Why bother?

[yendi]

I'll take computer games that have no fucking chance of living up to their board game inspirations for 2000, Alex.

Seriously, why bother even making this one?

Edit: And it looks like this is the second time in recent history that they tried, too.

Comments

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

Wasn't PBeM Diplomacy the reason the internet was invented? The government had to give all of those Harvard IR majors something to do when they weren't planning juntas or assassinating Kennedys.

[lovingboth]

Depends on your definition of 'recent', but this is the third PC version: Avalon Hill did one in the days of DOS.

[yendi]

I wasn't aware of the AH one. How was it? On the one hand, I loved AH back when they were their own company (and, to be fair, still love many of their products). OTOH, pre-internet, I'd imaginge Diplomacy could get even more annoying.

[yendi]

That wasn't the official reason (something to do with "research"), but I suspect it's the real reason.

[slipjig.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've seen one of those games put to good use: If you're playing the flesh-and-blood version, it can do the dirty work for you, eliminating those I-support-him-but-she-counters-but-he-eliminates-the-counter-which-cancels-this-convoy-which.... arguments

[yendi]

But those arguments are the whole point of Diplomacy. If we actually knew the proper chains of support off-hand, each game would end in ten minutes!

[terracinque.livejournal.com]

Good guess, but the internet is for porn.

[mister-wolf.livejournal.com]

Dude, that's Paradox. If anybody can pull it off, they can. Though I admit, I don't see how. Call it simple, honest faith.

[yendi]

I've heard great things about MK: Shaolin Monks. What else have they done?

[mister-wolf.livejournal.com]

What? Nonononono. This Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron Paradox. Scandinavians who specialize in richly historical strategy games. The diplomatic engine in these games is pretty smart already, so I'm curious to see what they do with it in Diplomacy.

[yendi]

Ah, gotcha. Too many companies with similar names. :-)

Part of my problem with a computerized Diplomacy is the same as with computerized poker. It's not just about the strategy, but the interactions between players. And a computer inherently cuts that off.

[boutell.livejournal.com]

My favorite Diplomacy variant ever is the Game of Thrones board game.

[shawnj.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine it would be as fun. It would have to have one hell of an AI.

[mister-wolf.livejournal.com]

Yeah, even if it's a really awesome game, it's liable to be a rather different experience that the board game. Frankly, I'm not sure what they're thinking, but if anybody can pull if off, these guys can.

[experimentego.livejournal.com]

In my hazy misremembered past as a hardcore computer gamer, I feel like they've tried to adapt Diplomacy fifty times already.

And who wants to play Diplomacy against the computer? It took them decades to come up with the artificial intelligence needed to beat Kasparov, and they think they can come up with something half as decent for a game with so many variables? Never mind the fact that the attention devoted to artificial intelligence in modern computer games is only 5% of what aesthetic values gets.

[yendi]

My thoughts exactly.