This month, The Armchair Gamer reviews the first six of these reviews and looks at Joe Miranda's On to Moscow.

The Reviews Reviewed

When Jon first asked me to undertake a review column for GameFix, I held out for certain ground rules for the column: that the reviews would rest on stated standards, that they would contain examples from the game, and that they would voice as little subjective opinion as possible. This approach, by itself, would be enough to make the reviews substantially different from reviews in other places.

They certainly differed from what everyone seems to have expected. From the correspondence, e-mail, telephone calls, etc., they also seemed to have missed their aim: some few readers got the point (a small minority), more missed the point entirely (some seemed to think I was talking about typefaces!), and still others wanted a review column just like all the other reviews.

For the first group, I am entirely thankful. Though small, this group will influence the hobby and the industry in ways that I think will benefit everyone - from the designer to the publisher, from the new gamer to the old hand.

The second group leads me to believe either that my writing skills have deserted me or that their reading skills never existed in the first place. This group is large, and it will continue to influence the hobby and the industry in ways that I believe will cause harm in both the long and the short run of things.

To the last group: you know where the kinds of reviews that you want are being published. You will not find them in The Armchair Gamer, and I doubt whether you will find them in GameFix. If you base your decision on whether to buy a game solely on those reviews, please accept my kindest wishes of good luck.

Of course I wasn't talking about typefaces. And of course no wargamer should be concerned with typefaces - nor with colors on maps and counters, nor with play-aid card table ruling, nor with logical structures, nor with paragraph numbers, nor with cross-referencing, etc. And that's precisely the point.

Everyone connected with presenting the game to the wargamer and relieving him of his money should be concerned about these things precisely so that the wargamer shouldn't have to be concerned about them. Nearly everywhere 1 looked I saw evidence that too many - from designer to publisher - were more concerned with relieving him of his money than with presenting him with a well-made product.

Quality

I've long believed that producing a quality product costs no more than producing a shoddy product. I still believe that concept remains true: nothing that I've seen in the wargame industry leads me to abandon it. I've also long believed that, in the end, the consumer will avoid the shoddy product and buy the quality product. But this concept may not operate in the hobby as it does in most of the rest of economics; much that I've seen in the industry leads me to abandon it.

Recently there was an individual in the industry who designed and produced and distributed several games; the consensus now seems to be that the hobby is glad to be rid of him. I remember the enthusiasm with which he once said, 'You gotta remember that these people are hobbyists: they'll buy anything." I once knew a crooked used car dealer who showed the same kind of enthusiasm.

The crooked wargame designer believes that he can peddle a few games to the unsuspecting gamer, get his money, and get out. (In this case, it worked: the man walked away from the shambles he left behind with money in his pocket.) The crooked used car dealer knows that he can relieve some unsuspecting rube of his money long enough to get the lemon off the lot.

I hope that I've not grown so cynical that I believe that some of the shoddy products on today's wargame market were put there with the attitude that seems to say "they'll buy anything." I'd rather believe that the shoddiness of these products results from carelessness. But, no matter the root cause, the shoddy products persist.

And it was - and is - almost the sole point of these reviews that the wargamer should not have to be concerned about designers who can't (or, molded by their egos, won't) write a clear, organized, and understandable set of rules or about graphic artists who can't (or can't be bothered to) lay out a map or a set of counters or a set of play-aid cards that can be played with.

Jon called me a few months ago to read me an ad that Richard Berg had submitted for publication in GameFix. It started with 'You think Dave Wood is mad?" and went on with 'Just wait'll you see these guys sink their collective fangs into the hobby!" We both laughed because somebody had missed the point. To clarify: Dave Wood is not mad. He's not even angry. But he is offended by shoddiness.

And I will continue to speak out, because I am offended, and you should be, too. When these shoddy products result from the attitude described above, speak out by not buying it and by telling everyone you know how bad it is, in detail (except the designer: he won't appreciate your comments). Conversely, when you find a good game, buy it, and tell everyone you know how good it is, in detail (including the designer: they seldom get the praise they deserve).

On to Moscow Review