What makes a good game?
I'm sure we all have some inclination as to the answer. A lot of it is taste. The favourable internet expression for this is your mileage may vary (or YMMV). Throughout my wargaming "career" (the one I've paid other people for), I've striven to get to grips with this subject. Not least, because I actually write my own gaming systems, and fiddle with existing ones. The concept is something I think all rules writers consciously think about, in the same vein that a writer of fiction considers narrative devices, and the film maker considers myriad cinematic approaches: camera angles, soundtracks, lighting, casting etc.
Anything produced for any medium has a sense of style and theories surrounding it. The Critic in particular looks into these, as a critic does of any other work. You generally have to form an opinion of what works and what doesn't in order to discuss it. This can run the risk of being too interpretive of something (like a film critic going on about the "innovative" and "brave" switch to black and white, or less CG in a film, when in all likelihood they simply ran out of money).
One can also be a tad too elitist, or dismissive of something that doesn't really bother other people. The trouble is, that is what the critic is for. If you endeavour to understand any medium, you inevitably find its foibles. It comes with the territory, especially when your quest is to determine the best concepts to work with, you are inevitably going to find issue with solutions people use.
This brings me quite well into the realm of Games Workshop. They have their fair share of critics, and as the "most popular" out there, they have a nice selection of examples. It also makes them an easy target, but then, I don't think a medium attracting a larger crowd makes it any less worth criticising. If anything, it probably warrants it more. If it improves, it benefits more people.
The worst thing a Wargame can do, is much the same as a computer game can do. That of offering up some kind of gimmick, whose purpose is ultimately designed merely to pull in the audience. The word "innovation" or in particular the adjective "innovative" is thrown around by fans and popularisers about various incarnations of GW's big three: Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000 and Lord of the Rings (or the pointless War of the Ring).
A good approach to the psychology of wargaming is to make a wargaming feature easy to use, and/or intuitive, so that the gamer relies more on their perception and instincts, and less of the actual rulebooks. Good system concepts can be ruined by far too much "lawyerese" language that tries to avoid exploitation. 40k in particular suffers from this tendency to reword subjects and concepts to fit new situations, rather than trying to make a system that fundamentally stays consistent (like Warmachine to some extent).
Also, just because you feel you've "involved" the player in the system directly, does not remove the need for you to make sure the system itself is well-handled, or even if it works at all for the system you are using it for. A good example of how this doesn't work, is Warhammer 40,000 5th Edition's True Line of Sight (or TLOS).
True Line of Sight is used in many systems, although only Games Workshop could be so cocky as calling it "getting down to the model's eye view to observe the battlefield, bring you directly into the games you play". It basically entails that what the miniature can see, can be targeted. Cover may be considered if the model is in any way obscured. In some games (such as Necromunda and Warmachine) you also have to observe the degree of obscurity with usually two or three (sometimes more) defined terms that have an additional affect on gameplay.
Although the original system was quite clunky and prone to causing arguments, it worked on a consistent set of definitions, and suited the style of the game. What do I mean by this? Well, terrain was judged on an estimated basis; forest terrain would be impossible to see through at a certain depth. As 40k has never really been particularly appropriately scaled, reverting to a system of seeing things as they are presented, causes a number of problems. In particular, those floating around in the air, or elevated by scenic bases become discouraged, which is one concept that Games Workshop has consistently promoted, and until 5th Edition, never affected gameplay.
In particular, Wargaming terrain is also generally designed for ease of use in games. "Forests" comprise of three or four trees, often ones that can be lifted away if movement becomes a problem. Things have been estimated around ease of use, rather than to provide adequate cover. When you use TLOS with typical Games Workshop scenery, you very rarely block visibility at all, which is a poor consideration.
Even without these aesthetic issues, it isn't really a concept particularly suitable for the 40k system. Cover provides "cover saves", which can be taken instead of a regular save, or prevent vehicles from being damaged if the save is passed. This itself is a particularly muddy subject, and has caused a number of issues, especially for countries where English is not the main language, such as a particularly unfavourable ruling on the effects of a Kustom Force Field upon vehicles in Poland.
Now, as 40k goes, the easiest tactic is to roll lots of dice, and make your opponent roll lots of dice. It is actually possible to come close to breaking the game quite easily by simply being able to see lots of units with long or medium range firepower and spamming them ad infinitum. Your opponent will get cover saves for those that go through cover, even other units (but as we've seen, it is very difficult to outright block visibility), but you can let them have that, knowing that often, any dice rolled on the lower scales (1 and 2 in particular, sometimes 3) are going to result in casualties, whether AP or any other issue comes into it or not.
Sure there is the Go To Ground rule that sacrifices the unit's turn in order to improve the cover save, but no matter how good a concept this is to slightly improve the TLOS system, you still have the same likelihood of casualties. Weapons that normally ignore armour will suffer, but weights of fire will not.
This is the problem with TLOS in 40k, because it places the main drawback of firing through difficult circumstances upon your opponent, when it should be the other way around. Given the propensity for 40k players to have some version of Power Armoured Space Marines (who really need very little aid to survivability anyway), most often this facility will simply not get used. When it does, it will provide a very minor defence against an attack that should have been greatly reduced in effectiveness, but works essentially, more or less the same as it would in the open.
It benefits those with poor armour saves, but those forces are typically fast, or have means of distracting enemy fire. Plus, one really wonders if the original system would not have worked just as well, if not better, by simply integrating the units providing cover to other units concept into the existing system in 3rd/4th Edition. It would have been easy, as the rule already existed for Gretchin in the 3rd Edition Ork Codex.
Places where TLOS have worked well is the likes of smaller scale skirmishes, such as Necromunda, Hordes and Warmachine, where cover has impacted on the accuracy and likelihood (or lack thereof) of hitting, rather than the propensity for a seldom-used defensive gimmick. Funnily older versions of 40k used this system, and Warhammer Fantasy (no less capable of large scale battles) still uses it.
This whole concept does play to the idea that certain Wargames market themselves to particular consumers, or particular groups of intellect (or both). Privateer Press' Warmachine and Hordes market themselves to power gamers, pushing forth the gimmick of playing to tear your opponent's liver out (with a small hint to the effect that this should extend merely to the gaming table, with some mention of those weird concepts called manners and sportsmanship); LOTR in particular plays to the aesthetic of the films (a sparkle doomed to diminish as the films disappeared - perhaps GW is holding out in hope of being able to represent The Hobbit too?); Warhammer very much markets the historic style of wargaming, with modern powergaming thrown in; and 40k markets itself as a fun system, with space marines.
40k itself seems to make very little assumptions about the age (or intellect) of its audience, and assumes it hates maths, English, critical thinking, or game theory. GW really don't read forums much, do they? Do they assume that players can't be bothered to subtract or do any amount of numeric considerations? They certainly squandered a wonderful and adaptable Wargear section in order to make it "easier" and "quicker" to write army lists. Funnily, you have all the time in the world to write army lists. It's playing games without needing to check the rules every two minutes and arguing about them for hours on end that I'd rather avoid.
It leads me to the conclusion, in a roundabout way. Always be wary of concepts in rules that are designed mostly around a "pull" to attract you to play. In the same way that you should be wary about those bullet points on the back of a computer game box (which more often than not are merely gimmicks that comprise of your entire gaming experience - such as a gimmicky gun that only has one particular use).
In much the same way, Wargames can do this to attract new interest. The trouble is, if not well-handled, this becomes yet another bugbear to deal with for anything other than the casual gamer. Unfortunately, most money is often spent by casual gamers and children (in most gaming industries) who often have little conception for the overall quality of a work. Until those interest areas start to dry up, many companies will avoid cleaning up their act. GW especially.
It can really make you feel for the dedicated fans of a system, who have to endure change. Most of these companies have more or less forgotten about you. You've spent your money, so they need fresh people. This can be particularly jarring when a game takes a radically new direction, and virtually undermines the fanbase. You're expecting a GW reference, but fear not. There has been one company to pull a bigger dick-move than anything GW has ever done. Step forward Rackham, for their reset button action of Confrontation, spawning the infinitely poor replacement Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok (which incidentally undermined 4 games, of which only two - Confrontation (but so many factions have been reset to virtually nil, and old models - that are infinitely collectible - essentially need rebasing(!) to play) and Cadwallon (which from the looks of it, is ridiculously expensive to play) have made much of a comeback. Did I mention the models aren't as nice looking?
Age of Ragnarok also lets us round off with one more gimmick. Pre-painted miniatures. This is a particularly large bugbear for anyone who views Wargaming as a hobby, and not just a game. For gamers, it is rather pick up and play, but for this convenience, all gamers/hobbyists are paying a massive premium for them to be pre-painted (not only the painting costs, but the elaborate packaging that is necessary so you can see them before you buy) and anyone who wants to customise or improve the appearance of those miniatures are going to put paint to them anyway, rendering the entire process redundant. Plus, At43 demonstrated already quite well that the gimmick alone does not a gaming system make. The system itself actually needs to be decent as well.
It is rather telling when all you read about on forums is discussion of how to modify the models for use in other games.
Now, not all gimmicks are bad, but always be wary of ones designed to integrate the gamer into the system. This kind of concept needs to be handled extremely well to satisfy gamers, and with a lot of gamers being insecure and temperamental, you really have to make sure that your changes stand up to scrutiny. Step up 40k. Step up Fantasy. Step up War of the Ring. Step up Warmachine Mk2. Step up Age of Ragnarok. Step up Necromunda: Underhive (an old gripe, that) and finally, step up Inquisitor, for always being a gimmick. Maybe that's why we love you. Well, why those people love you.
