Jump to content



Photo

At first excited, then I read


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#61 BigKahuna

BigKahuna

    Member

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:50 AM

Yoper said:

Would anyone have said anything if the second version had been the only version posted?

Maybe a comment or two about a bland back story, but mostly apathetic emptiness would have been the norm.

This really a whole lot of ado about nothing.

Probobly true, generally back story's in games like this aren't really all that important in terms of gameplay.  It could be my little pony vs. the carebears, if its a good game I'm all for it.  But when you have a great back story a good game is better and more importantly a franchise license is stronger.  The first back story was dark with an ominous tone and contraversial idea, it was in every respect better, which given the content made it far more interesting and intriguing I think as a board game.  The new one is passable, but not nearly as interesting.  I hope whoever this employee who wrote it gets a pat for a job well done, because the writing was great, even if it was not approved for release.

I do like contraversial discussions though I think its fun to ask a question like why not make a game where Americans are villans?  Are Americans really so sensitive that they can't percieve a fictional future in a board game where god forbid America is the bad guy without getting their pannies in a bunch?  I mean given the political atmosphere in the world (Americans randomly accusing everyone of being terrorist (including kids downloading music from the internet) why not use board gaming as a medium to spark discussion?  I think Christian should have taken more time in deciding how to handle the situation, mistake or not, I think when you are in position to spark conversation and use your medium to create discussion its good for your image.  Contraversy sells and I think this game would have been stronger with the original, contraversial text.


Does it really matter that they changed?  Not at all, at least not for me.  I loved the original and as far as I'm concerned Christian T. Peterson has a blank check from me for any game with his name on it.



#62 Tromdial

Tromdial

    Member

  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:02 AM

BigKahuna said:

 

...The new one is passable, but not nearly as interesting.  I hope whoever this employee who wrote it gets a pat for a job well done, because the writing was great, even if it was not approved for release.

I do like controversial discussions though I think its fun to ask a question like why not make a game where Americans are villains?  ...I mean given the political atmosphere in the world, Americans randomly accusing everyone of being terrorist (including kids downloading music from the internet) why not use board gaming as a medium to spark discussion?

Seconded. Snake Plissken for the win.



#63 Darkeus

Darkeus

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 05:08 PM

Wow, I can't believe people got out of sorts about this.  Come on!  It is fiction.  Did it really matter if the USA was the bad guy in this game?  DId the original story really need to be changed anyway? 

Also, just in case it was not addressed, Fortress America is a real term.  It concerns the fact that we are surrounded by two big ass oceans and there are not many ways to effectively attack the USA.  Mostly a WWII and Cold War idea, but it created NORAD and other parts of our defense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_North_America

 

 



#64 Shonner

Shonner

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 09:59 PM

I used to have the original game.  All I remember about it was that it was boring.  Now I see FFG has it now.  And someone didn't like the backstory.  So I read the backstory as it is now (March 21, 2012) and it just sounds so boring, here we go again with this game.  But then I read the quote of the original backstory and I'm like, "Yes!"  World War III!!!  Stop the Americans from vaporizing another capital city on the globe using any means necessary!!!

But no, the backstory now is just so tame. 



#65 Tromdial

Tromdial

    Member

  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 04:46 PM

Shonner said:

I used to have the original game.  All I remember about it was that it was boring.  Now I see FFG has it now.  And someone didn't like the backstory.  So I read the backstory as it is now (March 21, 2012) and it just sounds so boring, here we go again with this game.  But then I read the quote of the original backstory and I'm like, "Yes!"  World War III!!!  Stop the Americans from vaporizing another capital city on the globe using any means necessary!!!

But no, the backstory now is just so tame. 

I know. They need to release two back-story cards: one with the original text and one with the new. Burn one and keep the other, or both.



#66 Shonner

Shonner

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:58 PM

Tromdial said:

I know. They need to release two back-story cards: one with the original text and one with the new. Burn one and keep the other, or both.

There you go.  Problem solved.



#67 Tromdial

Tromdial

    Member

  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 07:47 PM

Shonner said:

Tromdial said:

I know. They need to release two back-story cards: one with the original text and one with the new. Burn one and keep the other, or both.

 

There you go.  Problem solved.

Thank you. I'd like to think the problem is solved, but the world however is not always a simple place, ala Fortress America.



#68 Buster Freely

Buster Freely

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:31 PM

Darkeus said:

Wow, I can't believe people got out of sorts about this.  Come on!  It is fiction.  Did it really matter if the USA was the bad guy in this game?  DId the original story really need to be changed anyway? 

Also, just in case it was not addressed, Fortress America is a real term.  It concerns the fact that we are surrounded by two big ass oceans and there are not many ways to effectively attack the USA. 

 

Apparently there are two countries that border the USA, one called "Canada" to the north, and one called "Mexico" to the south.

 

(I only mention this because I'm not convinced that all Americans are aware of it.)



#69 Buster Freely

Buster Freely

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:33 PM

waging_war said:

My God! Some people are real pieces of work. If you don't want to buy a game cause America is the fictional bad guy in the game, then don't buy the game! Sit at home, watch CNN, kiss the screen when Tucker Carlson comes on, and belive you rule the universe. It's a game! Get over yourself. I'm Canadian and I wouldn't ***** if there was a game where Canada was the ideological enemy. Hell, I'd even play it!

 

As a Canadian myself, I suspect that not only would most Canadians play it, but we'd be damn proud to be taken seriously as a military superpower villain!



#70 paradiddlebob

paradiddlebob

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:06 AM

 Hear hear! (a fellow Canuck).



#71 solitear

solitear

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 26 May 2012 - 12:38 PM

 i like the back story.     I think the sushi jalapeno war would be a good game to remake too.      in that one japan, america, the republic of Texas, and south america invade mexico …no mexico player but you would have to fight their armies and each other and nukes could be dropped..the rules where poorly written however.

 

in that one mexico declares the entire pacific ocean sovereign territory and then arrests all the Japanese fishermen which they proceed to execute.  Imperialist Japan invades in retaliation along with south american allies.  The united states counter invades under the guise of protecting Mexico from Japanese Imperialism along with their republic of Texas allies.   it had some interesting rules involving politics with the U'N on the american side and other things.  

 

I really enjoy these alternative history/ speculative future games…..I am really happy FFG made this game and I hope I have the mon ey to buy it when it comes out



#72 Spyderslicer

Spyderslicer

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:15 PM

This made me shed a tear for the gaming industry. And the OP of this thread just irked me. I swear a game that had a fresh feeling for it. FFG broke free of a mold long set with games, a mold where America is always the good guys. I mean why is perfectly fine for America to be breaking in China's door or Russia or the middle east in games, but the second America is the bad guy, people go up in arms, it makes me sad that they changed it. Now I haven't the slightest how much this game has made, I have no idea how much it wouldn't have made if it had have kept it's previous background. (Although those that wouldn't buy it because America is the bad guys aren't true gamers) I know they have to make money but I still get sad that they had to change it for the whiny (I'm assuming slightly racist or overly patriotic) minority. It annoys me that the OP would have had no problem buying the original game if it had have been Russia stirring crap up. But because the close minded individual can't break out of the stereotypes society has given him he can't see a true gem past because he couldn't see past 'America is the bad guy for once'.



#73 superklaus

superklaus

    Member

  • Members
  • 190 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 08:23 AM

Spyderslicer said:

This made me shed a tear for the gaming industry. And the OP of this thread just irked me. I swear a game that had a fresh feeling for it. FFG broke free of a mold long set with games, a mold where America is always the good guys. I mean why is perfectly fine for America to be breaking in China's door or Russia or the middle east in games, but the second America is the bad guy, people go up in arms, it makes me sad that they changed it. Now I haven't the slightest how much this game has made, I have no idea how much it wouldn't have made if it had have kept it's previous background. (Although those that wouldn't buy it because America is the bad guys aren't true gamers) I know they have to make money but I still get sad that they had to change it for the whiny (I'm assuming slightly racist or overly patriotic) minority. It annoys me that the OP would have had no problem buying the original game if it had have been Russia stirring crap up. But because the close minded individual can't break out of the stereotypes society has given him he can't see a true gem past because he couldn't see past 'America is the bad guy for once'.

 

Well, maybe FFG as an US based company HAS to be patriotic to be successful in its main (the US) market. I dont think that the TO is alone in his irrational attitude. I am sure USA is full of such nationalistic blockheads. And FFG tries not to loose them as customers. Corp money first, then ethics. I would not wonder if the writer of the first (much more original) backstory has been fired now or had some serious problems with his FFG boss after publishing it on the net.



#74 Darkeus

Darkeus

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 10:43 AM

Buster Freely said:

Darkeus said:

 

Wow, I can't believe people got out of sorts about this.  Come on!  It is fiction.  Did it really matter if the USA was the bad guy in this game?  DId the original story really need to be changed anyway? 

Also, just in case it was not addressed, Fortress America is a real term.  It concerns the fact that we are surrounded by two big ass oceans and there are not many ways to effectively attack the USA. 

 

 

 

Apparently there are two countries that border the USA, one called "Canada" to the north, and one called "Mexico" to the south.

 

(I only mention this because I'm not convinced that all Americans are aware of it.)

 

Yeah, but ironically those countries do not count in teh Fortress America plans. 

I guess they figure that Mexico and Canada wouldn't have a chance against us. 



#75 marcelvdpol

marcelvdpol

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 07:11 AM

[q] Yeah, but ironically those countries do not count in teh Fortress America plans. [/q]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it most asuredly looks like the Southern Invader comes across the border from Mexico. The invasion zones may be colored blue there, but according to my world map this is the location of Mexico.



#76 LynchMob

LynchMob

    Member

  • Members
  • 72 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

 I guess CanaDUH as a ‘serious’ threat really WOULD be a Sci-Fi game!!! Ha, ha…I can see us standing (or rather dying) proudly side to side with our Socialist brothers, the ESP, and their state of the art hovertanks and our pathetic Sea King helicopters from 50 years ago! Fortunately for CanaDUH there is no naval units in the game, I think our vintage Korean War Frigates (and all we have is Frigates and Destroyers)  would all get a well deserved rest in the Davy Jones Locker.



#77 marcelvdpol

marcelvdpol

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:41 AM

How about a variant where one invader comes from Canada rather than from East, West or South? You could easily add invasion zones border 6 area's in the north. Say the area east of Seattle to the area west of Minneapolis (the Great Lakes have been mined extensively to prevent Canada from launching an attack directly over the water). Lets call this the Northern Alliance where in the fluff Canada conquered/acquired Alaska. With the Alaskan Oil reserves Canda deems itself a Super Power!

The game would be quite different from the current one; suppose that the Canadians came in place of the Eastern invader (the economy of Europe having collapsed years ago they cannot afford to have a standing army). Canada is within easy reach of several cities that were deemed "safe" by the US (Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago) but it makes cities such as Miami, Tampa, New York, Washington etc much more secure. You can play quite a few variants with this one (4 variants in total including the original game).

Other alternative is to add the same invasion zones and add Canada as an extra player (you would need a set of miniatures in a different colour as well as markers but this can be done). Some suggested rules changes for this variant:

- Increase the number of victory cities to 24. The US does NOT surrender that easily.

- US starts with 90 rather than 60 units on the board (definitely need a second F:A game then). Alternative is to place ALL 24 partisans on the board but these can only be placed in Resource area's, one partisan per resource area.

- US draws three Partisan Cards every turn rather than two.

- US can fire two shots with each laser but will stop receiving more laser after US turn 5. Alternative would be that the US already starts with some lasers in play. However because there are much less "safe" cities I'd preferr the Two Shots Per Laser variant.



#78 Algesan

Algesan

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:24 AM

superklaus said:

Well, maybe FFG as an US based company HAS to be patriotic to be successful in its main (the US) market. I dont think that the TO is alone in his irrational attitude. I am sure USA is full of such nationalistic blockheads. And FFG tries not to loose them as customers. Corp money first, then ethics. I would not wonder if the writer of the first (much more original) backstory has been fired now or had some serious problems with his FFG boss after publishing it on the net.

The "much more original" backstory for FA was lifted from SPI's Invasion America, which merged Canada with the USA for the game.

Give it was a mid-70s game and the way things were looking then a potential loss of will by the modern liberal wing in US politics might have set up such a decline in US.  So the "villains" of the original game were the Asian Commies, the Eurotrash/Soviet Commies and the Latino Commies.  Also at that time, Canada would have probably fallen in with the USA because Canada wasn't so infected by the modern liberal PC bug.



#79 schmoo34

schmoo34

    Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:43 AM

sepayne7l said:

Well, this is the first time I've ever made a complaint like this.  I've been referred to as being an FFG fanboy or cheerleader in a few posts, so hearing that I complain about everything is a new experience. Also, being called worse than a child is also new for me to hear.

Have a wonderful day.

 

Sensitivity:

 

It is why you originally were offended and posted.  It is why you wrote this now.  Get some tougher skin, dude.  The comment wasn't directed towards you, it was a general comment about how a few people complain and companies spend money to cater to them. 

 

Well guess what?!?!?  YOUR SENSITIVITY costs me money…because FFG had to spend money to change it, reprint their rulebooks, etc. which had that language on it and they pass that cost down to us, the gamer/customer.  So the game is no more enjoyable than it was before because the RULES are identical, yet the cost of it just went up.

 

Why? 

 

Sensitivity.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS