Greatest Games I Never Play (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the AAR)

[al_infierno]

https://weaponsrelease.com/2021/02/24/7-of-the-greatest-games-i-never-play/

Interesting article about monster games the author loves the idea of, but never actually plays.  I feel the same way with a number of games, including several listed in the article like WitP:AE and Aurora 4x.

Also, the discussion about "mega campaigns" is one I've always been interested in.  I wish more game companies would lean into cross compatibility with save files between different games the way Paradox does.  I dig the idea of taking a nation from the beginning of time to the end of time, but Paradox seems to be the only company that officially supports exporting saves between completely different time periods.  Sure, you could finish a Medieval: Total War campaign and then start an Empire: Total War campaign as the same country, but that's not nearly a satisfying "campaign" experience if nothing you did previously carries over.  I guess Paradox is just the uncontested champion at narrative grand strategy, in that sense.

[SlagDog]

A game that went from 2009 to 2013 - 4 years of playing a game - AND doing an active AAR for it. And then did it all over again playing the other side of the conflict. <whistles appreciatively> That's really impressive.

Maybe I'll do that with aviation - Start with Rise of Flight and end with Star Citizen . . .  :DD 

[Gusington]

^That sounds like a great idea for a new type of flight sim...I think you are on to something. It could be an industry tycoon type game where you lead your organization from the birth of flight to the Space Age. Or a dynamic sim where you can carry your pilot through the ages. I don't think I've ever seen a game that evolved the player through the different eras of flight.

[Anguille]

I once did an AAR during many years on Star Trek: Birth of the Federation. Was fun.

[Anguille]

https://weaponsrelease.com/2021/02/24/7-of-the-greatest-games-i-never-play/
Also, the discussion about "mega campaigns" is one I've always been interested in.  I wish more game companies would lean into cross compatibility with save files between different games the way Paradox does.  I dig the idea of taking a nation from the beginning of time to the end of time, but Paradox seems to be the only company that officially supports exporting saves between completely different time periods.  Sure, you could finish a Medieval: Total War campaign and then start an Empire: Total War campaign as the same country, but that's not nearly a satisfying "campaign" experience if nothing you did previously carries over.  I guess Paradox is just the uncontested champion at narrative grand strategy, in that sense.

Wouldn't any Civilization game offer that without having to move saves from one game to the other? And most of the game of Paradox are just the same game (since EU) with some cosmetic changes. I don't see the big challenge to do what they do. The only "new" game they have done is Stellaris.

Therer a quiet a few games monster games i never play (and own):

- Crusader Kings 2 (and most of the other Paradox games since Crusader Kings 1, except Stellaris)
- War in the East (and West)
- Galactic Civilization 3
- Panzer Corps
- Time of Fury

And some more.

[al_infierno]

^ I think you're missing what they mean by "mega campaign."  A mega campaign doesn't mean just a monster-sized campaign in a game like WitE that takes ages to complete, but a larger campaign across multiple different game titles that takes place between multiple time periods, with differing game mechanics to go along with each period.  The classic example of this is exporting a save file from Crusader Kings to Europa Universalis and continue a campaign you had going with the EU4 mechanics (which are definitely far more than a cosmetic change).  I don't know of any Civilization games, or any other non-RPG franchise, that let you port in a save file from a previous game and continue playing with new mechanics.

[Anguille]

^ I think you're missing what they mean by "mega campaign."  A mega campaign doesn't mean just a monster-sized campaign in a game like WitE that takes ages to complete, but a larger campaign across multiple different game titles that takes place between multiple time periods, with differing game mechanics to go along with each period.  The classic example of this is exporting a save file from Crusader Kings to Europa Universalis and continue a campaign you had going with the EU4 mechanics.  I don't know of any Civilization games, or any other non-RPG franchise, that let you port in a save file from a previous game and continue playing with new mechanics.

I understand what you mean. Apart from Paradox and Total War games, i don't see other companies that have games covering different time periods. I guess that Total War could do it if they wanted to but it doesn't seem to be something they want to do. So yes, it's only possible with Paradox games. But then, if i really want to cover the entire history of humankind (see what i am doing here ;) ), i must say i rather play a Civilization type of game  without the hustle to move saves.

[al_infierno]

I guess, but moving beyond just "different game for a different time period" there's also the idea of having a tactical game linked to a strategic game with different mechanics for each layer, like using FoG:II to resolve battles in FoG: Empires.  There's a lot of potential for that kind of thing, albeit super unlikely (e.g. using Combat Mission to fight the ground layer of a C:MANO operation).

[Anguille]

I guess, but moving beyond just "different game for a different time period" there's also the idea of having a tactical game linked to a strategic game with different mechanics for each layer, like using FoG:II to resolve battles in FoG: Empires.  There's a lot of potential for that kind of thing, albeit super unlikely (e.g. using Combat Mission to fight the ground layer of a C:MANO operation).

Yes, but frankly, when they had Spartan/Gates of Troy, they already had the tactical games in the game as well as the strategic game. That's what i liked. I am pretty sure they could have done it with FoG: Empires as well but they prefer to sell two games now instead of just one. I usually prefer games that combine both (Master of Orion, Spartan, Knights of Honor just to mention a few).

But yes, i agree with you. Having more options like that would be awesome.

[MengJiao]

https://weaponsrelease.com/2021/02/24/7-of-the-greatest-games-i-never-play/

Interesting article about monster games the author loves the idea of, but never actually plays.  I feel the same way with a number of games, including several listed in the article like WitP:AE and Aurora 4x.

  Having played WitP:AE for years long ago and having worked on building some more focused games of my own, I kind of feel like games should move in the opposite direction for one basic reason and then a couple of more fun reasons:
1) basic reasons -- games actually do a remarkably bad job of gaming what they are at least superficially about for the very unfun and very basic reason that they don't actually analyze their sources.  Even with a well-designed board game on a supposedly well-understood battle (Kasserine) and with me only consulting two accounts -- things don't add up at all.  There's at least one whole analytic layer missing even in the simplest case
2) Given that the basic analyses are not functional even in the simplest cases...
3) How can games move successfully across time even from week-to-week much less from one period to another?
4) So I think I did a lot better working on the basics for some Delian-League-supported revolt against the Persian empire scenarios
5) the key there is to go farther into the local situation -- not to invent a Persian Empire AI that can run say for a thousand years -- because parameters such as rainfall (which might explain some of the epic qualities of the Trojan war) vary and if you can't get the basic parameters to work within a limited time frame (which I think should be step one in anything that aims at being an extended campaign) how are you going to get the longer runs of the game to work at all?
6) Now for the fun part -- there's not really enough reliable data for most local parameters most of the time
7) so you get to work on and experience an alternative version of history and its drivers
8) but at a very local, even VR type level
9) because a fully invented world is more likely to function over a long period of time than a poorly constructed version of the real world 

[Gusington]

I really, REALLY pray that Field of Glory: Empires, gets the medieval treatment. I can't see how it wouldn't...

[88mmkwk]

Somebody in the article's comment thread stated that they didn't play Shadow Empires because they found it "kinda shallow"...  :DD

SE is many things, but I've never heard it described as "shallow" before!!!

[Father Ted]

Somebody in the article's comment thread stated that they didn't play Shadow Empires because they found it "kinda shallow"...  :DD

SE is many things, but I've never heard it described as "shallow" before!!!

Indeedy.  To be fair though I guess you can play it shallow.  I mean the game moves along if you just make a few decisions, move your units, resolve a bit of combat and then  hit "End Turn".  But obviously the cat-nip of the game is delving into all the bits around the edges - i.e. matching your tech development to your resources, matching your tech development to your overall strategy, maintaining an economy...this would be a ridiculously long list.  Suffice it to say that this is probably the least shallow game I know and consequently is definitely on my list of games more watched than played (to get back OT)