Let's Talk: Wargame or Not

[jomni]

Arma is also arcade you know.   Vehicle operation is simplified.  You can be revived from your injuries.   It's just more realistic than the rest.

[bayonetbrant]

I think for me there are 2 keys when evaluating "wargame or not?"

1.  Is the role of combat in the game central to way in which one wins the game?  Seems to me that to be a 'wargame' there's gotta be a 'war' in there somewhere.  It's possible to win a Civ game without ever firing a shot in anger (depending on your barbarian settings) and I know b/c I've done it.  Hard to win a "Call of Duty" game without blowing something up.

2.  Are the individuals sufficiently abstracted that you're not focusing on personal development of a single personality over time?  To me, this is where you cross the line from "wargaming" to "role-playing".  This does not mean that you don't have individual personalities in the game.  You can absolutely have individuals - the squad leaders in, y'know, Squad Leader - but that the focus is on them as leaders in a distinct battle, and not on the continued progression of those leaders across a series of battles.


#1 is going to rule out Twilight Struggle and the Civs, but not Axis and Allies or Third Reich, both of which have a significant economic development model.  Similarly, Eagle Games' War! Age of Imperialism was Risk with combined arms tactics and some technological development grafted on, but had combat as its central priority.

#2 is what shuffles off most FPS games, where the role of the individual in the game is marked by further development of the 'character', even if it is through military prowess.

I absolutely consider the Columbia block games to be wargames.  They have a component-specific approach to tracking damage and to fog of war, but they clearly meet both of the my key considerations when evaluating "wargame or not?"

[Grimnirsson]

Arma is also arcade you know.   Vehicle operation is simplified.  You can be revived from your injuries.

A simulation is still a model of reality and there will be limitations to actually portray real life situations 100%. But ArmA is designed as a military simulation (CoD is not) and therefore has a specific approach even if it is not perfect in what it does. This does not mean it's 'arcade' however. And lets not forget we are still talking about games so ArmA must have some limitations as a sim to be enjoyable as a game. I was simply using it as an example for the three possible approaches in military games today and I think CoD - BF - ArmA work well to show possible differences and nuances when we speak about war(video)games.

[bayonetbrant]

Incidentally, I hate the term ConSim.  It was trying to rename "wargame" by removing the 2 objectionable terms of "war" and "game" from being juxtaposed in a politically incorrect way, and in using synonyms it has essentially changed the overall meaning of the word.  That's an argument for a time when I don't have to feed young'uns

[Grimnirsson]

#2 is what shuffles off most FPS games, where the role of the individual in the game is marked by further development of the 'character', even if it is through military prowess.

There's certainly to consider that these videogames like CoD have both a campaign/story and a multiplayer. The character development you mentioned is only part of the story/campaign if at all (but I wouldn't say it's enough to cross the RPG line, usually the story is paper thin to justify to go and blow stuff up) and plays no role in the multiplayer which is why most people play these games.

[Bison]

I tend to agree with Brant in regard to his concept of the focus on the individual and why CoD is not a wargame.   However in theory a game like Arma or red orchastra could be a well orchestrated tactical sim if there is actual coordination,  but since the more often than not its actually many folks attempting to be Rambo.   While entertaining I tend to not buy into considering them wargames.

[Grimnirsson]

However in theory a game like Arma or red orchastra could be a well orchestrated tactical sim if there is actual coordination,  but since the more often than not its actually many folks attempting to be Rambo.   While entertaining I tend to not buy into considering them wargames.

But then again you are just saying because people don't get the spirit and/or the possibilities of a game and they play it without thinking guns ablaze all the time, a game that very well allows for tactical coordination and as such is a tactical sim - is in fact not one. That's like saying ASL is not a wargame because the last meeting turned into a drinking game where folks threw the counters at each other while having the hex based maps on the wall to throw their darts at. A definition of a wargame should be based on the design and the possibilities of the game, not on the actions of the players.

[MikeGER]

proposal to solve the FPS vs wargame dilemma ?
(turnbased games excluded)

If you can only direct (regardless of the view)  one 'Item' (maybe switch between 'roles' in certain situations, but its mainly only one 'item')  to drive the conflict forward... its not a wargame  (so CoD disqualifies, also all kind of Arcades games, those can be 'crude' simulations.. like Battlezone, Red Baron, StarWars)

If you can direct several 'items' (give orders, influence there ROE, etc) at once, its a wargame.
(so Arma qualifies, you can direct unit on the map and also the AI team-members)

so the DCS World has expanded from a flight-simulation to become a wargame when you were able to not just command your single air asset, but also direct other forces on the F10 map, right ?       

[Bison]

Mike I think you may be on to something.

[bayonetbrant]

to be clear - I didn't rule out all FPS games.  I've got no problem with someone categorizing something like ArmA/VBS as a wargame, wherein the battle is the main focus, and the 'progression' is in the player's mind as he improves his skill at the game, rather than platforming the character in the game through artificially-acquired 'levels' or other improvements.

[Gusington]

How about chess?

[Bison]

How about chess?

Interesting.   I want to say yes, but is it really?   Certainly one of if not the greatest game of strategy ever.

[Barthheart]

How about chess?

Interesting.   I want to say yes, but is it really?   Certainly one of if not the greatest game of strategy ever.

Not a wargame. Way too stylized to represent armed conflict. It's a very deep and engaging strategy game but not a wargame.

[Grimnirsson]

If you can only direct (regardless of the view)  one 'Item' (maybe switch between 'roles' in certain situations, but its mainly only one 'item')  to drive the conflict forward... its not a wargame  (so CoD disqualifies, also all kind of Arcades games, those can be 'crude' simulations.. like Battlezone, Red Baron, StarWars)

If you can direct several 'items' (give orders, influence there ROE, etc) at once, its a wargame.
(so Arma qualifies, you can direct unit on the map and also the AI team-members)

That's interesting Mike, but still...there's rarely a game in such a context where the player is only directing one item all the time...even in CoD you have your weapon, sometimes vehicles, you direct rockets via a tablet, you direct a robot for detecting bombs and so on. You can even command AI soldiers in Black Ops 2. And why would we rule out any attempt to simulate or at least portray what one soldier is doing in such a war context? There's still tactical thinking and acting within a war situation, even if the soldier could only shoot his rifle and use no other 'items'. And where's the line to be drawn? Is directing one tank directing one item? Although you may have to do different things to make the tank work in the situation the game puts you in? :)

[undercovergeek]

How about chess?

http://wargamerscott.tripod.com/swordandshield/id12.html