A recent theme I've seen bandied about is a statement of position by one of our competitors to the effect of we don't do simulations, we do games. That game vs. simulation can be argued at all (let alone become a corporate policy) shows that the two terms are either not understood or there are assumed meanings in the words which are actually perceptions and not reality. The argument actually boils down to one regarding the levels of complication, abstraction, and detail players expect of their games-what level they need in order to feel the game is viable and beyond which they feel the game would be working them too hard for little gain.

Naturally, an issue such as that is a matter of one's preferences and no particular level can ever been seen as "better" than another except as it relates to the gamers out there who happen to like it. For everyone else, the demands I hear for games of either more simplicity or more complication mean little more than forcing one group or another to "take this game, like it or not."

Backing up a bit (back to game vs. simulation) if indeed one assumes that a "game" is a wargame which prefers a simpler road, and a "simulation" is a wargame that is more detailed (not true, but let's assume it for the sake of argument--what do gamers, in general, want? For myself, I would prefer the "simulation" because I demand a fairly high degree of historical detail and a combat model that performs (simulates) history correctly. I also demand that it do this with a minimal amount of fuss. I understand that these two goals are a trade off, and that a decent balance is darned hard to get. I am dissatisfied with quickie simple games which are designed with beginners in mind-they soon bore me. Super complex and highly detailed games leave me cold because I can never muster the interest to get into their rules deep enough to actually see what the designer has to show me. Added to that is my deep down distrust of the "reality" given in most games by designers who have no background in the military. Call it cynicism, but I'm being honest.

What does the guy on the street really want? He wants his favorite subjects done at his favorite level, of course. He wants to have fun, and for each player what constitutes "fun" is a different subject. This is why this company avoids constantly pestering you for feedback to determine the make up of the "average gamer." I know full well there is no such thing and that any attempt to pander to this mythical creature will generate games which will be enjoyed by the few gamers who happen to have interests somewhere near this geographical center but will be too much or too little for most everyone else. Do I think the wargame population is normally distributed such that a game aimed at an average gamer would hit the largest number of potential buyers?

No, I don't. The wargaming population is distributed into large sub-clumps. A big group of guys have been playing for 15 + years and have a particular set of likes and dislikes. Another large group are new comers who have a couple of years under their belts. An average that took into account both of these distributions would generate an average gamer between them where, in reality, few would be satisfied. Such an average gamer would clip the top end of the new guys and the bottom edge of the veterans. In the end, such a game would actually satisfy few and I REFUSE to be forced to "enjoy" a game at a level I don't like because somebody's feedback decided based on their 50 responses that this was the mean gamer!

In a recent game magazine, I was treated to a little lecture about how there are two kinds of gamers out there. The beginner who knows little about wargaming and needs simple games to get a start (very valid) and the old vet who needs simple games because his demands of job and family have wiped out his free time. There may very well be herds of such guys out there, but what about players like me and the ones I know? We want games with meat on their bones! We want them to be well thought out, well designed and well researched. The fact that the above two stereotypes also neatly fit in with the publisher's concept of where the "hobby should head" make me wonder about its validity.

I have heard the G vs. S argument used to justify lack of historical accuracy and poorly written rules. I've got news for the perpetrators of these myths. Calling them games as a cover up for lack of historical accuracy doesn't cut the mustard! Guys, if you take away the historical learning and detail from these games-- which is one of the main reasons many of us got into this in the first place, (an interest in history and a desire to learn more in a game setting while having fun)--you'll give me games I don't want. If I want to have fun with a "game" which doesn't bother with history, I can get a lot more out of a Monopoly or a Trivial Pursuit with a heck of a lot less work than with even the easiest wargame. Wargames have to make an attempt to "simulate" reality- in a respectful abstract manner, if nothing else-or we might as well fold up this tent and steal away like thieves in the night.

If you prefer games with simple rules fine, if you like them with more chrome than you can count that's fine too. The point here is that games with no historical basis, crummy research (if any) and a pulp version of reality are intellectually bankrupt and not worth my money. Whatever your particular favorite cup of tea, it should be supported by someone in the emerging game industry (if it isn't you may have to start your own firm ... ) and no one has the right to determine what type of games should be emphasized by the industry.

Every game has its place, its success or failure will be determined by the quality of the product and the number of players who like its slant and style. The hobby is large enough to support a range of small companies, but not large enough to support junk.

I have heard the moans and groans of those who say the hobby is dieing, etc. Though they are quieter now than when we started, they still come out every now and then. I want to make one statement about it:

NOTHING DRIVES OFF GAMERS FASTER THAN JUNK.