world domination
but there's no option to cap -
world aggravation!
Additional Comments:
Board games done up in a video game format is such a silly premise - well, to most gamers at least. To people like me who enjoy games purely as a single player venture, not so much. These electronic recreations perfectly fit the bill when I have a strange desire to play something like Chess, Monopoly, or in this case, Risk, but have no real desire to play them as traditional "family-style" board games. The best part is that's it's damn near impossible to really lose the sense of the game, no matter how reliant on other players the game may be. Board games are typically simple endeavors that can easily be imitated electronically. Unfortunately, primitively programmed AI will never compare to the real deal.
For Risk, as bound by its set of traditional rules, it never deviates from the sense that indeed what I'm playing is a perfect representation of the board game. Of course, to help alleviate potential boredom from what can be an almost mundane strategy game under certain circumstances, the player(s) are treated to either an animated scene depicting battle or a mini-game to replace the intangible dice rolls. I found this to have its pros and cons. While the actual board game can become tiring over time as borders constantly shift back and forth, Risk as a video game immediately embarks on a ride through the doldrums. Yes, its a simple, yet enjoyable strategy game...in theory, but it doesn't quite work the way games like Civilization or Nobunaga's Ambition do. The biggest difference is that these games offer a great deal of control and interaction on the player's part. Risk, however, has little to no interaction. But comparing it to the board game, its fairly identical - except perhaps for the dice rolls depending on how you play.
The problem with Risk, when you take away the social aspect of players carefully considering their front lines and proposing under-the-table treaties, the game is incredibly monotonous. Armies move here, armies move there and eventually it's all back to square one. It's a whole lot of mindless back and forth, especially if you use any sort of capping rule. But the friendly competition among friends keeps the game running and even manages to overshadow how little gameplay there actually is. In the Genesis variation of Risk, this minimal scenario can easily be seen if you chose to forego the animated sequences and/or mini-game. Sadly, I found this to be the best way to play as it quickens the pace of the game tenfold. Unfortunately, the epic feeling of the board game is lost at this point. Instead, it's just a bunch of armies quickly shifting across continents. While strategy is still there, it feels hollow. The animated sequences adds some tension, but can quickly drag the game out. I found the same to be true with the mini-game. It adds a breather to the monotony by getting the player interactively involved, but it too lacks any substance and feels as though the developers shoehorned it in at the last minute. Much like the animated sequences, it's enjoyable for a few minutes, maybe more so since the player actually has something to do here - attempt to kill the opposing armies with an infinite volley of cannonballs. But it becomes just as tiresome as the cutscenes. It's depressing that the most bare-boned, non-interactive variant exudes the most enjoyment.
My biggest gripe though is the inability to set an option to cap armies per territory. In the past, I always found capping produced better strategy while playing the board game. Allowing for unlimited armies favored how you played your cards far too heavily and where you sat in the turn rotation. Basically, the game becomes far too luck oriented as opposed to being deeply ingrained in strategy, especially in Expert mode. Eh, I suppose you could call it strategy, but putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping to blitzkrieg the entire world in a single move isn't really strategy. I call it a mad gamble. But really, this comes down to the difference between playing the computer and playing actual people. The computer's going to be far more one-sided in their tactics which in turn forces the player to become a one trick pony as well. It'll do for some fast-paced, world domination action that'll be over in a matter of turns, but frankly it disillusions the reality of what Risk is meant to be: a cunning strategy game where mighty empires fall and rise again, only to fall once more.
Overall, if you want to experience the game for what it is, play the actual board game. But if you're looking to play as a single player venture or just have some time to kill, you could do far worse. While the game is a near perfect replica, the experience isn't. However, I'm fairly confident that the multiplayer nails it on all fronts, especially given that it does allow up to the traditional six players. Still, I'd imagine being able to physically roll dice, move armies, and argue borders will trump the video game any day of the week.
Nano-Rant:
What's with some of the highly inaccurate backdrops? Greenland is a vast sandy desert, as is most of Canada? Or is Parker Brothers the almighty oracle predicting the world of tomorrow where global turmoil has annihilated the glacial icecaps and retrogressed technology forcing us to use horse-mounted cavalry once again? Who knew Risk was so post-apocalyptic?
Rating: 2 cannonballs out of 5
