| Lines of Communication #12 »
March 14, 2006
2006 Origins Awards Nominees
Announcing the 2006 Origins Awards Nominees for category, Historical Board Game of the Year. The Origins Award winners will be presented at Origins International Game Expo 2006, June 29-July 2, in Columbus, Ohio.
Nominees for Historical Board Game of the Year: (Historical College)
- Assyrian Wars by Udo Grebe Gamedesign
- Band of Heroes by Matrix Games
- Empire of the Sun by GMT Games LLC
- Four Lost Battles by Operational Studies Group
- The First World War by Phalanx Games
- Twilight Struggle by GMT Games LLC
07:30 AM in Industry News | Permalink | Notify Friend
Comments
I don't know why Twilight Struggle was nominated since it was published in 2006, not 2005...but there you have it.
Posted by: John Kranz at March 14, 2006 07:41 AM
What John doesn't know about Twilight Struggle is that apparently it started shipping in late December of 2005, though most folks didn't get theirs until January. It also has a 2005 copyright.
David "the preacher" Wilson
Posted by: David "the preacher" Wilson at March 14, 2006 07:47 AM
Twilight Struggle began shipping in December, 2005. You can look it up in the forums! ;-)
Posted by: Dave Rubin at March 14, 2006 07:49 AM
It was not available for general purchase until 2006, though.
Posted by: Chris Farrell at March 14, 2006 08:20 AM
Live and learn, I guess. ;-)
Posted by: John Kranz at March 14, 2006 09:12 AM
I can't believe that neither Crusader Rex nor Bonaparte at Marengo were nominated. Both are exceptional games that we will still be playing and enjoying twenty years from now.
Posted by: Laurie Gordon at March 14, 2006 10:39 AM
All solid choices in my book (I've played 4 of them and have seen the other 2 being played).
You can learn a nontrivial amount of history and historical atmosphere from Assyrian Wars and Twilight Struggle in particular.
[As for Crusader Rex & Bonaparte at Marengo, It will be hard for me to enjoy them 20 years from now as I don't actually enjoy them now ;-)]
Posted by: John Haba at March 14, 2006 04:22 PM
If these are the best then 2005 was a pretty humble year.
Or else the people picking the nominees were paid hacks.
Posted by: Phlegm at March 14, 2006 08:49 PM
Your name says it all, Phlegm. Did you design a game that we would all be better off considering?
Mark Walker
(My real name)
Posted by: Mark H. Walker at March 15, 2006 02:14 AM
At least we don't have to watch insipid acceptance speeches on TV at our awards presentation. Of course, we don't have the gorgeous stars in revealing dresses on the red carpet, either. Awards or no awards, good games will stand the test of time. Anybody want to play the old 1960's naval game Broadside? Still a fine game!
Posted by: Pete Belli at March 15, 2006 02:55 AM
One other small bitch... Matrix, OSC, GMT, etc didn't design any of these games. Placing their names beside them is like like attributing
Cell: A Novel to Scribner (the publisher), not Stephen King
or American Idiot to Reprise, instead of Green Day.
I'm a big fan of our publishers, and thrilled with what Matrix (and Shrapnel) did with LnL, but the awards should state both the designer's and publisher's name.
Posted by: Mark H. Walker at March 15, 2006 10:55 AM
Much like the designers of cars are listed when a vehicle wins "car of the year".
Posted by: Brian Youse at March 15, 2006 12:22 PM
"I can't believe that neither Crusader Rex nor Bonaparte at Marengo were nominated."
While not being privy to the whole process, the games are nominated by the companies themselves who have to submit a form, copies of the game, artwork for advertising, etc. to GAMA to even be considered.
So perhaps CR, BaM, and even our Fire in the Sky, just were not submitted or submitted in time to be eligible.
Posted by: Brian Youse at March 15, 2006 12:25 PM
What's this? Nothing from Conflict Simulations was nominated? I'm heartbroken.
Posted by: Uncle Ho at March 15, 2006 07:19 PM
Brian, it's not my fault that car designers don't own the IP for their work, but I do own the IP for mine.
Posted by: Mark H. Walker at March 16, 2006 03:21 AM
Not sure how First World War got on there. Not to be critical -- because I don't own the game -- but it was called too simple and abstract. One of the reasons i didn't purchase it. Assyrian Wars on the other hand I did own until recently. It was on the more complicated spectrum of games. In fact, I would consider it the most complicated game on the list even though it is a card game. EotS looks to be the favorite in my opinion. In general, though, no overly complex games on the list (Triumph of Chaos, RRR: Carthage, etc...)
Posted by: Don at March 16, 2006 09:23 AM
I believe Bonaparte at Marengo is actually from 2004, as was Friedrich, another worthy candidate which seemed to get critical mass in 2005.
I'm surprised that folks here seem not to be aware that the Origins Awards are, historically speaking, more or less completely worthless. While I'm not exactly behind this nominee list 100%, one has to admit that it is an improvement over previous years, in which the only company that seemed to get nominated was Avalanche. There are at least three credible entries here, which is an improvement.
Posted by: Chris Farrell at March 16, 2006 02:48 PM
Don, I'm stunned too at the fact The First World War is on the list. I'll sum it up this way...playing as the Austria-Hungarians, I forced the Allies to captiulate in 1914. Awful, awful, game. I have no idea what Ted Racier was thinking with it.
Posted by: S.R. Krol at March 16, 2006 04:36 PM
He was thinking "I'm going to make a simple WWI-themed game that might appeal to Euro gamers." What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Aaron Silverman at March 17, 2006 10:08 AM
"The First World War...I'll sum it up this way...playing as the Austria-Hungarians, I forced the Allies to captiulate (sic) in 1914."
Well, Franz Joseph would have been proud of you...
Posted by: Uli Blennemann at March 20, 2006 03:41 AM
You weren't happy with that?
Posted by: Mark H. Walker at March 21, 2006 04:39 PM
Post a comment
