Best games (regardless of specifics)

[Sukunai Niyori]

Just posting this to drum up some discussion (because politics doesn't grab me).
Ok, best games since let's say 1970.
Not limited to board game ie digital realm is allowed.
Not limited to wargame, so totally not a wargame is allowed.
The only requirement is you explain every game mentioned, (and why it is worthy) or we will have no idea why you consider it worth mention.
I could ask for a top 5, but that forces you to rank them, and you might have 6 titles you wish to pick. So just list your best of all time as you see it.

Here's my list

Squad Leader (I want to indicate that I am not meaning ASL). I've owned danged near all of ASL and some rather nice bonus indulgences too.
But it was Squad Leader that won me. It was a 7 page read that made it happen. You were playing after 7 pages of light reading and plenty of that was lost to illustrations.
The game was so infinitely replayable.
I actually didn't care if I lost, I was just having that much fun.
I liked the basic game. I liked Cross of Iron, but then Crescendo of Doom started a trend of complication that got worse in GI Anvil of Victory.
I have a beat up copy here of Squad leader. I have this crazy notion (likely a pointless notion too), of backdating all of the 3 modules to basic Squad Leader rules mostly.
Squad Leader was my first real love in wargaming. Followed almost immediately by Advanced Third Reich (I'll mention it in its own entry), even though I began with Tactics II.
I think Squad Leader would have been better served by getting new modules and new boards and new forces and leaving the rules alone. I don't think ASL was a good idea after the fact.
ASL totally dropped the ball when it comes to the KISS principle.

Up Front the Squad Leader looking card game (that wasn't a stupid collectible thankfully).
Easy to play, easy to learn, fast, finishable, able to be played almost anywhere. Even with the two modules, it still fits in one box.
You didn't need to be a wargamer, helped if you were an adequate poker player. Escaped the usual problem of a board full of counters that could get trashed by a cat. There was no board.
No idea why this game was not kept in circulation. My copy looks battered because it gets played.
Say what you want about any game, but, if it isn't getting played, how great could it have really been eh.

Advanced Third Reich. I started with 3rd Edition Third Reich, but, I consider Advanced Third Reich to be the best experience. I think Rising Sun was when it jumped the shark. I'm most definitely not paying the small fortune price for the current Global iteration that exists out there. I like that it used abstractions for when abstractions were called for. Subs, if you can see the counter, you can whack the counter. Counters are often a flaw in grand strategy concepts. They handled bombers properly too. The game was all about the strategy, and not the mechanics of the counters. It was politics, not micromanaging. I've tried to like World in Flames, but, it is just too heavy in micromanaging. And I like how the game can be set up on a reasonable table surface. Most of us don't have an empty warehouse just for setting up board game wargames.

Steel Panthers. I mainly like the Mega Campaigns that Matrix Games brought to the community. The AI in Steel Panthers is little better than an idiot when playing the totally unhistorical Long Campaigns. The AI was simply too much the mindless punching bag. Now against a human, this game was suddenly a lot harder. I like the completeness of Steel Panthers. I like that it could outdo my ASL for the most part. And that's no small trick. But it is a computer game, and as such, well I am a biased board game wargamer. Because often a computer program just won't explain why something happened. And also sadly, I didn't preserve my 486 computer and Win95 so it would continue to run the game correctly without needing a lot of geek cred to keep it performing properly. Hard to forget to mention, it's free. The Mega Campaigns still demand a hefty price after all these years. Still worth the price too.

Civilization. I actually have the board game release of the computer game. I think the board game is actually better. Awesome components. Pity, it takes a skilled wargamer an hour to explain it to a non-wargamer. So it's not the game you decide to play with newcomers. The PC versions, hmm, mixed feelings here. I liked every version right till V. I am not up for VI though, I refuse to buy a new computer for a game, any game. But I don't think any game other than Squad Leader or Advanced Third Reich has used up more of my life than civilization. And I simply loved playing it against another human. This is the game you play when you are sick and stuck at home and need something to eat entire days. It's a game you will take all day to finish. But it does end. You can beat the game, and when you do, you increase the difficulty again.

Heroes of Might and Magic 3. The first version is what hooked me, and II is what secured my obsession, but it was 3 that mastered the process. 4 is ok, but it was not 3. Every version since 4 has been too much about pointless graphics and not about gameplay. But this game (Heroes) has gained the most praise from my non-wargaming friends and its ability to indulge multiplayer is very impressive. It can be fast and small or long and massive. And the AI will kick your butt if you are not trying hard enough. And it might win anyway. And there is just so much solo replayability to it.

Hearthstone. This is a free to play, collectible card game (no trading aspect), that genuinely does NOT require real cash (I can say this, because after more than 2 years, I know it to be true). It functions very well, is very well balanced, and lots of laughs just in the playing, and is kept fresh with regular new content being added. It's quick and easy and can be played on almost any device (but seems to be best played on something with lots of reliable battery life if not a plugged in device). I've greatly enjoyed this game beyond what I would have expected in the beginning.

There are a lot of games on the market, and some have absolutely incredible design aspects. Not all are digital realm designs. I've played some very good board games in the last few years. The only weakness of most board games, is they are social experiences that simply lack thrill solo, assuming solo is even an option. I've bought plenty of games that were praised endlessly, and yet, they are often cumbersome, or excessive time sinks or just require mastery of too much interface tedium. A game to be great, must be played in order to merit the term.

[G David Bock]

Great thread idea and I tried to get back on this yesterday, but 3D=Real World intervened ...

So a first issue/topic/aspect would be that of "Simulation" versus "Game" ...

With "Game" we are looking for a balanced presentation that has both sides/players about equally matched in resources and board deployments such that either could "win" and there is no scoring handicap required to provide a balance of sorts. "Game" being more focused upon play-ability, enjoyment, and entertainment factors.

With "Simulation" we are looking at a reproduce of Historical Situation and how well can one play either the more advantaged Side or the lessor advantaged Side, applying(usually) a stilted points/scoring system where if the "underdog" plays better/exceeds historical results, their points score will reflect if they "won" or not; usually over historical outcome. Hence going for the "what if" factor and can one better "play" the historical results.

My point/contention being that in most Historical Situations that result in "wargames"; there usually is a conditions bias that favors one side over the other. So "games" will find a way to be structured "equally" while "simulations" will look to balance the outcome/results of playing.

That in mind, my first real 'gaming' experence was with Avalon Hills "Africa Korps" boardgame and this remains one of my favorites as well as choice for an intro to new gamers.

There are a few other table-top board games I could include, but will later. One however is "Axis & Allies" which while more "game" than "simulation" runs up there as one that could be played in a day/afternoon and which many a "non-gamer" could pick-up on and play competently.

By the time we get into 'computer games' I've a couple. While I initially liked "Steel Panthers" it has been 'decades' since I've played and the "East Front/West Front" series has taken over. Something about that platoon sized unit and operational scale, plus campaign scenarios provides a matrix that balances playable and entertainable with educational.

I'll default also to Civilization series as my usual preferred "go to". The AI, especially in form of 5-6 other player/opponents, plus the unknown map and explore, exploit/expand and develop aspects provides a mix of focus and actions that fills my need for intellectual challenge and activity when I have time for gaming.

I could add a lot bit more here but this will have to do for now as 3D~Real World requires I go off on errands ...

[Sukunai Niyori]

Very impressive you mentioning game vs simulation. A VERY good point indeed.
I've played games like Panzer Corps, and no matter how you 'win' the current battle, the game essentially forces history on the gamer.
I've never enjoyed 'real' time (never a more pointless term), games, as expecting a person to simulate 6 years of actions within say 6 hours of game, is really just a pointless request. Turns are not more realistic, but, are at least realistic levels of expectation on the gamer.

So a lot of games I play, are often about what is the game expecting of me.
I have seen Fire in the East, the Europa series board game, and it's a 6'x8' impossibility. Great simulation, an unrealistic request of the gamer.
The computer version level of experience in Gary's War in the East is extreme in its tedium, but, at least it's not a spatial impossibility. It's just going to be as demanding on your time as a 3-year-old

The computer game Battle Academy is awesome for its playable time frame, and it has a chess-like quality. It provides a very good player vs player challenge when playing against a human. It's only downside, is it is finite against the AI. Eventually, you play the battle a few times, and you can rapidly outdo the AI. So it comes down to what is the player requiring of the game. Solo, a game might be lacking. Against another human it might shine. Or it might be the required time investment.

Some gamers though, will latch on to a title and play it without thought of playing anything else. A common quip from ASL players or fans of mega computer games like War in the Pacific is "there are no other games", when asked what else do they play.

[augetout]

Great topic---broad, but great, as it give readers a sense of how others have progressed through their gaming history.

I liked 3rd Reich, and Afrika Corps, but I grew to feel that victory conditions were too constrictive for my tastes, (perhaps the sand-box quality of Dungeons and Dragons played into that issue), thus began the 'quest' for the perfect game.

In baseball, I thought I had found it in Strat-o-matic, but a couple of years ago I ran across Out of The Park Baseball, and there it was: The perfect baseball game, in that it is a sandbox where you can create or recreate whichever baseball 'universe' you choose.

For wargames, it was a bit tougher. World in Flames I liked, but as pointed out by others, required too much space and time to truly enjoy regularly. I thought Harpoon (OG paper version) was awesome, but longed for software to catch up to a point where it could handle the endless calculations, etc.

Later, Hearts of Iron came out, (I skipped III, and haven't gotten around to giving IV a try, thus II being my favorite thus far), and it is as close to a 'perfect' grand strategy game set in WWII as I've found, if one has the time to dedicate to it.

Medal of Honor was breathtaking when it came out, (the bullet holes STAYED even if you left the room and came back 30 minutes later!!!), but it wasn't perfect. Call of Duty's Modern Warfare series had great campaigns that were about as immersive in experiences as I've encountered thus far, but then they started allowing people to run along the walls and so I moved on.

WWIIOnline came out in 2001, and it had the makings of the perfect combination of FPS, MMO, and grand strategy game set in WWII. I built a squad (Lafayette Federation for those scoring at home) and together we grew to over 250 members---an elite unit within the game's community. The real-world intervened for awhile but when I tried it out again in December of 2017 I was re-hooked into the game. Warts and all, it's the most immersive WWII game I've ever played, with one of the best parts being that everything that happens in-game was caused by another person, as opposed to the game's AI creating the feeling for me.

I loved the early Civilization games, but once you've launched modern armor against medieval archers a couple of times, the shine wears off on the ending portion of that game. Getting the space colony going prolonged my time with the game, as did that one time when I decided I had enough of China's belligerence, and nuked them back to the stone age (still feel a little guilt, and a little pleasure with that memory), but eventually the early, discovery portion of the game was outweighed by knowing what was coming later.

Dungeons and Dragons is very dependent on finding the right DMs, which isn't as easy as one would think. Eventually Might and Magic gave users a D&D experience on PC, and the games did a lot right, but their attempt at re-doing the graphics for IX it all went bad. I came across a copy of Elder Scrolls Morrowind, tried it, and there it was, the 'perfect' rpg (not counting the ungodly number of crashes to desktop). The Elder Scrolls games are sandbox games in the tradition of D&D, with no dungeon master to screw things up.

For racing games, none matched up (in my experience) with Papyrus' Nascar 2003. The racing was great, and it is the game I discovered 'skins', opening up a whole new avenue of fun. I probably spent more time painting the cars than racing them. I bought a printer specifically to print screen shots onto photographic paper---enjoyed the puzzled looks on visitors' faces when they mistakenly took the in-game pics as actual pics of me racing. I didn't tell them I wasn't actually a real-world nascar driver, but most didn't ask directly, so I could honestly respond to their queries with 'yep I really like driving racecars'... lol The game caused me to learn how to use photoshop! Papyrus lost their 'Nascar' licensing, as EA got control of the licensing from Nascar, but eventually IRacing was born of most of the same people, and it continues on today----heck, there are even professional online racers now, and online live broadcasts of the races complete with announcers, lol.

So now, I play OOTP 19, WWIIOnline, and continue my decade+ old plan of building (or buying) a set up befitting a return to online racing, via IRacing.

I'm old enough to remember when folks would tell me that I'd 'Grow out of playing games', but young enough to remember hoping they were wrong.

[Sukunai Niyori]

Dungeons and Dragons, ahh so many memories. I avoided mentioning it, as role games tend to be a tricky target. The manuals are just guides unless you have a rules lawyering wargamer at the table

I entered role gaming with a silly board game called Time Tripper. An odd Vietnam game I think was thought up in a drunken stoned condition My friend had a copy, and he just started layering on rules and it became quite the crazy thing in my teens.
Then the guys discovered real role gaming with 1st ed D&D.

By 1985 I had pretty much experienced most of the established designs. By 2000 I had played I think every design worth mention.

I got the itch to design my own idea early on. Always got 75% of the way, only to find someone had beat me to it. The third time I gave up in disgust

There is a game design for everything you can image, and some you likely have not heard of. I have a copy of Sailor Moon the rpg. Never played it of course. Just impossible to convince a room full of ordinary blokes, to play a game essentially containing really only one male role. I've 'tried' to run games with hard science or credible military settings. But, I was the only science nerd in the group that understood time dilation etc. And it was funny my being female, and in a room of macho types and I was the only one that had military service. They talked the talk, but, it was always evident, that they had no idea really what they were talking about.

I find D&D is the only setting where you don't need to be 'accurate'. The advantage of a fantasy genre.
I do tend to find it annoying when the companies release material for an addition for a set span of time, and then a new edition comes out, not because it's better, they just want to sell new books for the sake of making money. Can't blame them for wanting to make money, but, I get annoyed that there is a pretense of one edition being better than another.
1st Ed D&D was a good edition, 2nd was I think mainly marred by lousy book bindings and inconsistent manual design. 3rd was the first shameless cash grab. I liked the mechanics of 4th. And now there is 5th, but I haven't role gamed for years (age and life issues).

My design of choice is either Alternity for modern high science or 2nd ed Warhammer FRPG for non-level based superior ROLE gaming (I hate stat worship). I'm currently trying to write something EXTREMELY brief in design for easy appeal to the non-gamer. Something I can play anywhere with almost no materials.

It's a shame my son isn't too interested in rolegaming. But, I'm still hoping. Maybe the grandkids will play with granny some day

[augetout]

As I was a youngster during the early 80s, the combination of my family not being wealthy, plus living in a small town in Wisconsin, plus the onrush of the Atari, (and arcade games), made it tough to focus in any area of gaming for a long period of time. Throw sports into the equation, and it made finding time for gaming even more difficult.

My friends and I invented a dice baseball game, in large part because we were too poor to purchase Strat-o-matic baseball, which would have done the job nicely.

During that time period, my wish to be involved in the 'role-playing scene' was cut short by a poor experience at a game-con, (the 'dm' for a role-playing sci-fi game that escapes memory had players spend 45 minutes of a 3 hour block of time preparing what we would carry for the 'mission', only to have the ship crash and destroy all of our equipment in the first couple of minutes of actual gameplay). Given the number of options to 'have fun' that existed combining with our youth and arrogance, it became far too easy to dismiss the role-playing folks as 'uncool dweebs' that we didn't want to be associated with. That, and that damn CBS family movie with Tom Hanks in it where Hanks' character goes wackadoodle because of a game that was a thinly-veiled renaming of dungeons and dragons, pushed role-playing games aside for awhile.

I like that you mention that D&D doesn't require perfect accuracy, as I believe that is part of the reason the I found the Elder Scrolls games to be the video-game equivalent, especially with the YouTube gameplay videos allowing one to see how others tackled the same missions in different ways.

I made a run at creating a wargame, but without the robust PC tech we have available to everyone now, it was clear that it was too tedious to keep track of everything for a regular player, (it would have been fine, but needed the PC to keep track of some of the logistics, lest the players hardly ever actually get to play, due to having to keep track of stuff on paper.

My step-kids weren't role-playing gamers at all, but I did eventually get my step-son into some console/PC gaming for awhile.

Now, I play my OOTP 19 (my speed-focused 1983 Padres are killing it), and WWIIOnline (long live Lafayette Federation), while using simcity builder (my phone) to help me go to sleep..,.

[Sukunai Niyori]

Yeah, among my many claims to fame, it was my generation that invented role games And largely people like me.

True on the GM DM comment. Some guys running games sucked at it. They were usually only running the game because they had bought it. Not because they were any good at the task. Some games would require insane levels of detail that the person running the show couldn't really employ worth a hoot. I had one friend, who devoted so much energy to back story, that our players were unkillable, lest the backstory gets ruined. Which ruined the game, because an unkillable player is actually boring too. I like to think I was imaginative when I occupied the seat of game running person.

I also was able to realize, boys just want to kill things, girls just want to engage with the setting. Ideally, you want two guys and 1 or 2 girls in a game if you want it balanced. Because it either is just hack and slash and there's no point in the intelligence wisdom and charisma stats, or it's too much drama, and no one wants combat they just want to do a lot of talking and acting

The perfect game isn't a sellable one though. Because you don't need a detailed character design and a lot of premade materials in books, you need a GM who is part writer, and extremely imaginative. Someone that can bring characters to life easily, and is used to carrying a lot of setting details in their head. I write romance novels. And I'm a war gamer. And I think I'm a very fun GM

[augetout]

When one thinks about it, the D&D business model was horribly flawed in that it depended on customers to make the game fun for other customers and potential customers. Imagine if role-playing games had delayed their debut until the technology allowed the game itself to handle making things fun for customers, (think elder scrolls)... The D&D creators in that scenario would probably be icons in the vein of Steve Jobs, etc.

[Snowygerry]

(…)
The perfect game isn't a sellable one though. Because you don't need a detailed character design and a lot of premade materials in books, you need a GM who is part writer, and extremely imaginative. Someone that can bring characters to life easily, and is used to carrying a lot of setting details in their head. I write romance novels. And I'm a war gamer. And I think I'm a very fun GM

Sounds your ideally suited then to organize the next ACG forum game

Civilization. I actually have the board game release of the computer game. I think the board game is actually better. Awesome components. Pity, it takes a skilled wargamer an hour to explain it to a non-wargamer. So it's not the game you decide to play with newcomers. The PC versions, hmm, mixed feelings here. I liked every version right till V. I am not up for VI though, I refuse to buy a new computer for a game, any game. But I don't think any game other than Squad Leader or Advanced Third Reich has used up more of my life than civilization. And I simply loved playing it against another human. This is the game you play when you are sick and stuck at home and need something to eat entire days. It's a game you will take all day to finish. But it does end. You can beat the game, and when you do, you increase the difficulty again.

Never knew it was a board game first.

I do agree - I have an old laptop with a few classic PC games I keep at hand, Civ IV and some of its many mods are among them, even after all those years the "..just one more turn" effect is still quite strong..

[Sukunai Niyori]

"Never knew it was a board game first."

No, actually the board game is a board game release of the PC game in this case. The PC title predated it. But it's an incredibly nicely done product. There is also an older board game from 1980 that might have inspired the PC title. It was focused on the Mediterranean and was stuck in the ancient era only. A fun title, but not the global design starting at the dawn of time and reaching today that we recognize by the name Civilization routinely. I've played the other one, it's 'ok', but nothing to get excited about.

I might consider some form of forum based concept role game. I've seen earlier efforts of the past. Not entirely sure I can make it work. Well, mostly, I'm not entirely sure I can make it engaging to a forum of military-minded individuals My forte isn't combative routinely, and the world of military operations isn't quite as entertaining. I tend to use my entertainment to escape the real world

[Sukunai Niyori]

When one thinks about it, the D&D business model was horribly flawed in that it depended on customers to make the game fun for other customers and potential customers. Imagine if role-playing games had delayed their debut until the technology allowed the game itself to handle making things fun for customers, (think elder scrolls)... The D&D creators in that scenario would probably be icons in the vein of Steve Jobs, etc.

I'm unsure I can comment on the 'business model' of constantly needing to buy new books. But this I do know, one of the problems of basing a company on a routinely replaced edition, is eventually too high of a percentage of potential role gaming public will decide that they have enough books to adequately play a type of game, and they won't be there for the next justification to buy books. If you bought heavy into 1st ed D&D, you needed to go waaaay out of your way to make 2nd ed look absolutely needed. 2nd ed might appeal to a new gamer. Might have no value to a person that had a perfectly fine 1st ed. You might gain a 1st ed player with 3rd ed looking for a new thing, but they might not be there for your 4th ed. And eventually, anyone that want to role game at all, will have one edition or another. During the time of 3rd, everyone and the aunt was selling rival concepts and the market suffered the same response that hit video games I think back in the 80s or 90s. Too damned many on the market with a hackneyed idea of a product.

The owners of D&D also made some choices along the way with 3rd and 4th with support products that were just in the end, either dumb or executed so poorly they lost a lot of cash.

And the hobby leaving for the digital realm likely permanently damaged the old style paper and pencil mode.
But as a social option, paper and pencil will always beat online. Nothing like goofing around with friends all in the same room and no internet or machine required.

But then again, how many can relate to the problem of how most of society (any age), has trouble putting down their damned cell phone

I've seen role game sessions where the GM will simply halt the game until everyone turns off their phones and actually participates whether their PC is the focus of attention or not. Me, I will not play while cell phones are on. Nope, not going to listen to "oh I need to be able to be reached". Nope, it's 11 on a Sunday night, stow that bilge

A laptop can be handy for a GM to keep track of a massive sum of data, but I have found it is also often a distraction more than a perk. I also have found tablets can be a mixed blessing. Good for saying "you see this coming towards you out the gloom" shows players image of a creature. But that is often the limit of the things. Plus, a laptop produces a form of physical barrier between the GM and the table. Often more in the way than it is worth.

People having rival needs of responsibilities is a pain the moment you are no longer in college. Getting an adult to be available any other time than a Sunday is a minor miracle. Getting both parents a challenge. If one takes care of the kids, you might get one of them. Single parents is a major challenge any day of the week. I'm grand parent age almost. My son is a grown man and on his own. Role gaming is almost only a hobby for the young or the old

[augetout]

I do agree - I have an old laptop with a few classic PC games I keep at hand, Civ IV and some of its many mods are among them, even after all those years the "..just one more turn" effect is still quite strong..

Glad you mentioned that. Too many nights back in the day ended up as sleepless thanks to Civilization...