Reflections of a grumpy, middle-aged gamer

[Sir Slash]

64 Also as of March. My first wargame was, 'Waterloo' by Avon Hill followed closely by, 'Midway'. That's if you don't count, 'Dogfight' and, 'Broadside' by American Heritage. I was  :nerd: before  :nerd: was cool.

[MengJiao]

  I count those!  Those were fun games.  I got Bismarck and Gettysburg before I played those.

[Sir Slash]

How about, 'Sub Hunt' on my Intellivision way back there.  <:-)

[Gusington]

  'Intellivision'!!!

[Phantom]

Gosh - I could have written Toonces OP.
I mentioned on another thread how I managed to access some older games - Age of Rifles & Tanks. I found myself instantly drawn into the easier gaming style - I didn't look at the manuals - you can figure 90% of it out with some knowledge of the combat hardware & the history and just start playing - great!.
As with all other posters, up until recently I'd found myself drawn into a (misguided) desire for more complexity which I've recently abandoned. For example I have many AGEOD/Paradox games, but some of the recent iterations of Rome/Europa Universalis or Crusader kings, whilst adding another level of complexity, don't for me add anything else, and as mentioned by Toonces actually create a barrier to starting a game.
So my new motto is K.I.S.S.

While I agree that K.I.S.S is probably my preferred "go to" theory of gaming right now (actually, I don't even have time to do much gaming right now), let me make one observation to the older folks here: Unless you actively try to stretch your mind, you tend to atrophy, especially as you get older.  So, while the K.I.S.S system may be good, you may want to consider trying to get into something new and/or more complicated that stretches your mental abilities.  That doesn't necessarily mean all your games have to be complex monstrosities, but possibly you pick one game on a topic that interests you and is more complex (or simply different in terms of mechanics) and spend the time digging into it.

I certainly agree about stretching your mind, but do you stretch your mind more by becoming accomplished and regularly playing a "simple" game like chess, or by learning all the rules, interactions & caveats in EU4? - and (thinking whilst typing) is that a left half/right half brain thing?

[Vintage Dude]

I agree that you need to stretch your mind. I still have the mental capabilities to learn new games. The question is if the payoff is worth the investment.

As to the old board games, I started with all Avalon Hill games. Then they got too expensive for me and I discovered SPI games.

[Tripoli]

Gosh - I could have written Toonces OP.
I mentioned on another thread how I managed to access some older games - Age of Rifles & Tanks. I found myself instantly drawn into the easier gaming style - I didn't look at the manuals - you can figure 90% of it out with some knowledge of the combat hardware & the history and just start playing - great!.
As with all other posters, up until recently I'd found myself drawn into a (misguided) desire for more complexity which I've recently abandoned. For example I have many AGEOD/Paradox games, but some of the recent iterations of Rome/Europa Universalis or Crusader kings, whilst adding another level of complexity, don't for me add anything else, and as mentioned by Toonces actually create a barrier to starting a game.
So my new motto is K.I.S.S.

While I agree that K.I.S.S is probably my preferred "go to" theory of gaming right now (actually, I don't even have time to do much gaming right now), let me make one observation to the older folks here: Unless you actively try to stretch your mind, you tend to atrophy, especially as you get older.  So, while the K.I.S.S system may be good, you may want to consider trying to get into something new and/or more complicated that stretches your mental abilities.  That doesn't necessarily mean all your games have to be complex monstrosities, but possibly you pick one game on a topic that interests you and is more complex (or simply different in terms of mechanics) and spend the time digging into it.

I certainly agree about stretching your mind, but do you stretch your mind more by becoming accomplished and regularly playing a "simple" game like chess, or by learning all the rules, interactions & caveats in EU4? - and (thinking whilst typing) is that a left half/right half brain thing?

Regarding the question  as to whether you stretch your mind by becoming more accomplished or by learning something new, I would answer "Yes."   ;D   I Certainly, someone who devotes himself to becoming a chess master is stretching his mind.  However, it is also good to pick up something new.  Consider a truly expert brain surgeon, a master of his craft.  Might he benefit from learning how to play piano?  Studies have shown that some of the most creative solutions to issues come not from experts, but from intelligent people with only a moderate level of undertanding of the problem at hand.  Therefore, while I would not condemn someone from developing an expertise in any field as they grew older, I would nonetheless counsel them to also try something different. 

[berto]

I started with AH Gettysburg and Tactics II c. 1962.  And did the SPI thing big time in the 1970s.

I would like to learn and play deeply immersive and detailed, complex games (CMO for instance).  But as a developer, I must stay focused on my work.  After coding games all day (7 days a week even), in the evening, at the end of the day, I am spent, have little energy left to play them.  All Work and No Play Makes Berto a Dull Boy.   :(

But yeah, stretching the mind?  A good reason I continue to do this.  Use it or lose it.

[MengJiao]

  I count those!  Those were fun games.  I got Bismarck and Gettysburg before I played those.

  Another thing to consider is that games have been changing for a lot of different reasons and I think I like most of them:

1) the technology is available to make complex simulations accessible (eg. DCS) and this has its own dynamics so you sort of just have to go with that flow
2) but some games have definitely gone off the deep end of complexity...I confess that I no longer find such games particularly rewarding
3)BUT some games have an interesting level of complexity -- due partly I think to there being more documentation available (for example the Greatest Day game covering the UK-Commonwealth Beaches in Normandy in the company level series by Adam Starkweather) -- I find these intriguing if baffling at times
4) while others have evolved toward a nicely engineered simplicity (Hoplite evolving out of The Great Battles of History series for example or Flying Colors) without sacrificing much realism
5) Others -- Winter War or HLL just accidently hit a sweet spot for me instantly and inexplicably.
6) and there's just a lot more games so that's good!

[RyanE]

"I would like to learn and play deeply immersive and detailed, complex games (CMO for instance)."

Lot of discussion about "complex" games.  CMO is a great example. Its only complex if you want to play it that way.  Waragmers tend to want to micromanage everything like control freaks.  In CMO, you can play very simple scenarios and play relatively complex scenarios simply.  Its the gamers choice.  The problem is that older wargamers are used to playing boardgames and older PC games where you had to be every unit's brain and look at every rivet.  So a game comes out like CMO and older wargamers want to start with a scenario that has 3000 units, logistics, multiple sides, comms simulation, etc.  And they want to control every unit because that's how the Harpoon boardgame did it.

I play Steel beasts as a wargame so I will compare it to CM.  In SB, I can simply script out a company movement down a road and have the convoy halt and find cover as scouts retreat back on contact.  I can do that in less than 5 minutes.  In CM, its a 30-45 minute chore of waypoints, orders, etc. for each and every unit.  That's what I have lost patience for.  I know a dev can make complex simple, but they choose not to.

Some of the same people who love DCS's buttonology are the same people complaining about complexity for the sake of complexity.  I don't need to hit 15 buttons to turn the power on in a cockpit.  It adds nothing to what I want a flightsim to do.  Its great you put that level of detail into a sim, but just start the plane.

[MetalDog]

I started with AH Gettysburg and Tactics II c. 1962.  And did the SPI thing big time in the 1970s.

Every time the old board game Grognards start reminiscing, it's always about old Avalon Hill titles or Midway or some such.  My first wargame was Tactics II.  Good to see I wasn't the only one!   O0

[Toonces]

There's nothing inherently wrong with complex games.  10 years ago I would have been utterly thrilled with something like DCS.  Now, though, I sit down, download a new module and then it's like, crap, I've gotta spend the next several hours setting up my HOTAS, then I have to figure out how to even use the plane, and then finally I have to create, download or otherwise find something to do with it gameplay-wise.  Nothing wrong with any of that except, for me, I just say screw it and find something else to do without the front-loaded baggage.  Heck, even BMS has succumbed to this through feature creep.  Those guys just had to keep adding layers and layers of complexity, and finally with this last update I have to program a data cartridge, plug in all the radio frequencies, laser frequencies, IFF frequencies....it's like damn, what was wrong with just hitting the "tower" button, or "wingman" button to talk, or pressing the "IFF" button to query targets?  All that realism just isn't fun (to me).  Not to mention that every time the devs update BMS they break all the theaters and campaigns users have created, which is frankly stupid in my opinion.

CMO is a great simulation.  But I've been playing Harpoon for 20+ years.  I could sit down and learn CMO or I could just stick with what I know.

That's really my point.  It's not so much a rail against complexity than it is coming to the realization that I stick with what's comfortable more often than not.

I stand in admiration of folks like Jarhead who can play through dozens of games a year.  I simply don't have that kind of patience.

[Vintage Dude]

I started with AH Gettysburg and Tactics II c. 1962.  And did the SPI thing big time in the 1970s.

Every time the old board game Grognards start reminiscing, it's always about old Avalon Hill titles or Midway or some such.  My first wargame was Tactics II.  Good to see I wasn't the only one!   O0

I have most of the Avalon Hill games except for Tactics II. I never got it because in my youth I only wanted to recreate real battles.

[Anguille]

I think that one of the big problems is that there are just too many games. When i started to play computer games in 1993, i had only Master of Orion and Fields of Glory....and physical manuals i could study. Plenty of time to focus on two games. Today i have hundreds of games, digital manuals that are a pain to read on the computer (i think GalCiv3 manual has over 300 pages) and a lot less time. I am pretty sure that if there was only one great new game every year, it would spend more time learning it.

And it's true, like you said it, if we already own a similar game that we master, why bother learning a new one?

[berto]

"I would like to learn and play deeply immersive and detailed, complex games (CMO for instance)."

Lot of discussion about "complex" games.  CMO is a great example. Its only complex if you want to play it that way.

I am not daunted by the prospect of learning the CMO game mechanics.  It's the subject matter I find challenging.  So many aircraft types, so many different esoteric weapon systems, a whole different jargon!  I'm an old land warfare gamer.  This fancy air and sea stuff intimidates me.