MIKE: I most certainly agree that movement for many of the miniatures games is downright hideous. However, as I only play those games with people I like, it really doesn't become too much of an issue. Pretty much that person is you, so I have no worries. When [old pal] Chris gets involved I know to run away at flank speed as he can get a bit touchy about the whole process, but that is also the same person who cheated for years at Stratego with me. I do seem to recall a bit of testiness when you two fine lads played Pirates two summers ago.

JOE: Oh my god, I just want to forget that he and I ever played Pirates. Not only is it sad that he and I got into it over a stupid game, but also that we neutered the game's balance. Would you agree that I'm extraordinarily picky about things like that? Maybe I'm naive about game designers, but I want to trust that the ruleset exists in a delicate, intricate structure... so you can't just toss something out without affecting something else. In the Pirates case, we played that any ship could fire ALL cannons as long as at least one was in range. This gives the bigger ships an unfair advantage, negating their usual penalties of speed, position and range.

Not that I haven't encountered genuinely bad, poorly-tested games. Killer Bunnies is just a disaster from start to finish. The Inuyasha TCG is absurdly bad. Didn't we "figure out" Loco inside of three hands? I still don't quite get the fairness of the endgame in Monsters Menace America. We asked the poor Zatch Bell TCG demo guy, "So if you never shuffle your deck (which is a key point in this game), won't every game between the same decks always play exactly the same?" And I remember you declared Kill Doctor Lucky broken almost immediately.

Of course, that doesn't even begin to address all the games that I consider failures just because they do not measure up to their license's potential... Vs., Teen Titans, Dragon Ball Z, etc. Did you hear that Marvel Comics is doing ANOTHER collectible card game? That's Number Four, if you're counting. It just kills me when I get all excited about a new licensed game - because it's a license I'm really, really into - and then it comes out all generic and weak. Right now, the Kingdom Hearts TCG is right on the bubble of that, although the first expansion set seems pretty interesting.

So let's see, I know I've made you play more than a couple of those... but of course, I've played a bunch of your abstract games as well, so we just might be even. (Although I'm going on a lifetime achievement of Never Playing Scrabble With You.) Since I had such success getting you into Doomtown, I think I tried again and again to duplicate that. Because there's such a glorious intimacy when you and your mates are actively pursuing a collectible card game. You're always checking out new cards, trying out new deck ideas, eagerly anticipating the next release. You know all the loopholes, the buzzwords, the killer combos. That's the social metagame that I really enjoy, the camaraderie. I haven't hit on the next Doomtown-level experience for you and I, but not for lack of trying (Vs., Pirates, Pokemon...)

Doomtown is like the perfect game for both of us. A lot of odds thanks to the poker angle, the logic and combos of a good TCG, a solid physical component where table layout matters, and a rip-roaring, engaging backstory. I wonder if we'll ever find another game that equals that, because I do feel that every game since Our Doomtown Heyday has just been sort of spinning our wheels. I haven't been into anything as seriously as that.

Assuming that we never advance more than casually into Pokemon, and that you've avoided Pirates for entirely acceptable reasons, and that even I have given up on Vs., the only offerings I can make at the moment are the aforementioned Kingdom Hearts (which I am buying for a little while yet, and I acknowledge that the license means nothing to you), and Eye of Judgment. I still think - and was surprised to discover - that Eye of Judgment is a solid game... but I don't think I can get you to play it. I think the technical gimmickry of it makes you more than a little wary? If I may speculate here, I think you have a sense of when you personally are being "sold" and EoJ's stupidly complicated investment (PS3 + camera + cards) is an instant non-starter. TCGs in general trip your alarm, I think; even when we were both into Doomtown, you would only buy sparingly and purposefully... which sort of removes you from the pointed, expensive marketing that accompanies the random-pack TCG model. Heck, in our Magic days, I think you spent $30 tops, and then traded up for all the great cards you ended up with.

MIKE: I am willing to give Eye of Judgement a whirl, but I don't see the need for the camera and sexy visuals. It does seem to have an interesting idea and of course because you are my game daddy, let's give it a go.

JOE: EoJ has figured out how to leverage the PS3 as part of the game. Yes, turn off the battle animations. Nothing new there. But the way it tracks your cards' attack and health, plus all the myriad ways that cards can affect each other... I think that's a real advantage. It allows for some of that tabletop complexity that I like, without all the messy micromanagement of the details. The PS3 does all of that for you. I'd like to see Sony push it even further and include more card abilities that rely on the computer-controlled aspect. It's clear that they have no desire to see people play the game without having purchased a PS3, so why not go all the way? Why half-assed pretend that MAYBE somebody out there is trying to play Eye of Judgment without the gear? In fact, one enterprising fellow did make his own Eye of Judgment game board set and guess what... it looks exactly like the kind of games you avoid: lots of tokens, lots of little rules!

MIKE: I agree with what you said about Doomtown - the combination of poker, collecting cards and the visual of building a town is just a tremendous pull for me. Since it didn't have a tie in to other fantasy games, that actually made it much easier for me pick up and play. I know you are fully vested in the various licenses of fantasy books and games, but to me they hold almost no interest. So when games piggyback onto their histories, I am already missing much of the backstory and don't really care to figure much of it out. But a whole new idea, that I can go for.

That's why I like to pester you about making your own game because we could come up with something brand new that also has many of the elements of other games we enjoy. And what about chess? I could get you into that. You also have that really nice backgammon set you won from the Lord of the Rings guy. Just sayin'.

JOE: Yeah, the thing about me and licensed stuff is that the mistakes just seem so obvious. DC/Marvel Vs. just does not feel like a super-hero battle to me. It's too clinical, too methodical. When I first showed you that one, I thought you might glom on to it because it is more math-esque in design... a lot of attack/defense number trickery backed up with a tiny bit of tactical table position. It was not comics enough for me, and I guess not math enough for you. I ended up buying packs just to collect it, and - you won't believe me - but I hate doing that. I don't want to simply collect. I want to play those cards!

I have considered how I would make a super-hero card game. I have preliminary notes on one based on the old DC Zoo Crew comic, which just proves that no property is too obscure for me to devote some serious game design thought. I don't think ANYBODY has gotten it right, but that's sort of the ongoing curse whenever an attempt is made to translate comic book super-heroes to other media. It's very, very difficult. TV, movies, video games, novels, tabletop games... it never feels right.

About Doomtown and backstory... I initially pooh-poohed Doomtown specifically because I didn't know the setting and characters. I remember reading - back when A) WOTC owned Doomtown and B) WOTC had a magazine - about each dude card being unique and thinking how stupid that sounded. I was walking in from Magic where card uniqueness almost never happened; except for all those Legend cards, of course. And those got a lot of play, as I do not recall. (Quick, name your favorite Magic Legend! Mine is Nebuchadnezzar, but I forget precisely why.)

My way of thinking at the time was the preponderance of unique cards would make deck-building a chore, but that wasn't the way it turned out. And I ended up practically hypnotized by the ongoing Doomtown storyline... I'm sure we'll get that Final Fiction any day now, right? (The Final Fiction is the long-awaited culmination to the Doomtown storyline, promised to the fans ever since the game died in 2001. Last I heard, it was mostly written, but both the freelancer who started the project and AEG - the last company to print Doomtown cards - could no longer afford to devote the time to finish it. Although AEG still retains the Doomtown license, so hope springs eternal...)

To be continued...