Fortress America: When Gaming and Politics Collide

Whizbang Dustyboots · Dec 19, 2011

The first one, I agree, definitely sounds like the marketing department was a little more, ahem, personally invested in that description. That said, an invasion of the United States on three fronts is about as fanciful as Sauron's forces attacking. The folks objecting should chill.

jaerdaph · Dec 19, 2011

I like the first one, but only because it pissed someone somewhere off and got their panties in a bunch. :devil:

Umbran · Dec 19, 2011

Morrus said:
I don't see it as commentary on anything - just exciting fluff text for a board game.

The point of using the real world as a setting is to use what the players already know as a point to grip them, and so you can assume certain basic points without having to spend a lot of time explicating them. But then, your fluff needs to be plausible in the context of the real world - otherwise, you're not just failing to make use of your assumptions, but actively working against them.

It then follows that FFG felt that the fluff text was plausible, that casting the USA as the villain of the piece (with "brutal displays", "lashing out mercilessly" and taking part in destruction of whole nations that sounds suspiciously like genocide) was believable.

That this would be a tender spot in many people's minds should come as a surprise to nobody.

Morrus · Dec 19, 2011

Umbran said:
The point of using the real world as a setting is to use what the players already know as a point to grip them, and so you can assume certain basic points without having to spend a lot of time explicating them. But then, your fluff needs to be plausible in the context of the real world - otherwise, you're not just failing to make use of your assumptions, but actively working against them.

It then follows that FFG felt that the fluff text was plausible, that casting the USA as the villain of the piece (with "brutal displays", "lashing out mercilessly" and taking part in destruction of whole nations that sounds suspiciously like genocide) was believable.

That this would be a tender spot in many people's minds should come as a surprise to nobody.

But by that logic, Escape from New York is plausible.

Fiction doesn't have to be plausible. There's plenty of implausible fiction set in the real world. I don't find either of the above scenarios plausible.

Mark CMG · Dec 19, 2011

Here's what Invasion America (a forerunner to Fortress America) put out by SPI in 1976 (my classmates bought me a copy that year as a gift when I was in the hospital), put in their advertising -

TerraDave · Dec 19, 2011

First text better, and actually more current.

The idea of a missile defense system actually provoking an attack is very 80s and evocative of star wars (not the movie, the reagan). That is, until they realized that actually making a system like that was never going to happen and they are still trying to come up with one to stop a single missile from Iran or North Korea (and they better get on it with the later).

(and let the politicking begin).

Kaodi · Dec 19, 2011

You could always go for Option C: They both suck.

But from a certain point of view, I think the first one has a similar problem to the upcoming movie adaptation of Atlas Shrugged (blech) : namely, there is nothing futuristic about horrifying weapons of mass destruction. They are called nuclear bombs, and they have been around for a long time. Similarly, there is nothing particular novel or futuristic about a train. So, given that, it may be that the first version just sucks, outside of the geopolitical flavouring.

Stumblewyk · Dec 19, 2011

The first text sounds FAR more interesting, and far more exciting. But I guess I'm wondering just who is being offended by it? Even if you want to say it's inspired by recent U.S. international policy, it's still brilliantly far-fetched and an obvious hyperbole. If your skin is so thin that someone satirizing U.S. foreign policy by taking it to it's most ridiculous extreme offends you, then I think you need to step back and take a few deep breaths.

It's a game, it contains a valid kernel of international criticism of U.S. policy, and it sounds cool as all get out.

Bedrockgames · Dec 19, 2011

Morrus said:
So does anyone have any opinion on which version sounds more fun?

The first text sounds more exciting to me than the second. The second one sounds kinda bland.

I agree with others that the second was kind of bland. Either approach would have worked but in both cases I think being over-the-top is key. Number two doesn't feel larger than life.

Nemesis Destiny · Dec 19, 2011

The first one sounds like the summary of a series of news headlines from an independent point of view, the second one reads like a spin-doctored press release from the White House, Pentagon, or a modern corporate news source.

Pretty much what happened.