What gets your attention about a game?

[bayonetbrant]

Mikeck - what's your opinion of Panther Games' stuff?  The lower-level AI you're talking about is kinda their schtick.

[tgb]

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.

[Nefaro]

. 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

[Nefaro]

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.

[mikeck]

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)

[Martok]

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. 

[panzerde]

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.

[mikeck]

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

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

[panzerde]

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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  :)