TheMetal1 said:

Exactly!!!!!! This isn't Monopoly or Life. A base game with a thin theme piled on top for a specific audience.

I have never gotten this need to overdo the revamping of an already solid game!!!! Why not just re-release the original game with some minor clean-up/editing work? Maybe an optional (or two) variant added in- a lot like what was done with Conquest of the Empire.

As for the CYA moment concerning the two press releases- see the first part of my post. Stop trying so hard to be PC about anything concerning this.

You didn't need to change anything (send it to the creative department, etc.) about the original theme. It is now a historical "what-if" scenario, instead of a future "what-if". You just set yourself up for a chance to have an editing screw up.

This is a great game that has deserved a reprint for a long time. I hope that the few fixes that are done only add to the experience.

Thanks FFG.

sepayne7l said:

I do not like xenophobic brownshirts or those who practice censorship for them.

Lost sale here.

I have the original game and like the premis better in that version. Mine is one of the early boxes too that had the Sadam image on the front and an image of what looks like the World Trade center on fire. Kind of creepy given the world events and the game being publish 20 years earlier.

I love that FF is grabbing some great out of print titles and bringing them back but with some of the games don't necessarily think that changes within the games is good. FA was a pretty solid mechanic set and to me really didn't need any tweaking (don't know that there is any but just throwing it out there).

Anyway, glad to see it resurface and hope its as good as the original. As it stands in my collection I have the originals and remakes or Fury of Dracula, Cosmic Encounter, Wiz-war and Dungeonquest. Can't wait for more info on this version of FA!

Green Tree said:

Couldint agree more!

Lost sale here too and probably across most of Europe and after that comment China.

For those who watch anime, I watched a great stand-alone movie called Summer Wars, and the unfolding events immediately made me think about Fortress America and why everyone hypothetically would gang up against the U.S.A. Great movie.

To comment about the boycotting of Fortress America in this forum, I just want to say that I am glad FFG makes quality games. They do a stand-up job. I exclusively buy from them because they make a product that is second to none in artistic flair and cool mechanics. Though I was upset that FFG did not stand by their original game theme that made America the "bad guy", FFG is trying to sell a product as a business. As a business, if they feel they are creating a product that divides and hurts their market, it is a good idea to reevaluate their marketing plan. For those, like me (even as an American myself), who enjoyed the original background where America is a paranoid super-power against a shaky alliance of concerned/power-hungry nations, the original text is still available to read to your players or yourself before playing. I do not however believe it warrants a boycott, whether you believe because it is worth boycotting because what the original text says or because FFG updated the text to be "less offensive". FFG consists a group of human beings and fellow gamers like us, and I believe that if you are boycotting this game, ask yourself if the outrage is really worth the boycott.

These guys make games, and most involve alternate realities. Is it worth getting overly upset about creative writing this much? In the end, I see one side yelling boycott like its the "Third Red Scare", and the other side yelling boycott because FFG humbled their product to make customers like us happy.

I guess my real question is should FFG just not do a re-release of Fortress America? That way everyone will have a reason to be upset, and you may even have people say because of FFG not releasing Fortress America that FFG's games should just be boycotted all-together!

I remember the days in elementary school where just one rebel rouser would ruin it for the entire class. Those days have returned.

In summary, these boycott declarations are silly.

Tromdial said:

Yeah sepayne71.

Doc9 said:

Sepayne 71 was never actually the rebel rouser I was addressing. That person shall go unnamed but their first-use of the word "boycott" changed FFG's tune almost immediately and created this domino effect. I am not casting stones at certain heads nor the entitlement of one's opinion, but I am underlining the consequences of unnecessary censorship.

Perhaps I should address this more extensively...

sepayne7l said:

To be belatedly-clear: my reply never called Sepayne 71 out. My reply is #7 of this post. Go ahead, read it and check it out. I'll wait. I also did another lengthy response with reply #14; however, I never truly addressed 71's concerns. I rectify that now.

Again, just because I replied underneath Sepayne's post among numerous other replies, the target was never directly the poster. I was upset that FFG had to change their initial fluff; because I was upset does not meant I was upset at FFG, just upset in general. FFG has a right to market as they see fit.

Yes, the post is a tribute to freedom of speech. I hope FFG never deletes this post because that would alienate the very spirit of this topic. However, boycotts have everything to do with freedom of speech. It's one thing to speak out like Sepayne 71 did (though an indirect way of saying, boycott, I admit). It's another to say, "FFG, I boycott." Enron cut power in California to make multi-millions unethically, insurance companies cut their dependents for the most infinitesimal reasons, and American contractors in foreign nations make a killing by sabotaging the objectives and lives in the guise of promoting the US's intended objectives. When I think of boycott, I think of corporations like these who undermine the U.S.A. and justify such by the lining of their pockets; corporations that abuse their home country by committing such lucrative illegal acts that the loopholes in petty fines justify the means are what people should be outraged about. In a failing economy, we wonder where the money is going. Boycott and activism stem to mind when dealing with entities such as these.

And though these industrial goons ruin and jeopardize human life everyday, we boycott FFG's Fortress America instead.

Again, take a moment to reminisce about what I said. I'll wait.

I support America, as an American citizen, by its foundations but not its present structure. As Julia and I respectively said earlier in this post, America has a very shady past but one can also appreciate the heroes in its midst. I enjoy being an American not because the stars on its flag or my house just happens to sit on its grass but because America stands for having unalienable rights, and though I believe even some of those rights are being abused from their intended purposes, what was intended is the same and is what matters most because that's the grounds and hope for reaching closer to an ideal society.

Because the FFG customer population has spoken loudly enough on this post and the announcement page, I can be more than reasonably assured that the original fluff was welcomed. Actually, I am surprised there is more outrage about America being portrayed as a paranoid superpower than Chaos in the Old World's blatant support of controlling rival demon gods who battle and bathe in the sins and blood of their foes. Heck, the map is made of human skin! Paranoid self-protecting America or hell-bent apocalyptic demon gods who wish to churn your soul for eternity? Hmm, which protagonist is worse...

Despite Chaos's expense for my analogy, I am also not saying one game should be banned over the other; I am merely underlining the silliness again of the idea of boycott (though perhaps some new opinionated threadsters from here will skip on over and rant in Chaos's forums now, ha ha).

You have the freedom to tell FFG you boycott. Not saying you don't. But I have the freedom to also tell you there is better things to get worked up about, and your voice, though important, may want to focus on more incorrigible acts against the public rather than men and women who run a board game industry to distribute entertainment and pay for their day-to-day lives. If you are like Sepayne 71 and wish not to add Fortress America to your collection, that is fine. I respect that. I will never add Android again to my board game collection as was released before this post (though I hope Kevin Wilson gets a green light to do a leaner and more balanced version in the future). Neither proclamations speak boycott. However, telling FFG you boycott and will disrupt their sales because of your outrage is selfish and financially hinders an entertainment company made up of many families who try to get by. FFG last I checked was no Bernard Madoff, or even KFC and McDonalds if you believe you find their animal rights are lacking. FFG was simply creating a fascinating story of an alternate future that has been done many times before. America being the bad guy is typically because an empowered political figure(s) ruin it for the rest of the international outlook. It happens. FFG wanted to run with it and they were shot down because some people could handle demon gods tearing human flesh as they campaign on a skinned map, but not America's frightened backlash that erupts into World War 3.

In summary, if you are going to boycott anything, look into making the real America and other nations around the world a better place before you take it out on Fortress America because you have an unalienable right that says you can.

One of my friends told me what FFG should do is give two, two-sided fluff cards detailing the international plight that is in the fantasy-verse of FFG's Fortress America, whichever you like more you keep, if not both (or none!). Whether you wish to burn the first fluff card while saluting the American flag, more power to ya. I will salute the American flag while just holding my complete FFG Fortress America box. Those with other flags, including China's, can come and salute with me around the world. It will almost be like holding each others hands and singing for world peace.

Then I laugh and crush the dissidents that storm my American beaches!

Well I personally liked the first text, it was dark, believable and didn't feed into the mass illusion Americans have of being the worlds good guys. The updated text smells of political correctness, which is both lame and actually doesn't make any sense at all as a back story. They should have just stuck to the "lets make China the bad guy" format that American love so much.

Would anyone have said anything if the second version had been the only version posted?

Maybe a comment or two about a bland back story, but mostly apathetic emptiness would have been the norm.

This really a whole lot of ado about nothing.

Yoper said:

Probobly true, generally back story's in games like this aren't really all that important in terms of gameplay. It could be my little pony vs. the carebears, if its a good game I'm all for it. But when you have a great back story a good game is better and more importantly a franchise license is stronger. The first back story was dark with an ominous tone and contraversial idea, it was in every respect better, which given the content made it far more interesting and intriguing I think as a board game. The new one is passable, but not nearly as interesting. I hope whoever this employee who wrote it gets a pat for a job well done, because the writing was great, even if it was not approved for release.

I do like contraversial discussions though I think its fun to ask a question like why not make a game where Americans are villans? Are Americans really so sensitive that they can't percieve a fictional future in a board game where god forbid America is the bad guy without getting their pannies in a bunch? I mean given the political atmosphere in the world (Americans randomly accusing everyone of being terrorist (including kids downloading music from the internet) why not use board gaming as a medium to spark discussion? I think Christian should have taken more time in deciding how to handle the situation, mistake or not, I think when you are in position to spark conversation and use your medium to create discussion its good for your image. Contraversy sells and I think this game would have been stronger with the original, contraversial text.

Does it really matter that they changed? Not at all, at least not for me. I loved the original and as far as I'm concerned Christian T. Peterson has a blank check from me for any game with his name on it.

BigKahuna said:

Seconded. Snake Plissken for the win.

Wow, I can't believe people got out of sorts about this. Come on! It is fiction. Did it really matter if the USA was the bad guy in this game? DId the original story really need to be changed anyway?

Also, just in case it was not addressed, Fortress America is a real term. It concerns the fact that we are surrounded by two big ass oceans and there are not many ways to effectively attack the USA. Mostly a WWII and Cold War idea, but it created NORAD and other parts of our defense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_North_America

I used to have the original game. All I remember about it was that it was boring. Now I see FFG has it now. And someone didn't like the backstory. So I read the backstory as it is now (March 21, 2012) and it just sounds so boring, here we go again with this game. But then I read the quote of the original backstory and I'm like, "Yes!" World War III!!! Stop the Americans from vaporizing another capital city on the globe using any means necessary!!!

But no, the backstory now is just so tame.

Shonner said:

I know. They need to release two back-story cards: one with the original text and one with the new. Burn one and keep the other, or both.

Tromdial said:

There you go. Problem solved.

Shonner said:

Thank you. I'd like to think the problem is solved, but the world however is not always a simple place, ala Fortress America.

Darkeus said:

Apparently there are two countries that border the USA, one called "Canada" to the north, and one called "Mexico" to the south.

(I only mention this because I'm not convinced that all Americans are aware of it.)

waging_war said:

As a Canadian myself, I suspect that not only would most Canadians play it, but we'd be **** proud to be taken seriously as a military superpower villain!

Hear hear! (a fellow Canuck).

i like the back story. I think the sushi jalapeno war would be a good game to remake too. in that one japan, america, the republic of Texas, and south america invade mexico …no mexico player but you would have to fight their armies and each other and nukes could be dropped..the rules where poorly written however.

in that one mexico declares the entire pacific ocean sovereign territory and then arrests all the Japanese fishermen which they proceed to execute. Imperialist Japan invades in retaliation along with south american allies. The united states counter invades under the guise of protecting Mexico from Japanese Imperialism along with their republic of Texas allies. it had some interesting rules involving politics with the U'N on the american side and other things.

I really enjoy these alternative history/ speculative future games…..I am really happy FFG made this game and I hope I have the mon ey to buy it when it comes out

This made me shed a tear for the gaming industry. And the OP of this thread just irked me. I swear a game that had a fresh feeling for it. FFG broke free of a mold long set with games, a mold where America is always the good guys. I mean why is perfectly fine for America to be breaking in China's door or Russia or the middle east in games, but the second America is the bad guy, people go up in arms, it makes me sad that they changed it. Now I haven't the slightest how much this game has made, I have no idea how much it wouldn't have made if it had have kept it's previous background. (Although those that wouldn't buy it because America is the bad guys aren't true gamers) I know they have to make money but I still get sad that they had to change it for the whiny (I'm assuming slightly racist or overly patriotic) minority. It annoys me that the OP would have had no problem buying the original game if it had have been Russia stirring crap up. But because the close minded individual can't break out of the stereotypes society has given him he can't see a true gem past because he couldn't see past 'America is the bad guy for once'.

Spyderslicer said:

Well, maybe FFG as an US based company HAS to be patriotic to be successful in its main (the US) market. I dont think that the TO is alone in his irrational attitude. I am sure USA is full of such nationalistic blockheads. And FFG tries not to loose them as customers. Corp money first, then ethics. I would not wonder if the writer of the first (much more original) backstory has been fired now or had some serious problems with his FFG boss after publishing it on the net.

Buster Freely said:

Yeah, but ironically those countries do not count in teh Fortress America plans.

I guess they figure that Mexico and Canada wouldn't have a chance against us.

[q] Yeah, but ironically those countries do not count in teh Fortress America plans. [/q]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it most asuredly looks like the Southern Invader comes across the border from Mexico. The invasion zones may be colored blue there, but according to my world map this is the location of Mexico.