Ogre (game) - Critical Reception

Critical Reception

Martin Easterbrook began his 1977 review of Ogre (first edition) by saying "Be warned: this game could become a craze" adding that "the idea of the microgames themselves is remarkable enough in itself." He rated the game 8 out of 10 but criticized the game's title and "flimsy equipment, weak infantry".

Reviewing the first Steve Jackson Games editions of Ogre (after the designer had moved away from Metagaming), Tony Watson called Ogre "a legend in the ranks of SF gamedom, and deservedly so... as well as being a lot of fun to play, it's an interesting extrapolation on high-tech armoured warfare". It was noted that the rules had remained essentially the same in the new edition, and the most significant changes being to the physical design - with larger (still black and white) counters, and full colour maps by Denis Loubet. Watson also welcomed the retention of the original artwork alongside new pieces - "no one draws a GEV or Ogre like Mr. Chung."

Reviewing the combined edition of 1991, Allen Varney stated: " two simulation board games of armored combat on a future battlefield are among the best the field has ever seen: fast, elegant, and endlessly replayable." Whilst praising the production values of the 2-color playing pieces Varney found the box somewhat 'flimsy'.

In his 2007 essay, game designer Erick Wujcik said "I think success really boils down to four essentials: Ogre is fast, ... asymmetrical, ... open-ended, ... is a teaching tool. Ogre had restructured my mind pretty completely ... but it wasn't until 2002 ... that I realized how effective Ogre is at getting across so many important component mechanisms of play and design."