My question is inspired by the John Tiller interview thread http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=10688.0 One of the screenshots Nefaro posted is of a scenario map. It is hex based and looks very much like a table top chit game. Immediately, I was excited. The reason I love wargames is because of the maps. I love planning how to overcome the terrain to reach my objective. And I am barmy enough to think I can do it well.
On the heels of that thought and emotion was a second one. This one was disappointment. Maybe not so much disappointment as, knowing myself well enough to know that I won't go out of my way to own or play a game like that. It's too time consuming and requires more of my brain and attention than I am willing to give. And that makes me sad.
Warlock is hex based and has much nicer looking maps and I play that often. Civilization requires attention to detail and planning. And, might I add, the most truly spectacular maps to play on. I am willing, and do quite often, play for hours on end. So, investing time is not a problem either.
So, what is it? What catches your attention? More importantly, what keeps your attention and has you going back for more?
Generally if it has things I can learn about.
That's why my preference is playing sims. There's always a lot more to learn, be it from tactics, weapon patforms or otherwise.
And if a sim (or light sim) has pretty good realistic graphics I am sure to fall for it. :)
Hi
I look for depth and good background information/story. I want something i can really get my teeth into. Simulation/strategy is my genre of choice. However i don't want to go back to school to learn how to play it.
Graphics and UI are important as if any of these are terrible then it puts me off. Some UI like Tiller games have a garish icon set and a UI that i have difficulty seeing clearly. Though Tiller is getting marginally better.
A good AI can also make all the difference Command OPS for instance.
Regards
Quote from: MetalDog on July 20, 2014, 12:05:26 PM
The reason I love wargames is because of the maps. I love planning how to overcome the terrain to reach my objective. And I am barmy enough to think I can do it well.
On the heels of that thought and emotion was a second one. This one was disappointment. Maybe not so much disappointment as, knowing myself well enough to know that I won't go out of my way to own or play a game like that. It's too time consuming and requires more of my brain and attention than I am willing to give. And that makes me sad.
You pretty much captured my entire gaming life. I get most excited by games I'll never have time to play - or at least play well.
One look at the various Paradox and AGEOD games and I'm ready to throw my money at them. The maps look great, the artwork nicely captures the period - the whole package draws me in. But when I actually sit down to play and realize how much of a time-sink they are - especially bad with Paradox games where so many of the "rules" are either unwritten or buried in a patch note - I wish I had another hobby.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why it still enjoy less-epic games like Imperialism II and Civ IV. I can play them and live to tell about it.
Quote from: Yskonyn on July 20, 2014, 12:45:48 PM
Generally if it has things I can learn about.
I, too, like to learn new stuff. If it has lots of depth regarding content and dynamic or multi-layered gameplay then I'll like it much more because there is so much more to toy around with and learn by doing.
I'll be the bad guy and bring up something that we don't like to mention much. Graphics. It doesn't have to be flashy, but I'd like for them to look good and fit the period. As with the Tiller graphic mods MetalDog mentioned earlier, it doesn't need to be fancy 3D. I think good 2D graphics have their own appeal (and often qualify as "artwork" moreso than anything 3D) and they shouldn't be left by the wayside.
Another example is how much I downright loathe Japanime style graphics. It turns me right off, even if the core game sounds good, because I just don't like that art style. Or what had previously been beautiful UI artwork, befitting of a historic setting, being dropped in favor of minimalist plastic-looking transparent overlays sitting on top of classical phalanxes, or bright silver MS Office 2k style UI windows with pics of civil war generals and soldiers on them. It injures the historical immersion, something I imagine most of us bitchy grogs enjoy greatly. >:(
So, yes, graphics DO make a difference when they stand out in such contrary ways to the subject.
I really enjoy games that have a high immersion level and transport me to that time period. Within this, games with a good campaign that really give me freedom and let me influence that outcome while retaining a core group of units are even better.
Another thing that will push me to get a game or at least look into it deeper is the opinion of fellow gamers especially some of y'all around here or a really well done AAR.
Quote from: MetalDog on July 20, 2014, 12:05:26 PM
So, what is it? What catches your attention? More importantly, what keeps your attention and has you going back for more?
I've been playing war games for the last 48 years. Most of my "chose a game" mental work involves excluding games that I have learned just don't work for me in my current set of amusements. For example, I finally stopped playing WWII online in early 2013 after playing it off and on since 2002. Now I'm playing Heroes and Generals with two main objectives: 1) stop as soon as I'm the least bit tired of it 2) at least it isn't WWII Online or Red Orchestra 2 -- which for some reason I was sure I was going to play far too much.
There are some games or series that I go back to periodically and more or less irrationally: WitPAE, Battles of the Age of Reason (board game), CMRT and the like, Command at Sea (board game) and (lately) Great Battles of History (boardgame) and total war (whatever) and ARMAIII and some flight sims (looking forward to Battle of Stalingrad) and Lee Brinncombe-Wood games (boardgames like Burning Blue).
I guess what interests me in all of these is that they have lots of unpredictable elements and yet retain some semblance of narrative (and entertaining) coherence as well as some kind of connection to some kind of historical reality (again retaining a coherent narrative element).
I'm echoing tct.... immersion all the way, sometimes it can be the smallest of incidental or even accidental things and you smile and think man this is going to be cool
On top of that rpg and I don't mean steel bikinis and dragons I mean been able to imprint my personality on my character... shit day at work? Execute all prisoners, dude looks like that asshole from accounts? Assassinate him
Bit bloodthirsty...innit, geek?
Lmao...... you haven't met the asshole from accounts!
Fun....in what ever form it comes........O and something that doesn't take 3 weeks to learn would be nice.
When I was younger all it took to draw me in were a few simple features: 1. Is the game set in WW2? 2. Is it turn based? 3. Are the units pretty? 4. Is the map nice looking?
Today my main draws are; turn based strategy, complex game but easy to play because my brain is too far destroyed to tackle games like GGWitE.
Two simple things :)
Is it a new expansion for Distant Worlds? (That ones out now Universe is with us)
Is it Distant Worlds 2?
Darkspire
What gets my attention: mainly the words turn-based, hot seat play, 4x, random maps, functioning diplomacy, single player, space, civilization. That's just off the top of my head but those are the big ones.
For me, it's realistic command level issues. For example, if I am a division commander, I'm not worried about where each company is going. I'm concerned about creating an overall plan, supply, etc. I love AGEOD games because I DONT have control over tactics. In CW 2, I'm commander in chief so I control what the armies look like, where they go and make sure a supply route is built to support them.
This applies for any time frame. I'm less interested in tactics...I look immediately for complex logistics, organization and AI subordination.
I love Flashpoint Campaigns. My only bitch is that supply is too easy. It should be harder to get ammo and fuel up to a company of tanks blowing through a defensive line. At least I should have to plan more than hitting "resupply". I should have to make sure I bring up stocks and maintain links...maybe beyond this game but a Good example. It has the planning and AI subordination that is realistic for that type of command level but is missing some realism on the logistics level. (When the 2.04 patch comes out in 2 weeks we will see what changes)
Anyway, what I look at first is "does the game make it hard to save the war itself" as opposed to winning a given battle
Mikeck - what's your opinion of Panther Games' stuff? The lower-level AI you're talking about is kinda their schtick.
I've been a gamer for over 50 years and a computer gamer since the days of the TRS-80, so there's not much I haven't seen. If you want my money, do one of these three things:
1) Be original - I'd rather play a flawed game that no one has ever come up with before (Vic Davis' games come to mind) than the 75th iteration of the AGE engine. If you can't do that
2) Tweak elements of a proven genre - If you're making a 4X game, show me a different approach to diplomacy or exploration. Recent examples would be Star Ruler 2 and Endless Legend. And if you HAVE to adhere to a proven formula
3) Polish your game until it shines - Make it the best playing experience you can within your budget. Two recent examples being AoW 3 and Divinity:OS. Neither brings anything new to the table, but they take the elements of their respective formulas and do them very, very, well.
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 20, 2014, 05:02:17 PM
. shit day at work? Execute all prisoners, dude looks like that asshole from accounts? Assassinate him
Man... UCG is on a higher level of "immersion" than I ever imagined. :o
Also.. they need to be challenging to some degree.
If the AI is a pushover, I lose interest as soon as that becomes a thing. It's part of the reason true roguelikes (not all that platformer & shooter shit that just borrows the tag) are my go-to games when I'm unsure of what I want to play.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 20, 2014, 08:17:28 PM
Mikeck - what's your opinion of Panther Games' stuff? The lower-level AI you're talking about is kinda their schtick.
Love the engine, love the maps, love the UI and acknowledge it's most of what I want (no complex supply though). Unfortunately, it's WW 2 and that just doesn't interest me. I did purchase both COTA and BftB though hoping to get into it. They make good games....wish they would make a modern war version (commercially anyway)
I second TCT's and geek's comments about immersion. If a game can suck me into its world, transport me there...make me forget I'm playing a *game*...then I'm a fanboy for life.
I'm right with mikeck. I'm mostly interested in issues of command and control when it comes to wargaming, which makes up the bulk of what I play. I've drifted away from most simulation games because of that with a of couple notable exceptions like Steel Beasts Pro PE.
In the past I've required a strong AI to keep my interest, but recently I've started more PBEM and online games and I'm really enjoying that. So, a game with a not that great AI can still interest me if it lends itself well to online play.
While not a graphics snob, I will admit that a game that looks bad is something I'm likely to pass over. Bad can be really dated graphics, but it can also be excessively cartoonish graphics. When you combine the above games like Battle Academy and Panzer General are just non starters in my book.
Of course there are always exceptions. I don't think anyone would confuse a "total war" game with a complex command and supply system...yet I play the hell out of them
For me it's the sense of being challenged intellectually. In strategy games, it usually boils down to solving the tactical or strategic puzzles/conundrums the game throws at you. In wargames, dealing with command and control, as well as the problem of bringing about your goals within the time, space and logistics constraints posed by the scenario.
The intellectual challenge can happen in many ways. It doesn't require that the simulation is extremely detailed or faithful to reality - just that whatever the mechanics are, they capture the essence of the elements above (or their suitable representation in a particular setting).
Looking at the stats that Steam helpfully keeps to remind me of how much time I "waste" playing stuff other than war games I see I've clocked 80 hours on Europa Universalis and 60+ hours on X-COM Enemy Unknown, two games I find very challenging to defeat in my terms at the difficulty levels I play. Both games are good at throwing seemingly "unsolvable" problems at the player until your mind "switches" and you turn the tables in your favor (luck also helps).
In wargames I most often find that in PBEM, with humans pulling the strings of the opposing side: Combat Mission is the PBEM game of choice for me in the past 3 years, I find it a very satisfying sandbox of tactical problems (I can get past and over the shortcomings of that series easier than I can in other tactical war games). The PBEM AAR panzerde's started on his blog has reminded me of how much I love Napoleonic warfare, where the elements above combine in different ways, but the basic relationships are still there.
I won't comment on Command Ops as I am very partial to it, but I like a lot Flashpoint: the interaction between command, control, time and space is very well done there, in a top down fashion rather than bottom up as in Command Ops. Even if I don't particularly like the setting, which I feel tends to end up in a frontal grinding battle of attrition that uncannily reminds me of phalanxes of hoplites shoving their spears at each other.
Bletchley_Geek won't comment on Command Ops, but I will: this is the perfect example of the sort of game I really enjoy. This and Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm are two of my favorite games. If I wasn't so ADD in my interests I'd be churning out scenarios for both.
The intellectual challenge piece really resonates with me. Even in RPGs (which I still play a fair amount of) I quickly grow bored if I'm not figuring something out. Hence ARPGs do little for me and more open, narrative games draw me in.
Quote from: panzerde on July 21, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
Even in RPGs (which I still play a fair amount of) I quickly grow bored if I'm not figuring something out.
That expresses my attitudes - towards RPGs and other genres - pretty well :)