What gets your attention about a game?

MetalDog · July 20, 2014, 12:05:26 PM

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?

Yskonyn · July 20, 2014, 12:45:48 PM

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. :)

Asid · July 20, 2014, 12:51:59 PM

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

Queeg · July 20, 2014, 01:02:09 PM

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.

Nefaro · July 20, 2014, 01:18:19 PM

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.

TheCommandTent · July 20, 2014, 01:34:04 PM

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.

MengJiao · July 20, 2014, 04:57:32 PM

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).

undercovergeek · July 20, 2014, 05:02:17 PM

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

MetalDog · July 20, 2014, 05:16:50 PM

Bit bloodthirsty...innit, geek?

undercovergeek · July 20, 2014, 05:48:08 PM

Lmao...... you haven't met the asshole from accounts!

-budd- · July 20, 2014, 05:48:26 PM

Fun....in what ever form it comes........O and something that doesn't take 3 weeks to learn would be nice.

W8taminute · July 20, 2014, 05:52:19 PM

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.

Darkspire · July 20, 2014, 05:58:52 PM

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

bbmike · July 20, 2014, 06:19:05 PM

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.

mikeck · July 20, 2014, 07:46:26 PM

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