2 of 32

Video

Write now Article Tools

This really is a rather vague comparison, like apples and oranges, or perhaps like asking 'Which is more entertaining, television or radio?'.

Both have their strong sides, and both really rather depend on which specific game you're looking at. Comparing an MMORPG like World of Warcraft to Snakes and Ladders wouldn't really be a fair comparison. Conversely, comparing Chess to Space Invaders is equally unfair.

Both have their strong suits, no pun intended. Chess is a game which has stood the test of time for centuries; the sheer range of strategies and options available to the player, the difference in each game played, make it endlessly replayable. The same could be said of more Johnny-come-lately games like Risk. But compare Risk to its nearest videogame equivalent, Civilization. Suddenly the dozens of options you have available in the former become hundreds in the latter. Risk is a simulation of strategic warfare between superpowers; Civilization is a simulation of those superpowers from the stone age to the space age, and includes their economy, culture, and science as important factors in the game. My common strategy in the game is to practically ignore military matters altogether and win the game through colonisation and research.

Arguably, board games allow a more personal, social aspect; you're actually playing the game with real live people, face to face. This, I suspect, will be a common argument in this discussion. But videogames have been doing this since the days of the NES and Atari 2600. They had more than one controller port for a reason, you know. And of late, multiplayer gaming, be it on one console, a Local Area Network, or through the joys of the Internet, has been rising rapidly. People /enjoy/ the social aspect of video gaming at least as much as with board games.

The only other argument I can see against a videogame version of say, Monopoly, compared to the actual board version, is that the board is 'real', that there's no replacement for actually having to move the pieces around yourself, pick your money up yourself, and so on. I find that particular theory rather similar to the ones put against eBooks: There's no substitute for actually holding a real book in your hands, turning the pages, smelling the paper. Now, that sounds all well and good, but personally, when I read a book, I'm more interested in the words I'm reading. It's irrelevant to me if they're on a page or on a screen, it's the /ideas/ that matter. Likewise, surely the game's the thing?

Learn more about this author, Dave Simmons.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Are board games or video games more entertaining??
We want to hear your view. Write now!