "winner" must have an historical subject, and really show depth of knowledge in that subject (or it's just another game of colored blocks with historical flavoring)
2. I think the game has to have some clear impact on the gaming hobby, and by that I mean a positive one-- a rapidly developing fanbase, raves and great reviews, lots of people playing it at the big gaming conventions, increased sales, most probably a combination of all of that. But the REAL definition of "impact" is: "Did the game create a situation where a lot of people had a lot of fun?". Some of my choices in the past have been roundly criticized for not being "wargamey enough" or "not a historical simulation", such as MEMOIR 44 from Days of Wonder. I won't take a stance on that, except to say-- I see a lot of people playing this game, and a lot of people talking about it and tinkering with it. That's a positive impact. Publishers who can create games like that need to be rewarded.
3. The game itself should be clever and innovative, not a cookie-cutter imitation of previous games on similar subjects... thus, you will likely not find me voting for another game on the Battle of the Bulge, Gettsyburg, etc., unless the game designs bring something wildly innovative, fun and new to the gaming hobby. I can always hope.
4. Perhaps the most intangible aspect is: did I (me, Walt O'Hara) play it and enjoy it? I'm just another guy-- I have as much time as most people do to play games during any given week. I do a reasonably good job of keeping track of publishing developments but there is not enough time in the world for me to play EVERY game that gets published in a year. So the ones I pick have to be standouts in my own experience.
For the reasons outlined above, I selected FRIEDRICH as our top historical wargame for the year. I'm sure this decision will be controversial with some people-- that's fine with me, I get that every year. I do think Friedrich deserves every bit of the recognition it has received and I predict a bright future for your company based upon this start. Keep making games, Richard!
V/R
Walt O'Hara
