Archive for December, 2010

EVENT: Your Wish Is Our Command.

December 20, 2010 Leave a comment

Valiant and lovely netizens of Imperial Warfare!

To keep up with the holiday spirit and make sure that Santa doesn’t mark us as Naughty before the big day arrives, we’re going to great lengths to grant the wishes of our players this holiday season.

In addition to reducing prices significantly in our Mall and holding a comparatively tame Christmas Wish giveaway on our Forum (coming soon!), we are commencing a more intense and high-stakes competition on our Facebook page Imperial Warfare. To participate:

1. Become a fan of our Imperial Warfare Facebook fan page (good thing most of you already are!):

2. Post your server, IGN (in-game name), Civilization (Rome, Persia, China, or Egypt), and a single wish related to IW in a single message on the Wall. State the wish clearly in a single FULL sentence of less than 15 words. Example: “I want a Level 50 Hero with the name Julius Rabbit.”

3. In fewer than 50 words, explain the reason for your wish. Example: “My best childhood friend was a rabbit named Julius. He listened to all my problems and understood me like nobody else could. Therefore, I would like to memorialize his greatness by hunting large groups of wild animals and burning enemy Cities in his name.” The funnier this explanation, the better. Why? Because it will increase your chances of getting your wish granted? YES.

4. Once you post your wish as a comment on our Wall, you must find as many different people as possible to “Like” it.

5. Very simply, the wish from each civilization with the most “Likes” by 11:59 P.M. on December 31, 2010, get granted. Note that a player must have at least 35 “Likes” to be eligible for the prize.

6. Of course, we do have a few conditions. One, you may not wish for the instant victory of your (or another) civilization in the endgame (but you knew that). Two, you may not wish for territory. Three, you may not wish for direct negative influence on any other player. Everything else is game.

Voting starts now. Good luck!

Imperial Warfare Service Team

Categories: Uncategorized

Which Civilization Should I Choose? Part II: Mixing It Up with Research

December 13, 2010 Leave a comment

Welcome to Part II of a series of posts analyzing the relative benefits that each of the four civilizations in Imperial Warfare—China, Rome, Persia, and Egypt—possess in order to answer the ultimate question: Which Civilization Should I Choose? In the last installment of this series, I determined that a) the Novice Tasks for all four civilizations offer very similar benefits to each (pending a more detailed analysis of the Special Units granted as rewards to each Civ), and b) the Resource Bonuses of Wood, Stone, and Metal for Rome, Persia, and Egypt, respectively, have no effect on the ability of each of these Civs to construct or Upgrade buildings or recruit troops. In this (significantly shorter and sweeter) post, I will be treating the effect of these Resource Bonuses on Research and, concomitantly, construction, Upgrading, and recruitment treated within a system that encompasses it.

We saw in the last post that the Wood:Stone:Metal consumption ratio for different kinds of Research in a representative sample of facilities seems to be a uniform 1.25:1.5:1, meaning that for every unit of Metal consumed in research, players consume 1.5 units of Stone and 1.25 units of Wood:

Table 1: Wood, Stone, and Metal Consumption for Select Research Upgrades

I also showed last time that the Wood:Stone:Metal production ratio through Resource Units and Plunder is close to 1:2:1, which is identical to the consumption ratio for construction, Upgrading, and recruitment (which is precisely why bonuses in these Resources do not really help in these three processes, because they are produced and consumed in perfect equilibrium anyway).

Ah, but research might just tip this equilibrium—as a consumption ratio of 1.25:1.5:1 versus 1:2:1 production is certainly not an equilibrium relationship!

Simply comparing these two numbers, we see that Wood is the limiting factor for Research, as it is the only Resource whose production does not equal or exceed consumption:

  • Wood: 1.25 units consumed for every 1 produced (1.25>1)
  • Stone: 1.5 units consumed for every 2 produced (1.5<2)
  • Metal: 1 unit consumed for every 1 produced (1=1)

It seems, then, that increasing Wood production by 20% would help us Research more efficiently, even if the equation isn’t at equilibrium. Therefore, Rome probably has a better deal when it comes to Research, especially since we already learned that the Wood Resource bonus isn’t necessary for construction, Upgrade, or recruitment.

Not necessary for construction, Upgrade, or recruitment, that is, when these three processes are viewed in a vacuum. But now that we have an imbalance introduced by Research, the whole system changes. What, exactly, is the effect of the non-equilibrium spending of these three Resources on Research on their availability for and thus value in the other three processes we’ve touched on so far?

Let’s return to our example of building Houses. Remember, in the last post, we started out with 75G that was distributed among Wood, Stone, and Metal Resources in a proportions reflective of the 1:2:1 production ratio honored by the game: 22.5G for Wood, 30G for Stone, 22.5G for Metal, or 7.5W, 15S, 7.5M. Pretending that each House cost 1W, 2S, and 1M to construct, we found that the number of Houses we were able to build with this spread of Resources was 7, spending 7W, 14S, and 7M, leaving us with residual piles of the three Resources equally reflective of the ratios in which they were produced: 0.5W, 1S, 0.5M.

This shows that in a vacuum of construction (or Upgrade or recruitment), all Resources are in balance; any more of one won’t help us, since the other two would instantly become limiting factors. But now let’s take the system out of its idealized vacuum and suppose that before we build all those Houses, we want to Research 4 Levels of Heavy Plow.

Pretending that one instance of Heavy Plow Research costs us 1 Metal, it will cost us 1.25 Wood and 1.5 Stone according to the proportions determined in the above table. Four instances of Research bring us to 5 Wood, 6 Stone, and 4 Metal used, leaving us with 2.5W, 9S, and 3.5M from the original 7.5W, 15S, and 7.5M. Now when we move to build Houses we can only muster up enough Wood to construct two, leaving us with 0.5W (enough for 0 more Houses), 5S (enough for 2 more Houses), and 1.5M (enough for 1 more House). Therefore, Wood, and then Metal, has become the limiting factor in our construction.

In essence, taking the Wood, Stone, and Metal given to us by Resource Units and Plunder in a 1:2:1 ratio and filtering it through cycles of Research depletes our Wood more quickly than it is produced, our Stone more slowly than it is produced, and our Metal at the same rate at which it is produced, making those civilizations with Wood bonuses (Rome) and, provided they can overcome the limiting factor of Wood through trade or Mall purchase (a situation still preferable to simultaneously dealing with two limiting factors), Metal bonuses (Egypt) more able to construct, Upgrade, and recruit in a system in which they also engage in Research. Therefore, considering construction, Upgrading, recruitment, and Research as a larger system, the Roman and, to a much lesser extent (since they still have to contend with the shortage of one other limiting factor, Wood), Egyptian Resource bonuses give their respective Civilizations a slightly greater capacity to construct, Upgrade, and recruit simultaneously with researching.

So, to sum up all the differences we’ve found so far, the playing field looks roughly (very roughly) even:

  • Persia: No Novice Task advantage; Resource Bonus in Stone is worth 24 more Gold than the Rome/Egyptian one, but no advantage if Stone not converted to Gold.
  • China: No Novice Task advantage; Resource Bonus in Stone is worth 72 more Gold than the Rome/Egyptian one and 48 more than Persian one, but (ostensibly) no advantage if Food not converted to Gold (will be treated in next post)?
  • Rome: No Novice Task advantage; Resource Bonus in Wood useful for construction, Upgrade, recruitment, and Research taken together.
  • Egypt: No Novice Task advantage; Resource Bonus in Metal marginally useful for construction, Upgrade, recruitment, and Research taken together.

At a glance, it looks like Egypt and Persia are perhaps getting the short end of the stick and China’s making out very well, but our analysis isn’t nearly complete. Thoughts?

Stay tuned for the next post, which will talk about the large and tangled question how a Resource bonus in Food (aka, China’s bonus) may or may not aid players—particularly novices—on their quest for glory and the world.

Categories: Uncategorized

Which Civilization Should I Choose? Part I: Novice Tasks, Construction, Upgrading, and Recruitment

December 7, 2010 Leave a comment

A curious newbie raised the question on the Forum the other day about which civilization is best for a novice to join. While the party line at the office is that Egypt, China, Rome, and Persia are equal from a wide-angle system view, the inquiry stoked my curiosity about the exact differences among the four civilizations.

So even while holding fiercely onto my (scientific, calculating, and completely unbiased) knowledge that Egypt is by far The Best, I started to wet my feet in some research into the four cultures offered by the game.

As with most problems worth solving, the treatment of this question became exponentially more tangled and complex with each step taken toward its solution. Therefore, in the end I decided to split this post into multiple parts, the first of which (this one) will treat only Novice Tasks and an initial look at the effect of each Civ’s Resource bonus, particularly on construction, Upgrading, and recruitment.

Warning: The following discussion does contain some mathematical procedures, but I have tried to explain all logic simply and clearly as well as follow up all quantitative analyses with qualitative summaries of what the results mean for our larger discussion.

Novice Tasks

For most intents, Imperial Warfare will advance similarly for Rome, China, Persia, and Egypt. The Novice Tasks are virtually the same (even if administered by NPCs with different appearances and slightly different personal styles) for everyone, so you can rest assured that all players are initiated with the same painstaking tutorial through resource collection, City building, troop formation, and combat. The rewards granted for the Tasks are also very similar–everyone will start out with the Saber/Short Blade (which are actually, due to a translation oversight, the exact same weapon if you haven’t figured it out already), Level 1 Knife Breaking (sweet if you ask me), Cotton Mantle, Blacksteel Armor, etc. The only big (really not that big) difference among the rewards is the Special Units granted for some Tasks, and even then the general type and number are the same across different Civs (for example, the “Play to your Strengths” task will award exactly 5 Mangudai for China but 5 Armored Knights for Rome). Granted, these special units do have slightly different attributes (Mangudai have 52.9 Attack to Armored Knights’ 60, for example), but given that you are granted such a small number (generally snuffed out in the first Arena Battle anyway, should you choose like me to become overly excited and use them right away) and won’t be able to produce them yourself in large quantities until you can build a Castle in the Imperial Age, the differences that these small discrepancies might produce in game difficulty are slight.

Resource Bonus, Part I: Effect on Construction, Upgrading, and Recruitment

All right. So from a Novice Task angle, the Civs don’t really look all that different. But what about the Civilization Specialties? From the get-go, we’re informed that the Civilizations do have different strengths in regard to Resource collection and Unit production, namely:


  • Wood production +20%
  • Unit ability is average
  • Soldier HP Bonus


  • Food production rate +20%
  • Military Defense Bonus
  • Increased City building speed


  • Stone production +20%
  • Increased Attack
  • Merchant Load Bonus


  • Metal production +20%
  • Enhanced siege weapon strength
  • Skill Research Speed Bonus

Ah, now we’re getting some differences. Let’s talk about the Resource bonuses first, since these are easiest to compare (the other differences will be treated in future installments of this post). Each Civilization enjoys a 20% increase in one of the Resources–Rome Wood; China Food; Persia Stone; Egypt Metal. Fair enough, from a shallow numbers perspective. But are all Resources created equal? Which Resources are the most important as you advance through the early stages of the game?

Which Resource is the most valuable? Well, we could take a look at their exchange ratios in the Market for a clue. A brief examination of the exchange rates of the four Resources (and Gold) reveals that if we set Gold as the standard, each unit of Food costs 1G; Stone, 2G; and Wood and Metal, 3G (and these rates carry through to all exchange combinations, so you can’t profit off clever trades in your own Market. Trust me on this point; I looked hard for a loophole).

So it might be easy to say that China’s been fleeced, Persia and Egypt and are making out like bandits, and Rome is stuck in the mediocre middle with this spread of Resource bonuses. But not so fast. Why are the Resources different values? Well, one answer might be that some are harder to obtain than others.

Note that all Civilizations begin the game with 12000 Food, 4000 Wood, 6000 Stone, 4000 Metal, and 10000 Gold.

Remembering that Food=1G, Stone=2G, and Wood/Metal=3G, we should have half as much Stone as Food and 3/2 as much Stone as Wood/Metal (Food:Wood:Stone:Metal = 3:1:1.5:1, setting Metal to 1) if the Resources with which each player starts the game are indeed equivalent in their Gold-standard value.

The actual numbers are, however, 12000:4000:8000:4000, or 3:1:2:1. This indicates that every player starts out with a bonus of 2000 Stone (as the amount expected from the relative Resource values is 12000/2 or 4000*3/2 = 6000). Otherwise, however, all players start out with what equates to 12,000G of each Resource (except Stone, whose starting value is 16,000G), meaning that the game seems to be balancing out the different values of Food, Wood/Metal, and Stone by giving players less of the more valuable ones (again, except for Stone, which is granted more generously than is expected by its value). In other words, the ratio of value in Gold locked up in each starting Resource is 3G:3G:4G:3G—almost perfect, but not quite, as we end up with a greater value in Gold of Stone than the other Resources.

But this doesn’t really say much about the actual value of the Resource bonus, as that is calculated from the number of Resource Units flowing into your City coffers at any one time, not the total amount. Does the same imbalance of Stone over other Resources continue once we start building Resource Units?

Note that your Civ technically doesn’t need to build Resource Units to add Resources over time (somehow it has >0 base production even without them), but since building these Units figures importantly in the Novice Tasks, the below numbers are probably more representative of base production during most of the game (though the ratios stay constant throughout, so the level of Resource Unit we choose to analyze doesn’t really matter).

The hourly outputs of Level 1 Resource Units for each Civilization are as follows, with Level 9 production for an Egyptian City (with all corresponding Production Center Resource research also at Level 9) in parens to suggest that the ratios don’t change throughout the game (I assume that this is the same case for the other three Civs; readers, please feel free to correct me if this supposition is incorrect):

Discounting the “bonused” Resource (indicated with *) of each Civilization, we can conclude that base production is Food 720, Wood 120, Stone 240, and Metal 120. Reducing these proportions, we obtain a ratio of 6:1:2:1, respectively. Aha! If we convert these quantities to their value in Gold as predicted by Market price (Food=1G, Stone=2G, Wood/Metal=3G), we get 6G:3G:4G:3G = 2:1:4/3:1, meaning that, by default, we obtain a greater value (in Gold) of Food and, to a lesser extent, Stone, from the base production values provided by game system.

Perhaps someone’s getting an easier ride, judging from these numbers alone. But who? Probably the Civs granted Food and Stone—China and Persia, respectively. This tentative answer is supported when we directly appraise the value in Gold of each Civilization’s 20% Resource bonus as calculated from the Level 1 Resource Units listed above:

  • Rome (Wood): (144-120) = 24 Wood x 3G = 72G
  • China (Food): (864 – 720) = 144 Food x 1G = 144G
  • Persia (Stone): (288-240) = 48 Stone x 2G = 96G
  • Egypt (Metal): (144-120) = 24 Metal x 3G = 72G

As expected by mathematical logic, the values in Gold of each Civilization’s Resource bonus come out in the same proportions as the relative values in Gold of their base production amount: 144:72:96:72, or, simplified, the ratio of 2:1:4/3:1.

So if we look at Resource production from Resource Units alone, China and, to a lesser extent, Persia gain a slight advantage over Rome and Egypt from their 20% Resource bonuses, as the value of their bonuses in Gold is higher than those of the other Civilizations.

But maybe the key to determining is not the value in Gold of the Resources we’re getting, but rather how useful in practice they are, especially to beginners. After all, the value of a particular Resource in Gold is only meaningful if you plan to actually trade it for Gold or another Resource. Trading for any product in the Market, however, is always at a loss (for example, food is only 1/3 the value in Gold of Wood, but when you trade the former for the latter in the Market you do so at a painful ratio of 18 Food to 1 Wood), what Resources you start out with, not simply how much Gold they’re worth, with may confer real advantages.

It might be helpful starting point in this analysis to review what each of these Resources is useful for:

  • Food: Marching on the World Map (strangely, only Heroes and troops but not Merchants need Food during long journeys), feeding troops
  • Wood: Construction, Upgrading, Researching, Recruiting troops
  • Stone: Construction, Upgrading, Researching, Recruiting troops
  • Metal: Construction, Upgrading, Researching, Recruiting troops

Let’s start with the Resources needed for construction and Upgrading. A quick look at the materials needed to build a few basic structures shows an adherence to a roughly 1:2:1 ratio of Wood, Stone, and Metal, respectively. Note: All data from following tables are from the Egyptian values. I assume that these are the same for all Civs; please let me know if you encounter discrepancies with your own!

Judging from the fact that building an additional Civilian House for my Feudal-Age Egyptian City similarly consumes 8 Wood, 16 Stone, and 8 Metal, these values remain static throughout the game.

This 1:2:1 ratio also seems to reflect the relative amounts of Wood, Stone, and Metal used in building Upgrades:

Note at this point that at least as far as construction and Upgrades are concerned, Stone is twice as valuable as Metal or Wood. Keep in mind that its value in Gold as defined by Market exchange rates is only 2/3 that of Metal or Wood; we’ll get back to this point later.

Now, what about Research? Ah, this is where things get interesting. Examining the Resource consumption for the game’s various research topics, we find that they vary widely. But setting Metal as our Standard of 1, we see that the consumption ratios of Wood, Stone, and Metal for Research seem to be constant at 1.25 : 1.5 : 1:

While this table is incomplete (note that I am missing data on many levels of research, especially those conducted in higher-level facilities—my City is not very advanced), I surmise that the ratios are roughly the same across the board.

Note here that Wood, not Stone, is slightly (but only very slightly) more valuable (that is, likely to be consumed) in practice relative to the other Resources than its Market value in Gold predicts. I’ll briefly get back to this point later and expand it much more in a future post.

Finally, recruiting troops. A quick analysis of Barracks, Archery Range, and Stable Units (again, I am lacking a lot of data here, particularly for siege machines and Special Units) show adherence to the same construction/Upgrade system of 1:2:1:

Like constructions, the cost of a given military Unit appears to remain static over the life of a Civilization, as the cost of one Desert Axeman is the same in my Feudal-Age account as with an unplayed Egyptian test account.

All right. So we’ve found that Construction/Upgrades and military recruitment have proportional Wood:Stone:Metal costs of 1:2:1 while Research has a cost ratio of 1.25:1.5:1. Converting these ratios to a standard in Gold by multiplying them by each Resource by its respective price, we find:

  • Construction/Upgrades + Military Recruitment: W:S:M = 1*(3G):2*(2G):1*(3G) à 3:4:3
  • Research: W:S:M = 1.25*(3G):1.5*(2G):1*(3G) à 3.75:3:3

So from a Resource consumption perspective, 1 unit of Gold is less valuable when spent on Stone in the context of Construction/Upgrades + Military Recruitment. In other words, if I have 75 pieces of Gold to spend on building Civilian Houses and I partition it equally among Wood (25G), Stone (25G), and Metal (25G) (forget Food for now; I’ll be treating this in a future post), the Gold I allotted for Stone will run out first after constructing only 6 Civilian Houses (at a total Stone consumption equal to 24G), leaving me with a useless coffer of 7 Wood, 1 Stone, and 7 Metal. This makes any extra Stone I can find all the more valuable to me, as in a system of equilibrium, Stone will be the limiting factor in my ability to build, Upgrade, and recruit Units.

So it looks like under a system of equal Gold apportionment among Wood, Stone, and Metal, Persia wins again. But not so fast!

The above analysis really only holds if the game actually does create a “system of equilibrium” by allotting equal values of Gold to the four Resources; namely, giving a base Resource production Gold value ratio of 1:1:1:1. But I have already shown that it does not! Pulling down some figures from above—namely, that base Resource production values in Gold distribute to a ratio of 2:1:4/3:1—we can see that the system does compensate for our greater need for Stone by giving us a greater Gold value of Stone than Wood and Metal. Forgetting Food for now, let’s focus on the 1:4/3:1 value, which, we remind ourselves, means that the game—by default, with no bonus—already pumps out 4/3 Gold units worth of Stone for every Gold unit of Wood and Metal.

Returning to our Civilian House example, this means that if we start out with 75 Gold and have no Resource bonus, the game would sort this Gold among the three Resources in question not equally—25 for each one—but rather in a ratio of 22.5 Gold to Wood, 30 Gold to Stone, 22.5 Gold to Metal (check my math manually if you’re not convinced). And, interestingly, this little bonus is enough to maximize the number of Houses I’m allowed to build using the ratio of Wood:Stone:Metal consumption values in Gold 3:4:3 calculated above, while making my Wood, Stone, and Metal all run out at the same time (this time, after 7 Houses). Residual piles = 1.5 Wood, 2 Stone, 1.5 Metal. Excellent!

Shedding the conversion to a Gold standard on both sides, we of course generate the same results. The game gives us Resource (W:S:M) production ratios at 1:2:1 and uses ratios of 1:2:1 to build (for example) Civilian Houses in the exact same proportions. Setting the actual Metal cost of 1 House at 1 (it’s not), 7 Houses would cost 7 Wood (21G), 14 Stone (28G). and 7 Metal (21). Add these values together to get 70G used total, with a remainder of 5G. Divide this Gold among the three resources in accordance with the W:S:M production ratio of 1:2:1, and we get residual piles of 0.5W, 1S, and 0.5M valued at 1.5G, 2G, and 1.5G, respectively. The numbers check out.

So we see that the extra Stone given to all players by the game system that effectively (and seemingly unfairly) increases the value in Gold of the Persian Resource (Stone) bonus relative to those of other Civs is actually necessary for the efficient and equal use of all Resources in construction, Upgrading, and recruitment. In other words, what’s generously given by the system is also rapaciously seized away—notably, in perfect equilibrium, meaning that a bonus in any of the three Resources is pretty much useless for construction, Upgrade, or recruitment, as it renders the other two instant limiting factors.

The game developers’ seeming recognition of a player’s greater need for Stone in construction, Upgrades, and recruitment would also explain why we observe similar ratios of Resource retrieval from Plunder:

Note again that while Food, Wood, and Metal are obtained in proportions that correspond with their relative Market values in Gold, we again have a bonus that favors Stone in the same 1:4/3:1 ratio of W:S:M values in Gold.

Note, as an aside, that in my discussion of the game’s default W:S:M production ratio, I am discounting the effects of other Resources very rarely dropped by some hunted enemies (I have hunted Hyenas before with small rewards of Stone and Wood in addition to Food) as I assume that they are negligible.

Therefore, so far, judging from a quick and rather shallow analysis of the systemic input and output of non-Gold Resources, at least Rome, Persia, and Egypt seem to be on equal footing when it comes to the effect of their respective Resource Bonuses on construction, Upgrading, and recruiting troops.

But a quick glance at the amount of Gold consumed by at least military recruitment (recruiting 1 Desert Axeman, for example, takes 48 Gold to 32 Stone) suggest that sometimes it, and not Stone, may be the real limiting factor (though in order to assert this, we have to analyze how much Gold is produced by the default system, and it seems to me that the number is so high we don’t have to worry about it running out before Stone). And seeing as the Resource bonuses are of limited use in an equilibrium system anyway, it may just be that they are most useful when converted straight to Gold. This would mean that despite the apparent uselessness of extra Stone as Stone, extra Wood as Wood, or extra Metal as Metal in construction, Upgrading, or recruitment, a real advantage might go to the Civ(s) whose Resource bonus is, in fact, worth the most in Gold—namely, as we have shown, China and, to a lesser extent, Persia (remember the 2:1:4/3:1 ratio we found for the value in Gold of the Resource bonuses for China, Rome, Persia, and Egypt, respectively).

This is a compelling thought, if half-baked. I wonder if any of our readers might want to flesh it out by throwing Gold into the mix of Resources analyzed from the angles of construction, Upgrading, recruitment, or any other process to see if it brings us to any different conclusions regarding the relative usefulness of the Resource bonuses.

Meanwhile, in future posts I will be further untangling the massive problem of“which civilization you should choose,” particularly in the following directions: The implications of Gold being a possibly limiting factor in construction, Upgrading, and recruiting (as just mentioned) and Wood as a limiting factor in Research on each Civ’s Resource Bonus; the consumption and production of Food; special Units; geographical positioning; and any other approaches suggested to me by readers or my own cognitive wanderings. Through this process, I welcome and encourage all feedback and addenda—let’s figure out the truth together.

Tentative Conclusions:

  • The Novice Tasks do not confer advantage on any Empire.
  • The Resource bonuses of Rome, Persia, and Egypt are of negligible use in construction, Upgrading, or military recruitment unless converted to Gold because, by default, Resource Units (and Plunder) produce Wood, Stone, and Metal in the same proportion in which it consumes them (for these three types of task).
Categories: Uncategorized

Welcome to the Imperial Warfare Blog!

December 1, 2010 Leave a comment

Welcome to new, veteran, ex-, possible, die-hard members of the Imperial Warfare universe!

This blog was created to facilitate a higher degree of interaction among not only players and fans of Imperial Warfare, the cool new browser-based MMO RTS/RPG developed by Snail Games and edited/published by Media Kingdom (for more details on the Snail/Media Kingdom relationship, see this article, whose critical angle will probably be treated in a future post by me), but also among anyone who’s interested in video games and in thinking about the social, economic, aesthetic, psychological, and other questions associated with them.

I encourage as much follow-up discussion as possible in these posts; as such, I will try to include many questions and loose ends for readers to address, should they wish to do so.

Applications to become a post contributor will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

Happy gaming!

Categories: Uncategorized