Diplomacy: The Game: The Rant

[Fargo]

I gotta get something off of my chest, and this is the place. The issue: Diplomacy for the PC, by Paradox Interactive.

I reviewed the title for GameSpy, and I was very careful to put myself in the right mindset. After all, I'm a HUGE fan of the original board game. So, on the one hand, I wanted to be very careful not to be a snob: I wasn't going to be too hard on the game simply because it wasn't played on a dining room table. Of course, I also wanted to beware of the other extreme -- just because it's Diplomacy doesn't mean it should get a high score. I opened the box completely neutral: I was going to review this game on its own merits as a PC title and its own merits alone.

I just want to make that clear so that you can understand where I'm coming from when I say, without hyperbole, that Diplomacy for the PC was the absolute worst piece of for-profit software that I have ever installed on my machine.

Here are demonstrable facts about the title that cannot (in my opinion) be disputed:* It removes all lingual methods of communicating, either verbally or in text, with other players.
* There is at least one crash-to-desktop bug (I discovered it within the first 15 minutes of play)
* You must log in to play multiplayer, but the game gives you no indication of where to acquire a name or password
* You cannot play multiplayer without installing a patch.
* The patch is hidden on the Paradox website, and the instructions on the web site for where to get it are incorrect.
* Only people who are registered on the Paradox forums can get access to the patch. (In my experience, forum registration took 20 hours.)
* There is no play-by-email option.
* Intermittently, when the game starts up, the main menu is empty. Only ctrl-alt-delete will cancel the program. This occurred on multiple test machines.I also consider the following facts to be true, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that they're subjective:* The load times are curiously long, with the progress bar not moving for much of the load time.
* Graphically there is some degree of chug -- not enough to ruin the game, but bizarre given the simplicity of the graphics and the power of our test systems.
* The interface is obscure and counter-intuitive. It could not be understood without reading the manual and there are no tooltips.
* The AI is inconsistent, a poor player, and impossible to negotiate with.
* The "graphical language" used for negotiations simply doesn't work if you want to plan for more than one turn in advance.
* It's impossible to perform even the most basic of negotiations, like "Let's go to war against Germany after this Fall."
* The movement resolution happens almost too fast to make any sense of it. The computer players gasp and moan in ways that are impossible to relate to the game action.
* The interface frequently does not explain what actions the player needs to take, such as when it announces "BUILD" during a phase in which you need to remove units.With the objective facts and subjective facts out of the way, I'd like to render an opinion: * It is impossible to play this game, single-player or multiplayer, in any entertaining fashion whatsoever.When I reviewed the title for GameSpy, I said as much in my review. In fact, it got our lowest score ever: one half of a star. I thought that was pretty fair. After all, this is a game about Diplomacy. Called ... Diplomacy. In which there is absolutely no way to meaningfully have private communications with the Ai or the other players, AT ALL. No, no voice chat, no text chat, nothing.

Computer Gaming World also called a spade a spade -- they gave it one star and pointed out many of the same issues.

Here's where the rant comes in. I dislike GameRankings for a couple reasons, and their overall Diplomacy aggregate score is one of them: Right now it's at 68%. (A couple of days ago, it was around 74%, which was what triggered off this rant.)

Looking at the scores, I just can't figure out what's happened here. Look at my sister site, IGN: the review states flat-out that playing with the AI is boring, that it was impossible to communicate with the AI, and that they couldn't patch the game and couldn't play multiplayer. (At GameSpy we at least tried playing on the LAN.) Final score? 5 out of 10. FIVE!? How is it getting five points? What redeeming feature does it have that earned it five whole points? (This opens up a whole new argument, about how for some reason gaming journalism has adopted a 100-point scale and only uses the upper half. GameRankings only feeds this problem. I'll put this argument to the side, however, since it's a whole different rant.)

It gets worse. PC Gamer, who I normally respect, gave it 80 out of 100. I'm at a loss. 80%!? What game are they playing? I'm stunned.

WorthPlaying posted a review that spends most of the time talking about how great the board game is, then says the PC version is "Pretty Solid." It also says that "The skill level of the AI in the physical movement of the game is very good," a statement completely incongruous with fact. I've seen the Russians abandon their supply centers to strand themselves in Austria, I've seen the AI pick fights that it can't possibly win against enemies who are exposed to its open borders, and the like. The AI has no concept of a "front." Despite saying tons of negative things about the interface, WorthPlaying still gave the game a 75%.

Gaming Age gave it a B+, in a review with quotable gems such as "Every rule, every detail is folowed[sic] to letter[sic]." I would argue that every rule is NOT followed, because THE PLAYERS CAN NOT SPEAK TO ONE ANOTHER. B+!?

Well, certainly the hardcore strategy sites would call shenanigans, right? No such luck. Armchair Empire gave it a 7.9 out of 10, along with the quote "Diplomacy is more about capturing the tabletop mechanics (done!) than melting your video card." Capturing the tabletop mechanics? Did the reviewer even attempt to PLAY the game? With the AI? With other people? None of the mechanics are captured. It's impossible to make even the most basic of negotiations.

The really high scores boggle the mind. Game Industry News gave it 4.5 out of 5, despite the reviewer being a longtime fan of the board game. He says: "Everything a veteran player could want is there. The art of negotiation, the gameplay, the deceit and trust.... It’s what you need to play the game and play it well." I AM DUMBFOUNDED. It is simply not possible to play this game as the board game was played. I want to ask the reviewer: "If you're playing Russia, how would you negotiate the split of the Balkans with the Austrian and Turkish players before turn one? How would you do it?" This isn't super-complicated or obscure -- it's one of the most basic of negotiations that happens in every single game played.

So, I'm at a total loss. The only thing I can figure?

Possibility 1: As a board game port, Diplomacy is farmed out to low-level freelancers. None of them want to make a lot of waves by trashing a game, so they present mediocre scores.

Possibility 2: Nobody is actually trying to play the game. In order to rush out a review, they glance at the graphics, move a few pieces, skim the manual, and slap a score on there.

Possibility 3: Magazines like PC Gamer played non-final software, made some wrong assumptions about the nature of the game, assumed that the Developers were going to clean things up, and cranked out an incorrect review.

Neither possibility really reflects well on us, as an industry. Look, Diplomacy is a train wreck of a product -- and I hate to say that, since I like Paradox -- but we as journalists owe it to ourselves to steer people away from this disaster. Who's watching the road out there? What's going on!?

------------------------
Dave 'Fargo' Kosak
GameSpy.com
------------------------

[TheWombat]

I'm interested in the responses you get to this post. I haven't played the game, nor do I intend to (not being a fan of the board game) but I was pretty stunned to see the PC Gamer score after everything I'd read from folks I generally think are on the ball.

[Jason Lutes]

Heard and appreciated. Welcome in from the lurk, Fargo. I enjoy a lot of the writing you do for Gamespy.

Paradox has seemed pretty sketchy to me as a developer for a while now. I dislike their excessive repackaging of the EU engine, but more importantly their approach to game design has yet to deliver a strategy game I find engaging. It doesn't suprise me that they would muck up something like Diplomacy -- the clarity and simplicity of the boardgame's design is at odds with everything else they've put out.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

My review is in this month's (January) CGM, and I agree with you completely Dave.

Note that the reviews were mostly positive in the early days - before the metaserver was even up in some cases. So there was no chance to test the MP at all.

I knew it was in trouble when I played my first game as Britain and won by making only two agreements with other countries for the entire game. And I haven't played Diplomacy in a long, long time. And when I did, I always got my ass kicked.

As for your theories for the positive reviews:

1. Most of the positive reviews come from sites that work on a volunteer basis, I think, so I doubt that low status of the writers has much to do with it. Of course, I see myself as a low level freelancer.

2. Rushing the review is the most likely theory. Just default to the 7/10 and say "easy to learn, hard to master, faithful translation, yadda yadda yadda."

3. The review copies that were sent out were non-final software because the metaserver wasn't up yet. And all the problems that were apparent were big ones - too big to clean up quickly.

Troy

[Brooski]

Dave--

Last month, after writing my review, I had the exact same rant moment you just had (http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6028913&publicUserId=5647873) after checking Gamerankings. I don't think the Gamespy review was up at that time. The "Game Industry News" review you mentioned is what set me off. That guy lives in bizarro world.

--Bruce

[Fargo]

Heard and appreciated. Welcome in from the lurk, Fargo. I enjoy a lot of the writing you do for Gamespy.

Thanks!

I don't know, I liked Europa Universalis I & II for what they were, and don't fault Paradox for porting/rebundling the franchise to keep it on shelves. The publishing business is harsh. Still, I agree they were an odd choice for an elegant game like Diplomacy.

And Troy is right -- the higher reviews were all the earlier reviews, which explains why the GameRanking score is slowly dropping. But I can't understand why you'd review what I'd consider to be a definitive multiplayer game before going online?

[Fargo]

I had the exact same rant moment you just had (http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6028913&publicUserId=5647873) after checking Gamerankings.

Wow, look at that. I coulda just posted your blog and saved myself a lot of typing. ;)

[Lokust]

I guess I should thank you for keeping me from wasting $40... I was rather looking forward to the potential an online multiplayer Diplomacy represented. Bummer :(

[SuperHiro]

Hey Fargo, I too would like to say I love your stuff.

I don't get the positive reviews too. I installed this and the damn game gave my computer AIDS. The lack of any substantial mp options should doom this game to the Beijing Toilet of Infamy. The only conclusion I can come up with is that maybe the reviewers didn't play it a lot. Or enough to realize it sucked.

Paradox has a bad habit of releasing cock-blocks and then slowly improving them over time. Perhaps reviewers are giving it the benefit of the doubt. I just think it's sloppy reviewing though.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I like your writing on Gamespy as well, Fargo. The Daily Victim archives are still good for a laugh -- and a nostalgic trip back to the time when my graphics card was top-of-the-line.

As for Diplomacy... I like Paradox, I like a lot of their games, but it's all to easy for me to see how they could have a game turn out like this. Anybody who's spent much time with a Paradox title probably knows where I'm coming from here.

[Shadarr]

Final score? 5 out of 10. FIVE!? How is it getting five points?
For IGN, that's actually a context-adjusted score of -2.

[andrew_fm]

I think a good indicator of the maturity of criticism of a medium (books, movies, music, etc) is if a reviewer can really, really trash something bad and still retain respectability. For instance, regardless of what you personally think of Rogert Ebert, he's highly respected in film criticism and yet he can write something like his drubbing of The Brown Bunny (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030522/FILMFESTIVALS01/40831005) without losing any legitimacy. I've read old book reviews by George Orwell where he absolutely trashes stuff, and yet he's, well, George Orwell.

But when it comes to game reviews, by and large the "respectable" game review outlets will nearly always give a game the benefit of the doubt, blunt any criticisms, and basically cover up negative impressions with bland generalities, as if they're afraid to really rip into something that deserves it. Everyone knows that review scales are pretty much worthless when a game has to be downright awful to score below a 6.0, but even the actual text of reviews is oftentimes so forgiving of a game's faults that it makes me wonder what they're afraid of. And the strange thing is, what is gained by this? To pick an obscenely worn out example, everyone always says how great Old Man Murray was, and how much they loved it, and the #1 thing people remember is how it called out bullshit and wasn't afraid to call a game crap if it was crap. The Penny Arcade guys are regularly called some of the most influential average-joe gamers around and yet they regularly do stuff like call Marvel Nemesis dogshit (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/09/23). However that sort of thing is mostly relegated to "mean" "humor" game sites that no one takes seriously. Even games that some people have some very strong negative reactions to -- like, say Fahrenheit, which I and many others found to be total crap -- has a Gamerankings score of 85% and only a single negative review (http://gr.bolt.com/oldsite/games/ps2/adventure/indigo_prophecy.htm) out of 47! Either the game reviewers are a statisically unlikely bunch or something strange is going on.

Honestly it's gotten to the point where I don't trust ANY professional game review and I make my purchasing decisions based SOLELY on the reactions of people on game forums. What sort of state of affairs is that?

[GregB]

In all fairness, on a 7 to 9 scale, 5 is pretty low.

[Brooski]

Maybe some of those reviews are just jokes, like this possibly-a-joke-review by a Gamespot reader (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/diplomacy2005/reader_review.html?id=196622).

If you have played one of two Hearts of Iron games, you'll enjoy this game. It has similar gameplay movements like Hearts of Iron series. Similar graphics, similar controls, and similar gameplay...

The game has very strong AI and if you make a mistake or something not good for you, enemies around you starts attack on you. You can make peace or nonagression aggreements between a country and yours, so you can be more powerful.

Diplomacy is a good game. High gameplay and strong AI make the game better.
I think the ending gives it away.

But the overall Gamespot reader score is 7.8.

[Lum]

Yeesh. I had no interest in the Diplomacy port (it's the kind of game you *have* to play in person) but it's distressing to hear the state it was released in. I thought Paradox was doing better.

[ron_debry]

I guess I should thank you for keeping me from wasting $40... I was rather looking forward to the potential an online multiplayer Diplomacy represented. Bummer :(

But you can play diplomacy online. Real diplomacy. For free.

http://www.diplom.org

[Anders Hallin]

I was pretty sure this was going to be the case when it got 3/5 in some Swedish mainstream newspaper.

[Dr Fear]

andrew_fm, are you really comparing some guy who spent fifteen minutes getting screenshots for his review of Diplomacy, to George Orwell's book reviews?

A couple people (including Fargo) referred to "professional game journalists". I went to Game Rankings and checked out the names of some of these places that reviewed Diplomacy and contributed to the alleged ratings travesty. What the hell is "netjak"? "Gameboyz"? Is George Orwell writing for them?

The Game Industry News review was mentioned more than once. What the hell is Game Industry News? They have about ten reviews, including one of Finding Nemo, split up by "catagory" [sic].

Roger Ebert is a professional film critic. How many of the people at netboyz are professional game critics? How many are professional ANYthings? The example andrew_fm cited of the review that called out Farenheit was published on a site staffed by college students. How many of those sites are run by pre-podium-discovering Jose Liz high schoolers?

For those of you who are professional game reviewers, how much of your reader mail reads like intelligent mail that might be condensed and appear on the New Republic letters page? A lot of it? If not, why are you expecting so much out of the people who are doing it?

I don't know if it's going to change, though, because people obviously aren't paying attention. People keep citing Roger Ebert's reviews, not those of the Chicag Sun-Times. But what did Fargo do? He cited Computer Gaming World and PC Gamer and Game Industry News and Armchair Empire and Gaming Age? Who wrote those reviews? There isn't any accountability because even the readers aren't paying attention.

Fargo, do you really respect PC Gamer? All of it? I sure don't. If you tell me something was reviewed in PC Gamer, that tells me nothing. If it was Steve Klett or Barry Brenesal, I can just dismiss it, like the Master of Orion III review on IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/386/386281p1.html). If the review is by Dan Morris or Desslock, that's a completely different story. Unlike andrew_fm, I do not just dismiss all the game reviews because Gamespot pulled the Savage review because the guy only played it for three hours (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5866). Will I still read Gamespot reviews? Sure. A few really good reviewers write for them. Will I ever trust that particular reviewer's work? Maybe not.

One of the many reasons game journalism is so crappy is that even the people it's targeted towards don't take the time to make the bad practitioners accountable. And many don't support the good ones by subscribing to the magazines that publish them. It's all on the Internet! Yeah, netboyz is, for sure.

[flyinj]

I wonder if Maxim Online would give this game 3/5.

I don't think I've ever seen them go below a 4.

[andrew_fm]

Dr Fear, it's true that we don't see George Orwell writing game reviews, but the book reviews I mentioned were when he was just a fairly young journalist/writer making ends meet, not "George Orwell." Just because we don't have Big Names writing reviews of games doesn't mean they can't be cogent and intelligent, does it?

You say that game reviews tend to be identified by their place of publication and not their actual author, and then you say that when reading PC Gamer or Gamespot you'll look for the names of particular reviewers you trust. So which is it? Most people don't care about the specific personality that wrote a piece but some people do? You could say that about any sort of writing; I doubt most people reading a Michael Kinsley editorial know a whole lot about the actual guy but they can tell if they agree with what he's saying or not.

I know that this particular topic regarding Diplomacy's bizarrely high scores is basically a tempest in a teapot, but it's a tempest in a teapot precisely because no one really seems to take game reviewing seriously. You say "people don't pay attention" because game reviews are largely amateur hour nonsense, and then you say that game journalism is amateur hour nonsense because readers "don't take the time to make the bad practitioners accountable." So I guess it's stuck in an infinite causal loop and the practice of game reviewing will never be any more respectable than it is now, i.e. barely at all.

[Dave Long]

I know that this particular topic regarding Diplomacy's bizarrely high scores is basically a tempest in a teapot, but it's a tempest in a teapot precisely because no one really seems to take game reviewing seriously.

Uh...this thread exists because someone does take game reviewing seriously. In fact, those of us that post here are probably among the most "serious" reviewers there are. Quarter To Three is far more of a Video Game Ombudsman than the site that has that name.

--Dave

[andrew_fm]

Uh...this thread exists because someone does take game reviewing seriously. In fact, those of us that post here are probably among the most "serious" reviewers there are.OK to say that "no one" cares is obviously a little bit of hyperbole. However if your argument is that people obviously care about the issue because it's being discussed on Q23, that doesn't mean a whole lot since Q23 basically IS a bunch of people who take that sort of thing seriously. The point is that "no one" as in "no one excluding the hardest of the hard core" really cares if game reviewing ever becomes a quote unquote serious business worthy of the size and scope of the industry it's counterbalancing.

[Alan Au]

In theory, if people buy a bad game based on a flawed recommendation, they will remember that the source of that recommendation is unreliable. Of course, one problem is that people have short memories, or perhaps they aren't even paying attention in the first place. For instance, Enter the Matrix received mediocre reviews, but many consumers bought the game anyway.

Side note, looking at the EtM review, GameRankings considers a "D+" to be the equivalent of a 55/100. :shock:

- Alan


P.S. - Fargo, I really enjoy reading your work.

[Dave Long]

In theory, if people buy a bad game based on a flawed recommendation, they will remember that the source of that recommendation is unreliable. Of course, one problem is that people have short memories, or perhaps they aren't even paying attention in the first place. For instance, Enter the Matrix received mediocre reviews, but many consumers bought the game anyway.

Side note, looking at the EtM review, GameRankings considers a "D+" to be the equivalent of a 55/100. :shock:

- Alan


P.S. - Fargo, I really enjoy reading your work.

7 to 9 scale, man... 7 to 9.

--Dave

[Dr Fear]

Dr Fear, it's true that we don't see George Orwell writing game reviews, but the book reviews I mentioned were when he was just a fairly young journalist/writer making ends meet, not "George Orwell."
However young he was, he was in all likelihood still George Orwell. When someone leaves Gamespot to become George Orwell, you make sure to let me know.

You say that game reviews tend to be identified by their place of publication and not their actual author, and then you say that when reading PC Gamer or Gamespot you'll look for the names of particular reviewers you trust. So which is it?
You misunderstood me but I think I was not clear, sorry. What I meant was that even Fargo, who by all appearances here is a respected game writing man....even HE does not pay attention to who is writing the reviews he agrees or disagrees with. If the professionals cannot be bothered, how can anybody? My point was that it makes more sense to pay attention to authors, and I do, but who else does? Maybe very few.

Most people don't care about the specific personality that wrote a piece but some people do? You could say that about any sort of writing; I doubt most people reading a Michael Kinsley editorial know a whole lot about the actual guy but they can tell if they agree with what he's saying or not.
I totally disagree. It was A Big Deal when Kinsley stopped writing the TRB column. People noticed, believe me. And other professionals especially noticed, because they wrote about it.

Maybe some day someone will care about game reviewers. Right now I don't think very many do. Perhaps it will change. But first the readership has to. Are the people posting in the Gamespot forums or at 1up.com in the CGW forum paying attention? Have they even done tomorrow's algebra homework? My guess is no to both.

[Dr Fear]

From the 7-9 review scale thread:

I basically only use the meta sites now. Individual reviews are too variable, and I'm usually only interested in finding out whether something is a plausible purchase for the price.
This is why there are no George Orwells. The market for reviews doesn't want literary essays on games. They just want to know if they should spend the money or not.

[extarbags]

Side note, looking at the EtM review, GameRankings considers a "D+" to be the equivalent of a 55/100.

That's messed up. A D+ should be more on the order of like a 67%.

[Ben Sones]

But when it comes to game reviews, by and large the "respectable" game review outlets will nearly always give a game the benefit of the doubt, blunt any criticisms, and basically cover up negative impressions with bland generalities, as if they're afraid to really rip into something that deserves it.

I've come to call that sort of a review "a Gamespot." As in, "Did you see Armchair Empire's Diplomacy review? They did a Gamespot!" They may not be the only purveyors of the noncommital approach to game reviews, but they sure are the most egregious.

Gamespot's Diplomacy review hasn't hit yet; it will be interesting to see what they make of it. I predict a score of 6.something and a vaguely negative (but more vague than negative) tagline. If it's good enough for Master of Orion III...

[Jab2565]

another big fan of planet fargo , and reader at gamespy. I had a similar issue with Black and White 2. I saw in CGM they gave it a 3 out of 5 and pc gamer gave it a 83. I just don't feel that Bnw2 could even get near a 8 out of 10. It was buggy, un finshed and flat out boring in many sections.

I've pretty much learned never to trust 1 reviewer, which is why I read at least 5 gaming mags, and of course gamespot,spy, ign, wargamer, game revolution. Usually if a game gets a reasonable score between them I'll check it out.

[SuperHiro]

Hey, did anyone notice that gamespy was among the first to talk about Starforce (in the Cold War review)? (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/cold-war/672372p1.html)

I wonder what took so long for reviewers to notice it? Maybe the review copies they had didn't have it?

[Dave Long]

I've been like the go-to guy for Starforce games at CGM. I think I've reviewed nearly everything Codemasters put out in the last year and I've had zero problems with it. I know I've had Starforce drivers on my computer for at least a year and a half now and probably longer.

I've never mentioned it in a review because frankly, it's not a problem for me.

--Dave

[metta]

Paradox has seemed pretty sketchy to me as a developer for a while now. I dislike their excessive repackaging of the EU engine, but more importantly their approach to game design has yet to deliver a strategy game I find engaging. It doesn't suprise me that they would muck up something like Diplomacy -- the clarity and simplicity of the boardgame's design is at odds with everything else they've put out.

I just wanna raise a flag for the Swedes. I'm a Paradox fanboy; I think Europa Universalis II is amazing, likewise Crusader Kings, and even Victoria, once I wrestled the bugs to the floor. They could use a bit more QA (although they did just release another patch for EUII, four years after the fact) but I don't know another developer who make strategy games that sit dead smack in the middle of my favourite time period, and imposes such magnificant scope on them.

Did you know you can take a save game from Crusader Kings and load it into EUII and your little fifedom will be there, ready to keep going? That's pretty neat :)

/gush

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I love Paradox, too. EU2 is one of my desert island games and CK is an underappreciated gem. But I think they may be beginning to take their huge global following for granted.

As much as I enjoy Crusader Kings, there's no denying the bugs and half-finished features it was released with. Diplomacy shows none of the Paradox creativity and in fact is full of dubious design decisions like grunting avatars and the concept of mutiple AIs when Paradox has yet to master the creation of a single AI. Victoria is still a hard game to enjoy unless I begin in a very good mood.

But their forum is always full and the refrain is always the same - "It will be better when the patch comes out." The release of yet another EU2 patch and the beta patches for CK demonstrate their continued attention to their fans and their games. Still, reliance on their reputation for patching and improving will eventually lead to many gamers waiting until the third or fourth patch before buying.

And that's not good for the bottom line.

Troy

[ioticus]

Isn't Paradox making a Squad Leader PC port? I don't have very high hopes for it.

By the way, Dr Fear, Dan Morris reviewed Diplomacy for PC Gamer.

[Brad Wardell]

Wasn't Diplomacy Paradox's first game based on a licensed property?

I don't have a lot of experience dealing with licensed properties but what experience I do have is quite painful. It's possible Paradox's hands were somewhat tied on some aspects of the game? I'm just speculating.

[Lum]

Nope. Europa Universalis was originally a board game.

I'm still looking forward to the HOI2 expansion pack, if only because it's more a design extenstion than anything really risky (basically moving the game's tech trees and event files up to the late 50's to cover the early Cold War), but sheesh. A Diplomacy game without diplomacy. Someone really was pretty unclear on the concept over there.

[Daniel Morris]

All hail Emperor GameRankings, oracle of infinite knowledge and summarizer of reviews nobody can be bothered to actually read before pontificating upon. Long may Its benificence continue to save us from the trouble of actually having to read things before issuing our opinions of them...

In my review, I flat-out warn people not to buy this game if they're looking for multiplayer Diplomacy. (The lack of a verbal/text-communication interface was enough to warrant the dismissal, even before taking into account the difficulties of setting up a multiplayer game.)

But here's the strange thing: Paradox supplies a satsifying and useful single-player experience. The AI plays hardball and is consistently surprising me with its sophistication, foresight, and demands. One of my longtime hopes has been for a respectable "single-player sandbox" PC rendition of Diplomacy, and Paradox has delivered one here.

In fact, I'd argue that this single-player mode is an infinitely more valuable contribution to PC gaming than multiplayer would have been. After all, multiplayer Diplomacy is already freely available to anyone with an interest and an Internet connection. What purpose would a retail version have served, except to add dyspeptic facial animations to the dictators?

I'm a serious PBEM player, and I've found Paradox's game to be a great little "chess program" for playing around with different openings and alliance combinations. I've definitely picked up a few gambits that have gone into the notebook for future PBEM campaigns. And that's pretty much how I recommend this title.

Diplomacy eggheads like us will be tempted to throw this game down the well because of our knee-jerk reaction to the thought of a multiplayer-dud Diplomacy. If we can remove ourselves from the vantage point of a DiplomaticPouch-thumping beard-stroker, however, we'll have a better chance of seeing the merits of this game as a sandbox for hardcore players and a terrific single-player introduction to Diplomacy for n00bs.

There, I just saved you from having to read my review. Peace be upon you in the name of Its All-Seeingness, Emperor GameRankings.

[Ben Sones]

At least we can all still agree that Gamerankings sucks.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

But here's the strange thing: Paradox supplies a satsifying and useful single-player experience. The AI plays hardball and is consistently surprising me with its sophistication, foresight, and demands. One of my longtime hopes has been for a respectable "single-player sandbox" PC rendition of Diplomacy, and Paradox has delivered one here.

I didn't see much sophistication or foresight. And I have no idea how it would communicate its "demands" - most of the deals it offers are self-serving pleas to help it push towards another supply center even if that means exposing its weak side.

In my experience, the AI often struck out for every near supply center, meaning that it played a strong and aggressive early game, but had no clear plan on finishing off a weak opponent and would sign an alliance only to backstab on the very next turn - usually to no great end. Its emphasis on only short term cooperation in the early game means that it is ill-positioned to do too well in mid or late game since it has already burned whatever bridges it needed to get over the hump.

Plus, as I say in my review, single player Diplomacy really isn't that much of a game to begin with.

As a trainer for newcomers to the game, I think Paradox's Diplomacy is excellent. The tutorial takes way too long, but goes over the rules in a clear way.

Troy

[Brooski]

I'm also surprised to read that someone found the AI in any way challenging. Or even comprehensible. Sure, sometimes it can be tough to beat the AI -- because two or three nations attack you repeatedly even though they themselves are being crushed, then they stop when there is no reason to, then they attack again just in time to expose all of their remaining supply centers. Other times it plays stupidly, but just not against you, so you end up winning without even making any proposals. That was my experience.

[Rob Beschizza]

Diplomacy is one of the holy grails of computer gaming. In fact, I would happily substitute it for the Turing test, in gaming contexts: program an AI that plays a human enough game of Diplomacy.

Anyone remember the purple-and-white CGA version from 1989? Happy days, happy days.

EDIT: here we go:

http://www.freeoldies.com/screenshotbank/qkc4jtjpeo.gif

Looking at that map makes me want to go and remake it for Rome: Total War. It's a little depressing to see strategic flaws in All Modern Europe-Based Region-Divided Strategy Games and remember that Avalon Hill got it right decades ago.

[Fargo]

I don't have a lot of experience dealing with licensed properties but what experience I do have is quite painful. It's possible Paradox's hands were somewhat tied on some aspects of the game? I'm just speculating.

Agreed that licensed games can sometimes be a real problem since the licensor (is that grammtically correct?) usually is too hands-on. But I think the OPPOSITE was the problem here -- I can't see Hasbro thinking that removing all lingual communication from the game would be a good idea. It's pretty clear that nobody who understood the game was in the drivers' seat. :I

[Fargo]

But here's the strange thing: Paradox supplies a satsifying and useful single-player experience. The AI plays hardball and is consistently surprising me with its sophistication, foresight, and demands. One of my longtime hopes has been for a respectable "single-player sandbox" PC rendition of Diplomacy, and Paradox has delivered one here.

Wow, no disrespect intended, but I had completely the opposite reaction to the game. The AI often left behind checkerboard patterns of random conquests, and I found it nearly impossible to form a single alliance. It could be beaten by exploiting its flaws, but not through any sort of negotiation or dealmaking. I almost wish I could watch you play to see why your experience was so drastically different than mine!

[Fargo]

And in reply to Dr. Fear's comment about individual reviewers, I'm ashamed to confess that I'm terrible with names (which is a liability in this business.) I also note a lot of churn in the industry, making it hard to follow more than a couple individual writers. The only consistent things seem to be publications -- GameSpot (for example) has had a pretty consistent Editorial policy for years, like it or dislike it.

[november]

[Sigh] I love Paradox. I love all their games--except Diplomacy.

I was a play tester for Diplomacy. I have to pick my words gingerly here because of NDA, but let’s just say that during testing when Paradox informed us they were ready to ship, we testers were…surprised.

Paradox set themselves two goals: create a great MP game; create a great solitaire game with good AI. Many people say they failed in their second goal. The AI is not that strong. But to be fair, the effort it would take to make a great AI is staggering and probably beyond the capability of any game company.

As to their first goal, a great MP game, well look, server bugs and what not can be ironed out. Fargo’s biggest complaint, lack of verbal communications, seems to be a killer, but it was a design decision by Paradox. They went to a lot of effort (and are pretty proud) to come up with the graphics-based negations system. Why? They wanted to ensure non-English speakers could play too. They’re working on adding chat-type negotiations. Knowing Paradox, I’m sure they’ll end up with a great MP system (and an OK solitaire version too).

One of my friends who tested the game with me couldn’t understand Paradox’s aims. He’s a Diplomacy player from way back and has no interest in a computer version per se, unless it provides strong AI. When he understood that the AI isn’t really very challenging, he completely lost interest. He’s probably typical of a lot of Diplomacy players like Fargo.

[XPav]

I can understand non-verbal chat -- but taking AWAY the ability to type on the keyboard? WTF? I mean, that works in Microsoft Freaking Hearts, but Diplomacy?

[Timemaster Tim]

I haven't played diplomacy for probably a decade. As a single player game, I can't see how it could possibly fare well. The AI players would need to have some distinguishing behavioural characteristics to make it interesting. And or course, they would have to play well. But the hardest part of taking Diplomacy from a board game to a single player game would be the player interaction that (for me) formed the core of the fun. And extending it to multiplayer, the lack of chat would again move away from what made diplomacy fun.

[Fargo]

Fargo’s biggest complaint, lack of verbal communications, seems to be a killer, but it was a design decision by Paradox. They went to a lot of effort (and are pretty proud) to come up with the graphics-based negations system. Why? They wanted to ensure non-English speakers could play too.

Thanks for posting!

I really wish I could've been in some of those meetings where that was decided. I understand what they were trying to do -- it sounds good on paper -- but Diplomacy, the Board game, was never designed that way and still enjoys worldwide popularity. People play over email from all around the world. It's like they took a difficult project and made it nigh impossible with a design goal that runs counter to the game's very core.

As for the AI, I agree it's a huge challenge. It's an interesting puzzle, really. So much effort went into teaching computers to play Chess -- it would be fascinating if serious research went into Diplomacy. A tall order, fo sho.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

As for the AI, I agree it's a huge challenge. It's an interesting puzzle, really. So much effort went into teaching computers to play Chess -- it would be fascinating if serious research went into Diplomacy. A tall order, fo sho.

But, like Chess, there are almost standard openings in Diplomacy. The Balkans get carved up, the French help the Brits get into the Low Countries, everyone beats up Italy. Not even these were programmed with any regularity. It's like playing a chess opponent who insists on moving his Rook pawn first.

Not to mention the total lack of variants. Most people play standard Diplomacy, but it would be nice to see the mechanics applied to different setups and demonstrate the flexibility of the game.

Troy

[Rob Beschizza]

If anyone not entirely familiar with actually playing diplomacy detects an odd undercurrent to the AI discussion here, it's because diplomacy has no element of chance. There are a finite number of possible positions, just like chess. However, the game system is stacked to create stalemates -- so everything past the opening -- everthing -- comes down not just to AI but to your ability to convince people you are friendly and then stab them in the back.

It's like Poker. It's not enough for an AI to behave rationally and play a good game (and in Paradox's title, it doesn't do much of that anyway). The AI has to be seen to successfully act on an apparent plan which turns out to be a total fraud designed to betray a neighbor.

E.g. Even if the game has France conduct a perfect attack on Germany when Germany is occupied by the Russians, it's not enough. To "get" Diplomacy, France and Italy would agree to let France invade an Italian province to give the appearance of war. Germany thinks its western border is safe, and so attacks Russia. However, France attacks Germany and gives Italy its province back, as per their secret agreement with the Italians. The Knyf Under the Cloke and all that.

[SorenJohnson]

I'm not even sure it's theoretically possible to make a good AI for Diplomacy. I can't think of another game that is so fundamentally based around the "human-ness" of the players.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I can't think of another game that is so fundamentally based around the "human-ness" of the players.

And in few other games are the rules so beside the point. Diplomacy is not about moving armies where you want to put them, but about convincing others to let you do that.

Troy