OK, so this one has been bugging me a fair amount lately:
I was thinking to raise this issue in the context of Tiller's SB versus ASL/BoB/CoH and the like, but then realized that there are sufficient questions about SB hereabouts to muddy matters, so, I inquire along this line: why do we even contemplate playing games like "Battle for Normandy" or "Case Blue" when games like "PzC: Normandy '44" and "Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue" exist on the PC.
I stipulate that one has to have a PC (all respect to the Honorable Order of Mac Operators) and I absolutely understand the love of laying out a map like that in "Battle for Normandy" (have you seen that thing?), but, as I shared with Vance to Origins, I can't imagine getting around to playing it. Consider:
1: Where to place the game such that it won't be hated by loved ones, assaulted by children or pets, and yet accessible by all who wish to play it?
2: Assuming one can digest the rules -- "Case Blue" runs to how many pages? -- each one of us can tell long stories about having hours of play undone by misunderstanding one obscure but important rule in paper games.
3: I like to consider myself a social fellow, but do you all have such a circle of friends that permit playing games of this magnitude face-to-face?
4: In know some folks have taken up Vassal as a remedy to some of the above (notably not #2), but this only adds to my perplexity as now you're definitely playing a PC game, only now without rules arbitration.
I just don't get it...even as I stare at my unboxed and un-played copies of "Case Blue", "Battle for Normandy", "It Never Snows", &c., &c.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Not sure about anyone else but in the purest sense a board game is tangible and pc abstract. To me a board game is a personal experience where I feel like I am making things happen.. a sense of control and personal interaction, where as a pc game I feel removed from the experience. Even all things being equal as far as the Game contents go, I will also take the time to setup a Board game as in the end my enjoyment from it is always a higher value and satisfaction of play. Not if that really answers anything, but a well designed board game will always trump a computer game in my book, even with the aforementioned challenges.
PE
I am fortunate to have a room over the garage that is the Man-Cave, with a dining room table in it where I can leave games set up, unmolested by pets or children.
I like the social interactions that happen in face-to-face gaming, and I like the tangible nature of pushing things around the map myself. I like that I can lay out the order of battle beforehand and clearly see what my force structure looks like in-the-large, without clicking through multiple submenus.
But mostly, I like a well-designed boardgame because, quite frankly, it's going to be a better game than a computer game.
Lemme 'splain: when you have a black-box of modifiers upon modifiers of intricate mathematical formulae, there are all manner of bad game-design sins that can be waved over with a wand because in the end, all those modifiers tend to regress to the mean, and you end up pretty close to some baseline adjudication before they were all put into place. My EW rating vs your counter-EW rating tends to be a wash. It only matters if one of us forgets to even model the EW. Throw them both out, rather than juggle endless 0.01% modifiers that might eventually make a marginal gain, but not enough for the possible bugs they might induce in the code.
Example...
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2950/15282648049_5d00243e50_o.jpg)
click to enlarge
When you're putting the game on the table, the math and the model had better be stunningly simple, because everyone can see it.
Can you imagine trying to instantiate that model into a board game? And yet, drop Andean Abyss on the table and see what happens.
Both are strategic-level views of the Colombian counterinsurgency, but one model is startlingly simple, and focuses on the players' decisions. The other is complexity, almost for the sake of complexity. (The difference is necessary; that's another very long story)
But ultimately you end up with much more elegant, understandable, and enjoyable games, IMHO
For me, I'd rather play a physical board game. Like others have said it's mostly the tactile physical response, plus the social aspect. My gaming group, whom I've being gaming with for about 30 years, gets together about 3 times a year for an entire weekend of gaming.... and maybe a few beers.... ok more than a few.... :coolsmiley:
In between those times I like to have a game setup in my man cave that I can poke at when I have the energy and time.
Most week nights, I have a little time and am brain dead from trying to keep physicists from blowing up the planet or killing too many grad students. So I "cheat" and play on the PC where the PC can keep track of the rules and I can just blow shit up.
Also, for really monster games, I just can't get a good enough look at the situation on a PC screen as I can looking at 9 sq. ft. of physical map and counters. I find Tiller's games the worst at this because there's no numbers on the counters! >:(
Uh hmmm. Hi. Good topic. O0
I'll echo what Brant and PE said, basically:
1. The experience is just so much more satisfying (for me) with a boardgame. Compare it to watching Pr0n on the computer vs real sex. Sure, there's lots of stuff that you can watch (and ummmm, participate in) online...great variety and some very beautiful, ummmm, actors. And it's easy to do! Anytime that you need a fix, just hop on to the computer. Sex in real life however is a different experience. Ok, so maybe your partner isn't a pr0n star and it's always a question of both being in the mood and having the opportunity but once you do connect...wow, what an experience! Same diff to me.
2. I hate-hate-hate having a PC game running all kinds of stuff under the hood and I have no freakin' idea what it's doing. "What was the result of that last combat...wait....it's scrolling from battle to battle too quickly!" is an example. You have to dig through a dozen menus and clicks to try and get the details. "Oh, it was a 3:1 odds attack. Great. Hell, where's the CRT even?"
3. How many times have you set up HOI or some Aegod game and watched the computer play it's turn and you just sat there dumbfounded...."shit....what do I do first? Oh, hell, put it on auto-AI for my guys and I'll figure it out". Fun. Watching the computer play against itself.
4. Find a local ASL group and play an 8 hour days worth of ASL. You will leave just mentally drained. "Brain Drain". You'll remember that final close combat at 1:1 odds that you just barely rolled low enough for to secure that last victory location to win the scenario. You'll remember keeping rate on your HMG that broke the other guys 9-2 leader and squad that were advancing on your defensive position. Nothing beats being stuck in a room full of fat, sweaty ASL players for 8 hours. Seriously, the gaming experience is (usually) quite memorable. Oh, I've solo'd some PC games and had some intense moments and rather enjoyed myself. I think Duke Nukem was the last time that has happened, but I did enjoy it. PC games have their place and yes, it's great that you can fire up a game any time, in the comfort of your own home, while sitting in your underwear drinking a 12 pack and just getting lost in that world for hours. I get that.
5. I think part of it is nostalgia as well. I grew up playing board wargames and so was shocked to find that 20 years after I last played one, people were still playing them - and they were still being made. I then discovered VASSAL. It's a semi-close 2nd but still give me a game at the table any day.
6. Ok, I like to fondle my counters! I like to carefully cut them out of the trees and then CLIP the bastards. Nice and round. I like to laminate my charts and lay out the maps and put them under plexi. I love digging through counter trays/Plano boxes and pulling out the units and carefully placing them on the map. I picture that I'm holding Rommel or Patton in my hands when I pull out their counter for WiF or some other game. I like seeing the entire map at once on the table! I get a kick out of hearing my opponent snort "oh, these dice!" and I like to growl back when I hear him snicker at my same remark.
I'm a little passionate about this topic, can you tell? There's probably a hundred other reasons why I'd take a boardgame over a PC game but I'll leave it open for others to divulge their thoughts on it.
Quote from: GJK on October 07, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
2. I hate-hate-hate having a PC game running all kinds of stuff under the hood and I have no freakin' idea what it's doing. "What was the result of that last combat...wait....it's scrolling from battle to battle too quickly!" is an example. You have to dig through a dozen menus and clicks to try and get the details. "Oh, it was a 3:1 odds attack. Great. Hell, where's the CRT even?"
3. How many times have you set up HOI or some Aegod game and watched the computer play it's turn and you just sat there dumbfounded...."shit....what do I do first? Oh, hell, put it on auto-AI for my guys and I'll figure it out". Fun. Watching the computer play against itself.
Lol.... That is so true! That is the main reason I stopped playing the Aegod games, no feedback to the commander what so ever. I am always like "Ok, what the hell just happened there?"... Half the time I am Sherlock Holmes!
I enjoy computer games and they have their place, but just not on the same level as the board gaming.
PE
Quote from: Cyrano on October 07, 2014, 09:14:58 AM
OK, so this one has been bugging me a fair amount lately:
I was thinking to raise this issue in the context of Tiller's SB versus ASL/BoB/CoH and the like, but then realized that there are sufficient questions about SB hereabouts to muddy matters, so, I inquire along this line: why do we even contemplate playing games like "Battle for Normandy" or "Case Blue" when games like "PzC: Normandy '44" and "Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue" exist on the PC.
If there is a good PC version of what I want to look at then I play that. But how often does that happen? There are no good sailing ship PC games. There are no good PC games dealing with hoplites. There are no good PC games dealing with the Battle of Britain. There are no good PC games dealing with the battle of Fontenoy, or Bir Hakim and so on.
A boardgame is better than no game at all.
The only sane reason I can provide for purchasing boardgames, especially on topics that I have PC games for, is that I somehow feel more fulfilled having a physical product, in a box, that I can put on my shelf, and provided I take care of it should last me a lifetime.
I have a friend that is a very avid boardgamer. But he frankly admits that for him it's all about the social aspect. He likes spending time gaming with friends.
For me games are a means of intellectual stimulation, and probably more with war games, a way of getting a better appreciation or understanding of a conflict, or exercise appropriate tactics for the period. In that sense, I feel that most PC games are simply better than their boardgame counterpart.
A couple of examples: I have several operational level wargames for a WW3 scenario. But there is no way that you can convince me that they are better games than Flashpoint Campaigns. On the PC you can model fog of war better, it simulates command delay, and all sorts of complex stuff that is challenging to model in a boardgame- if possible at all.
Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops: I love me some Harpoon, but a computer allows you to cram all sorts of stuff into a database. You get FoW without the need to resort to a 3rd person referee. You can put far more units on the computer screen in the scenario than is feasible in a boardgame.
I find myself frequently asking why it is I have bought boardgames to begin with, and why I keep the ones I have. In almost every case I have a computer game that does the game better, or the game is so large, and such a time-sink that it's just not practical to set it up. I can't imagine when I'm ever going to have the time, space, and an opponent to play something like Three Days of Gettysburg. Yet I can fire up Scourge of War and play as a Corps commander, give units orders by courier, force myself to play using Butt in the Seat mode with no God-eye of the battlespace, and likely have a more authentic experience.
And so on.
FWIW - you never need to install a new OS upgrade or emulator to the table to play an Avalon Hill game
Having been a board wargamer since the late 1960's I can only agree with all the positive comments above.
I enjoy learning the mechanics, and the strategies they imply. It's the same for PC games but tabletop has the added bonus of more direct physical interaction such as moving pieces and rolling dice. Now that I've begun painting minis, some of them now provide the canvas for when I don't feel like gaming but still want something to keep my brain occupied.
Overall, I've made one change since revisiting tabletop gaming in adulthood. No more huge hex & counter wargames. Specifically titles that use many counters. While I was fascinated with those things in my teen years, I'd much rather spend time playing the game than setting up and tearing down. I've still picked up some hex & counter wargames but they're they type that don't require a very large amount of counters on the map at one time. Many of my games are lighter "Ameri-trash" boardgames that are more focused on a narrative style of play and use cards, chit draws, etc to provide good randomization of it. They also provide plenty of stuff to paint.
When I feel like watching some gaming vids on the 'Tube, they're usually boardgame playthroughs rather than PC ones. It's easier to get a feel for the flavor as the components are all out there to see whereas watching a strategy game on the PC is more like being led through different screen views.
My only complaint is that I rarely get some serious gaming time with adults these days. My couple old gamer buddies moved away years ago. I should probably check the BGG forums to find groups in my area, but the concept seems a bit weird to me so I've not tried it yet. Fortunately there have been quite a few Co-op games released in the last few years (aka Solitaire) that are quite fun so those fill the times when I have no opponent and lend themselves well to a leisurely pace.
I wanted to see what I'd round up before responding and I'm grateful for the thoughtful responses. My animadversions:
@meng: Stipulated, but, as the topic title indicated, I was trying to figure out why we play boardgames when there are PC games available, not why we play PC games as such. I would observe in passing that the original AoS is actually a very good, well, AoS game, better in some ways than most rule sets I've played. Only its lack of robust MP prevents it from being my favorite.
To both Brant and PE re: the "under the hood" stuff. I agree with much of this which is why I cannot abide most AGEOD games and was almost, note almost, put off entirely by Paradox's offerings. It took great patience, and a couple of long demos, to finally get into EUII for this reason. Very glad I stuck around, may I say. Tiller, though, particularly in his designer's notes and other documentation does a pretty thorough job of explaining his math, the notable exception being his random numbers which, from time to time, cause real combat result head-scratchers. This argument can be taken too far, though, as a game that crafts a credible physics engine to manage combat (CMx1 and 2 being my preferred examples) is a magnificent creature indeed, but I frankly don't think I could handle all the business "under the hood". Certainly folks have questioned the CMx2 engine and corrections have been made to it based on their feedback, but I don't think the fact that it doesn't show me the calculus is a demerit.
@GJK and #3: yeah, I feel you there. It took MANY tries to get into EUII as I say. That one may well be a pure "your mileage may vary". Every ounce of me wants to love "Victoria II". I just can't get over the sensation that I'm trying to play a spreadsheet.
And to all those who speak of socialization and aesthetics (notably GJK's eloquent proration on the subject): I think that really may be it. Certainly playing a game with friends is better than not; it's why having met so many fine Grogs here and getting to play games with them PBEM is so rewarding. Playing on a LAN is even more rewarding because you can abuse people in the same room. I've played enough miniatures games to know the joy of getting that "6" when you really, really need it. It must be something deeply wired indeed because there's no logic in it...only the love of the chit...
As my boy Spock would say, "fascinating".
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
@Nefaro: Oooh, you and I are wandering the same road, although I caution you re: minis...in that way lies madness. The chit densities of games like "Battle for Normandy", the La Battaille series, and the like is increasing off-putting as space shrinks (six-year-old) and vision fails. Memoir '44 is certainly no grog game, but my son and I have been delighted by it and it comes in manageable portions. I feel much the same about "A Few Acres of Snow", "Waterloo" (Warfrog), and even the COIN games, although I'll live and die a fellow who prefers the tactical level.
I wonder if the prevalence of YouTube videos on boardgames will persist long into the future? Put another way, I've never been to Consim World, but I've been many times to Historicon, Origins, and, yeah, GenCon. Board wargaming, especially of the groggy flavor, seems to be getting a bit grey to me. To those assembled, I posit: will there be a market for them in 20 years? I expect to be alive to see that (fingers crossed) and wonder...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on October 08, 2014, 11:40:20 AM
@Nefaro: Oooh, you and I are wandering the same road, although I caution you re: minis...in that way lies madness.
Most certainly madness. I decided long ago to avoid miniature wargames. In order to save my last bits of sanity, I've just been sticking to boxed games that happen to contain minis. No extra fuss.. just paint a few here & there so I don't go mad.
The only time I play physical boardgames is with my local game group...a social setting.
When I play solitaire, I always play by vassal. Just because I don't have a good place to keep a game board out, unmolested. Also, I can play a monster now and then, that I would never have the chance to play physically. Currently, I'm playing SPW's WWI Campaign, Der Weltkrieg. With 1000s of counters, and 370+ turns, no way I would play the real thing. But vassal is great.
Even though you could categorize vassal as a computer game, I don't really thing of it that way. Definitely feel I am playing a boardgame with vassal.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on October 08, 2014, 08:45:57 PMWhen I play solitaire, I always play by vassal. Just because I don't have a good place to keep a game board out, unmolested.
That's the main reason I play SASL using VASL instead of on the table. I would prefer the hard copy but having to leave it up with cats and kids would never work if its gotta sit out overnight.
Good topic...wish we had used this one for a GameTalk! thread...
I think my decision to either board-or-pc game is driven by what kind of experience I am looking for. The tactical, first-person experience I get from a good PC flight sim trumps pretty much every "detailed" board game on the same subject. On the other hand, if I want a simple - dare I say arcade-y - plane-v-plane experience, I'd much rather break out Wings of War or C21.
At other times, the time factor is a big influence. If I need some quick-and-dirty squad level action, I will almost always fire up Squad Battles or perhaps Close Combat or the 'puter version of Heroes of Stalingrad. However, if I have time for a slightly longer experience, I go to Day of Heroes, etc.
Grand strategy wargames - for me at least - always remain PC based. I just don't have the time or space to set up a monolithic game of anything. The PC lets me experience that fairly well...
I have either developed or help to develop both board and computer wargames. To me they are different animals. It's somewhat like being sent to the store to buy a bag of candy.
Once you get to the store you have a tremendous number of choices. You want chocolate candies, those with peanuts, those without, hard, soft, etc....
Board and computer games fall into that same kind of dilemma for me.
Do I want a game that is primarily solitaire, that I don't have to worry about the rules, does it need to be 'fixed' with a house rule, do the graphics and map create an immersion, etc.
We buy the two different types of game for entirely different reasons. Which allows for owning and or playing games in both genre.
The primary reason I will play a computer game is the AI and the fact the rules are set and not open to interpretation. The primary reason I play board games is that I can house rule the game if it has a glaring issue and the interaction with the other gamer. I will play computer games solitaire but not boardgames. And the list goes on....
Good Hunting.
MR
I prefer board games because I can add house rules. I read a great deal of military history and if I feel the game does not match my mental picture, I add with house rules.
But for playing very long games like MMP's OCS, I much prefer vassal. I do not have to leave anything setup and I can make my move in peace without boring my opponent to death.
I play manual and digital wargames in completely different ways--even if they are on the same topic.
Manual wargames are a social experience, in which the interaction with the other players is a large part of the enjoyment. I like multiplayer games, or even 2-player games played in teams. We trash talk each other. We have loud thematic music playing in the background (I even have an old mac set up as a digital jukebox with period playlists in my gaming room). We've been known to make sound effects when things get blown up. Playing Ride of the Valkyries or Magic Carpet Ride is almost obligatory when conducting airstrikes in Fire in the Lake, for example.
When playing digital games, I always play solo, and I treat it in a much more analytical, puzzle-solving way. The pleasure here isn't derived from interaction with my rival, but from the intellectual puzzle of achieving my objective.
Like for many others the most important thing for me also is the social aspect. I'm one of the lucky ones who have a regular gaming group/club.
I also find boardgames with all their cardboard chits, counters and pieces very relaxing to play. If I have to stare at the computer screen the whole day at work, I much rather do something else with my free time.
I confess that I find myself very pleased by this discussion. Not only for the answers, but for a conversation that gives the lie to the notion that discussion on the internet cannot be civil and thoughtful.
If I can aggregate the responses, then, we play a boardgames when PC games are available on the same topic because:
1. Humans are social beasts: Certainly stipulated, and it's probably why so many of us make our way to national conventions like Historicon, CSW, &c., viz.: we're not fortunate enough to have a game group locally that's willing to put up with learning, say, OCS.
2. The aesthetic: Here I have no riposte other than the convenience factor. Big, lovely maps and pretty chits are fine things indeed.
3: The tactile factor: I certainly understand this, but how much of this is nostalgia? Do 20-somethings say the same? I honestly don't know.
4: All equal, PCs are, for some, "work" things and we'd prefer to disassociate ourselves from them as we play.
I must dissent -- and I acknowledge that this is courses for horses -- from the desireability of house ruling. First, all games -- and I am perhaps perversely absolutist about this -- must be played first as given. I even dislike playing with optional rules out of the box. I believe each game designer is trying to make an argument, a point, and it should be heard, for good or ill, as made. Once the argument has been heard and deliberated, I tend to either embrace the argument or, if the deficiencies are great ones, walk away entirely. I have far too many games to put up with poor design. Worse, house rules break up the community surrounding games in a way that a niche like wargaming can poorly afford. I have been at conventions -- albeit miniature gaming conventions -- where events didn't even start on time because players and the umpire were arguing about why certain house rules should be used or not. Heck, you can get into quite a fuss about which optional rules to use in Tiller's various games and those aren't wired into the game until after an awful lot of deliberation and debate.
I now have TWO, not one but TWO, other questions I wish to post shortly stemming from all this...have to get my post count up somehow...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
not only do you have two more questions, but you need to figure out how to get that extensive Facebook discussion moved over here so you only have to check things in one place
Quote from: Cyrano on October 12, 2014, 10:32:27 AM
First, all games -- and I am perhaps perversely absolutist about this -- must be played first as given. I even dislike playing with optional rules out of the box. I believe each game designer is trying to make an argument, a point, and it should be heard, for good or ill, as made. Once the argument has been heard and deliberated, I tend to either embrace the argument or, if the deficiencies are great ones, walk away entirely.
I actually feel this way about PC games as well. I strongly prefer to play a game unmodded at least the first time through (eg. Skyrim, Silent Hunter series, Total War series). I feel like the designers have a way they want me to experience the game and I shouldn't muck around with that until I've seen
their version of the game through.
For me, there is no greater gaming pleasure than to face off against my opponents across a table. In addition to the already mentioned social aspects (who doesn't like hanging out with their buds for a few hours?), I enjoy the challenge of playing face-to-face, judging my opponents reactions, trying to get in their heads a bit while keeping them out of mine.
I play with a great group of guys who are all very bright and competitive. Much of the fun we all derive from the experience is the "game within the game". Trying to psyche each other out a bit, recognizing each others strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies and then trying to make it use of it during the game (in a friendly way).
I will not, Brant, be held accountable for your wanton cross-posting.
Sweet fancy Jeebus...
Best,
JIm
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on October 13, 2014, 10:37:20 AMI will not, Brant, be held accountable for your wanton cross-posting.
the
intent was to bring some of that traffic over here.
the
effect however, was far different, though still interesting
Having now had a chance to wade through the responses, my only amendment would be adding the notion that some boardgamers really like the ability to see what's going on "under the hood" which, they feel, PC games can deny them, either due to complexity (WITE?) or design (any number of games). I wonder how much of this relates to a deep-seated, lizard-brain type suspicion that the PC is "cheating", even in its generation of random numbers. I'm not talking here about "full-knowledge" cheating like the A.I. from "Warlords" 100 years ago, but a sneaking suspicion that the PCs dice are just a bit loaded...if only because we can't see them bounce about our table top.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I just like the idea of physically touching the maps and counters. Also it's relaxing to not stare at a computer screen and just cut out and clip counters. I need to find me a union job clipping counters.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 14, 2014, 08:32:45 AM
Having now had a chance to wade through the responses, my only amendment would be adding the notion that some boardgamers really like the ability to see what's going on "under the hood" which, they feel, PC games can deny them, either due to complexity (WITE?) or design (any number of games). I wonder how much of this relates to a deep-seated, lizard-brain type suspicion that the PC is "cheating", even in its generation of random numbers. I'm not talking here about "full-knowledge" cheating like the A.I. from "Warlords" 100 years ago, but a sneaking suspicion that the PCs dice are just a bit loaded...if only because we can't see them bounce about our table top.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Perhaps. But I think it's a case of basic curiosity of how something works.
It's also probably a (sub)conscious desire to create boardgames. By becoming familiar with boardgame mechanics you can get right down to sampling a variety of methods and concepts, what you like or dislike, and how they can be used to model stuff with little fuss. A bit of an education in raw game mechanics and individual "flow". I found coding on computers mind numbingly boring, and distracting from such things, with what little experience I had with it.
I've never really worry about AI "cheating". Years of experience with dice driven results has taught me that hugely improbable results will happen, most often when it seems like I can't possibly fail. The phrase 'just don't roll a 1" will haunt me to my grave.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 07, 2014, 09:14:58 AM
1: Where to place the game such that it won't be hated by loved ones, assaulted by children or pets, and yet accessible by all who wish to play it?
Priorities. If board gaming is important to your life, you arrange it to support your hobby.
Depending on where you live, getting the space for a decent table will probably cost less
than maintaining a good gaming rig for the newest and greatest.
Quote2: Assuming one can digest the rules -- "Case Blue" runs to how many pages? -- each one of us can tell long stories about having hours of play undone by misunderstanding one obscure but important rule in paper games.
Why take such a monster as the focus? But, IF you must, you're not going to get anywhere near
the experience of having that whole map laid out in front of you on some computer screen.
As to fucking up a rule, so what? I consider the cost of such an oops to be well worth it when
compared to the inability to tinker with a piece of software easily. If I want to do some what if -
or even more difficult to tinker with the core system, I'm SOL on most computer games without
learning something a lot more complicated than the rules to Case Blue.
Quote3: I like to consider myself a social fellow, but do you all have such a circle of friends that permit playing games of this magnitude face-to-face?
CSW Expo. 'nuff said.
But, what 'social' aspect is there to being on the computer playing?
Quote4: In know some folks have taken up Vassal as a remedy to some of the above (notably not #2), but this only adds to my perplexity as now you're definitely playing a PC game, only now without rules arbitration.
Gotta agree here. I find the idea of playing on the little screen impossible to comprehend for anything more than a
fairly tiny game.
And that's really the heart of it. I get just about nothing from playing on the computer.
Even games that I really like on the computer (EU and the paradox line) only served to
placate me temporarily when I couldn't have board games, due to life choices. They drew me
in and had an unpleasant control of my life to a degree which playing a board game solo never has.
A very unpleasant feeling - probably what any addiction feels like.
Gotta agree here. I find the idea of playing on the little screen impossible to comprehend for anything more than a
fairly tiny game.
And that's really the heart of it. I get just about nothing from playing on the computer.
Even games that I really like on the computer (EU and the paradox line) only served to
placate me temporarily when I couldn't have board games, due to life choices. They drew me
in and had an unpleasant control of my life to a degree which playing a board game solo never has.
A very unpleasant feeling - probably what any addiction feels like.
I think you're mad re: the trade-off between forgetting rules and the inability to tinker with PC simulations, but that's assuredly courses for horses. The above, though, is something I've been staring at with the suspicion that it's true and I want to know why. I've put over 100 hours into several of the TW series. I've got I can't tell you how many hours into various MMOs (from MUDs through LOTOR). I've played the Dawn of War series until Hell wouldn't have it. And, yet, last night, when I finished my fourth game of Marvel Heroscape with my son...each game taking less than an hour or so...I felt far more rewarded. Heck, when I rage quit DAoC, I nearly swore off the form. Surely this is the social business you otherwise suggest is not your particular cup of tea?
...and the addiction business...
More thinking required.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
The addiction is a big part. If I play computer games, even turn-based ones, I simply
CAN'T break myself away easily. There have been a few solo boardgames that that happens
with (18xx back when I was first getting into it for example), but usually I take them in
bite-sized pieces.
I end up cranky and irritable from playing these things, and they degrade my life
overall. Obviously, that doesn't happen to everyone. But outside of a great feeling
when I first get hooked on the games, overall it's just miserable.