Continuing the exploration of cross pollination between board games and computer games, we asked the question "What limitations of computers prevents board games from working well as computer games?" (see this thread: http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=23973)
The answers: lack of social interaction, lack of interest in the video-game buying public, and the inability to modify rules of play (i.e., no "house rules", no flexibility of action in RPGs, etc).
Assuming that most of these problems will be fixed as voice, video, and wireless technology expand the gaming market to the same people that buy DVDs and cable TV, we're left with the following (hopefully final) question:
What aspects of board gaming work well on computers? Which aspects are limited by hardware?
Examples: computers eliminate long setup times and track large numbers of "fiddly" rules, but small screens make it hard to represent large maps with small pieces.
If you reply, I encourage you to use specific examples: "Princes of Florence would work well because of xxx" or "Settlers of Cataan suffers because of yyy".
I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
Hedge, you make many excellent points. However, the "double isomorphism" problem seems to come about from the "let's convert this board game into a video game" mentality. I don't think it's necessarily inherent in video game representation of tabletop-like games (nor do I think you're saying that it is inherent).
Also, I think that a well-developed computer game can increase the "intellectual nearness" of a tabletop-style game in some ways.
Two examples (both older games and among my favorite all-time video games) are M.U.L.E. and Seven Cities of Gold. MULE is virtually a straight-up "mine the resources for profit" game. Originally designed for computers, it could easily be adapted for tabletop play -- but the fact that it was originally designed for computers made for some excellent choices that instantly reduce double-isomorphism and increase intellectual nearness. For example, each turn, players purchase a single plot of land at auction. Rather than using icons that represent bidding chips (or some other indirect purchasing system), players must "buzz in" to claim land before their neighbors (each remaining plot, in order from top-to-bottom of the map, highlights in turn. The first person to "buzz in" on a plot wins it and pays the associated price). Similarly, events take place each turn, and are shown actually happening on the board rather than being read from a card. For example, when space pirates land, their ship descends on the colony, all "smithore" resources drop to zero, and the pirate ship leaves.
Seven Cities of Gold is an "explore the new world" game where players try to maximize their profits, buying men and trade goods and either trading with or plundering native civilizations they encounter as they explore. This is a strictly single player experience but could be adapted for multiplayer play. Like M.U.L.E., it's very "tabletop-esque", but the creators designed it for computerized play and so minized double isopmorphism. A sprite represents your ship, your "goods and men" status displays serve to role of a mini stat board. When you encounter hostile natives, you run around trying to avoid colliding with their sprites in a real-time arcade-inspired action frenzy which would normally be resolved with die rolls or card plays in a tabletop game.
In fact, these games and their kin have all but disappeared from the video game world, but they are the ones I miss most. This shift away from simlified, abstract representations of complex activites is directly responsible for the "design crises" discussed in these threads. Simulations require so much time and money to create that, relative to simpler abstracted games, they are high-risk projects. This forces publishers to reward formulaic titles that are guaranteed to sell a minimum amount to known audiences. This kills creativity and everyone loses (except those 12-25 year-old males who play every first person shooter that features playboy models dressed in battle armor and g-string panties on the box).
So I guess the real question is, why did games like M.U.L.E. and Seven Cities of Gold disappear, and, if the reasons stem from our fascination with technology, is the stage for their return ripe now that technology has effectively destroyed creativity in game design?
K.