2 different kinds of gamers?

[lord of the mark]

war gamers (as in history war gamers, as in grognards) versus everyone else

war gamers - subject matter as important as gameplay - "i want a Pacific campaign game, im tired of the eastern front'
Everyone else - gameplay trumps setting - "i want a 3d first person game with easy multiplay"


War gamers - accurate modeling of setting (usually history) is key measure of gameplay
Everyone else - "fun" is key measure of gameplay

War gamers - this is a way of learning about historic events
Everyone else - its just entertainment

Wargamers - this matters
Everyone else - its just a game


your thoughts?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


your thoughts?

You're wrong.

And always will be, as long as you try to divide a fanbase that spans all genres from virtual bowling to aircraft simulators into two categories.

[Jamski]

I'm in the "wargamers" catagory. I will play games I KNOW are badly made, just because I like the setting, or they are accurate. I play Steel Panthers WAW PBEM, for example. That's an awful, clumsy, ugly, slow BRILLIANT ACCURATE WW2 game.

-Jam

[rah]

I've been a classic wargamers for many decades. BUT, the more realistic historical games are, the less even they are.

SO I played many war games that weren't based on a real battle and are set up that either player has an equal opportunity to win.

But I have learned a lot of history playing historical war games. But it's not required. The fun is more important.

[Jamski]

BUT, the more realistic historical games are, the less even they are.

I always liked uneven games. Why SHOULD a game be even always? Its kinda fun to play as Custer, and see how many you can take with you. And who wouldn't want to defend the walls of Constantinople against the Turks?

-Jam

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Jamski

I always liked uneven games. Why SHOULD a game be even always? Its kinda fun to play as Custer, and see how many you can take with you. And who wouldn't want to defend the walls of Constantinople against the Turks?

-Jam

I sometimes get a kick out of playing as the Greeks and conquering Persia or whatever.

That said, I couldn't care less whether or not the soldiers are wearing real Hellenistic era clothes, or that the RCP-120 assault rifle doesn't recoil.

[rah]

They don't always have to be even. An I too liked to play them for the challange, but the game doesn't have the same replay value if it's not even.

It was like playing the confederates in Gettsyburg (AH board game) The only way to win was to (please forgive possible fuzzy memory) attack in the first few turns, win all your attacks and block the north's reinforcement points. If anything went wrong in the first 5 turns, game over.

[Jamski]

Heh, the fun in Gettsyburg was losing with STYLE

-Jam

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


You're wrong.

And always will be, as long as you try to divide a fanbase that spans all genres from virtual bowling to aircraft simulators into two categories.

Oh, i think there are more than 2 categories. For example there's skankys category of "sunday gamers" - leading to 3 or even 4 (2 X2) categories.


Have you ever spent time in a wargame forum, or read CSIPG.warhistorical????? Do you deny that there are folks like ive described above - who dont take "its just a game" seriously as an argument? have you read the bitter discussions of the flaws in the combat model of TOAW?

Im not saying such folks only play wargames - you will note that in my list of distinctions above i didnt mention what genre people played. And im quiute open to the idea that there are at least a few people with the traits i describe who play other games, and dont play wargames. I used the wargames label only becuase that is the genre where these are traits of a major part of the fanbase, and at least some of the traits are fundamental the genre.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Crimson Sunrise


I sometimes get a kick out of playing as the Greeks and conquering Persia or whatever.

That said, I couldn't care less whether or not the soldiers are wearing real Hellenistic era clothes, or that the RCP-120 assault rifle doesn't recoil.

there are different levels of historical accuracy. Thats why i didnt simply use the term grognards - i think there are people willing to put up with minor innaccuracies and a fair degree of abstraction (which grognards wouldnt put up with) but who still fit better in with wargamers than the opposing viewpoint.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski

I always liked uneven games. Why SHOULD a game be even always? Its kinda fun to play as Custer, and see how many you can take with you. And who wouldn't want to defend the walls of Constantinople against the Turks?

-Jam

quite a lot of wargames adjust their victory conditions to create balance, IIUC (well i know lots of board wargames do) Whether that works for you, gets again to your approach to gaming, willing suspension of disbelief, etc. Can you really think of yourself as a Byzantine general, quite aware of the odds against you, and take satisfaction in doing better than the historical Byzantine general did? Or do you just want to achieve a conventional victory, without regard to what was historically possible??? When you play a WW2 strategic game, and its possible not merely to do better than Germany did, but to invade England, do you say "wow, a really well balanced game" or do you say "what an unrealistic piece of trash" ?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Do you deny that there are folks like ive described above

I deny that there are only folks like you've described. I fit into both of your categories.

I like historically accurate games (or realistic, or just believable, depending on the genre). Setting is important to me - it has to be something that appeals to me or I won't like the game at all, but gameplay is just as important, of course. Games have to be fun or what's the point? I like games with atmosphere that let me get into them, and I don't tend to say "it's just a game". I like 'unbalanced' games too.

Mostly, I'm a roleplayer - not a wargamer, or an everyone else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


I deny that there are only folks like you've described. I fit into both of your categories.

I like historically accurate games (or realistic, or just believable, depending on the genre). Setting is important to me - it has to be something that appeals to me or I won't like the game at all, but gameplay is just as important, of course. Games have to be fun or what's the point? I like games with atmosphere that let me get into them, and I don't tend to say "it's just a game". I like 'unbalanced' games too.

Mostly, I'm a roleplayer - not a wargamer, or an everyone else.

I dont think i said that wargamers dont care about fun at all - a game has to be playable, obviously. I said (or at least meant) that to them, accuracy was an important part of the "fun" as opposed to people who dont understand why historical accuracy matters.

I realize that the traits i describe dont just apply to people who play historical wargames - as you point out, they are applicable in other genres and settings. However, as far as i can tell its only in the war gaming community where these concerns are taken seriously as a matter of course.

[Cookie Monster]

I'm a wargamer but not a grognard. There is a big difference. I have found that all the wargames I've played are fun. Historical setting, gameplay, everything has been fun for me. (http://www.rong-chang.com/)


Now I also enjoy the more mainstream games as well like C3C, RoN, Medieval Total War. I even like PS2 GTA:VC. But I'm definately not into most shooters or mario type games. For me that's boring no matter how good gameplay is.

[quantum_mechani]

I'm a big fan of accurate war games, unfortunately I'm not very interested in the world war I and II eras, in which 90% of such games seem to be set. Does anyone know of earlier era (espiecally pre-medieval) complex games?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
I'm a big fan of accurate war games, unfortunately I'm not very interested in the world war I and II eras, in which 90% of such games seem to be set. Does anyone know of earlier era (espiecally pre-medieval) complex games?

Never played them, but there's the great battles series (of caesar, alexander, etc) read somewhere that they were relatively simple.


You might try your own thread on the subject, since not everyone would look here. I was more interested here in the philosophy debate we're having - i would like to see more threads about wargames.

[Jamski]

Can you really think of yourself as a Byzantine general, quite aware of the odds against you, and take satisfaction in doing better than the historical Byzantine general did?

In a word, yes. Not to mention the pleasure if all the weapons and units are correct, the map is accurate, the leaders and generals are in the right places and the effects of weather on bow fire are calculated

-Jam

[DrSpike]

I respect that some players play for historical content, but have always been a gameplay advocate myself. For me game balance must come first, and introducing something that isn't entirely accurate that improves game balance is usually a good thing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by rah
I've been a classic wargamers for many decades. BUT, the more realistic historical games are, the less even they are.

The sides won't be even, but the victory conditions can be set in such a way that both sides have an even chance to win.

[Urban Ranger]

It's not that simple. First of all, there is a large overlap between the two groups. Secondly, what is "historically accurate?" IOW, is a corp/army level WWII Eastern Front game historical accurate? Do supply rules need to be explicit or can they be abstracted? Thirdly, what about wargames based on future or hypothetical worlds, e.g. GDW's Fifth Frontier War? Are those accurate?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's not that simple. First of all, there is a large overlap between the two groups. Secondly, what is "historically accurate?" IOW, is a corp/army level WWII Eastern Front game historical accurate? Do supply rules need to be explicit or can they be abstracted? Thirdly, what about wargames based on future or hypothetical worlds, e.g. GDW's Fifth Frontier War? Are those accurate?

1. yeah theres overlap. the whole world is shades of grey. I think the archetypes are illuminating though - what i was getting it is how an approach to gaming that i had before i even started playing PC games was seen as like something from outerspace by many gamers.

3. Corps level ok - sure why not? As long as theres some justification for the corps attributes. (I dont see that the higher level attributes have to be based on full modeling of lower level units - though IIUC thats something of a trend.) similarly i have no problem wiht abstracting supply, IF it works, and doesnt lead to weird ahistorical stuff going on. Abstraction is good. Thats why i tried to avoid simply using the term grognard above. The points I wanted to make - the general concern to have a historically accurate game, goes far beyond the kind of people who get bent out fo shape because the a game made a minor mistake in armor angle, or whatever. In fact one of my motivations is some old debates about Civ2 - a game with no supply lines, and very unrealistic movement, not a war game at all, but with some very IMPORTANT historical lessons, which i thought were being diluted by some of the Civ3 changes - when i raised these I got the usual "its only a game, fun over all, you want history read a book" type stuff - Im not talking about a genre, so much as a mindset - one thats applicable to TBS and other games that arent historical wargames strictly speaking.

3. Other settings - I presume this could come up in other settings as well, especially near future sci-fi

[Jamski]

Civ games are neither historical OR wargames. They're Civ games. Everything is so abstracted. This is why they are popular - they combine elements of puzzle, tactics, management etc. but with such a high level of abstraction that it is possible for them to cover this huge scope.

A wargame has to get the fighting right IMHO. The rest is just fluff. A historical game has to get the history right. A historical wargame has to get both right. Hard to do.

But the problem is that accuracy is a slippery slope of diminishing returns.
Examples of increasing complexity :

• The game has a unit called "tanks" with simple stats (ADM)
• The game has heavy, light and meduim tanks with (ADM)
• The game has all the main tank models for the different sides at that point in history.
• Each tank model has stats based on barrel length, armour thickness and speed
• Add stats for turning circle, armour angle and ammunition.
• Add supply rules, petrol consuption, rate of accelleration and weather.
• Include all variant models of these tanks.
• Include crews and orgainsations accurate to the time period.
• Make all the maps 100% accurate.
• Get the name and age of every person involved in that battle.

I don't know where the line is where the designer can say "That's accurate enough"

-Jam

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski
Civ games are neither historical OR wargames. They're Civ games.
-Jam

Please see the following column:

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/183_hegel.shtml



In this regard I am very UNgrognard - the point of history in a history game is teach something about history - a strategic level game should teach you about the dilemmas STRATEGIC level decision makers faced - not those that tactical level decision makers faced. Ditto for operational level, grand strategic, etc.

Civ is not a history game in the sense that EU is - it doesnt model a specific period of history - but the attitude that you CAN learn something from a game, and in this case something about history, can be applied to it. I realize Im in something of a minority on this - both the " i want fun, not a lesson" crowd and the "it aint worth bothering with if it gets armor specs wrong" crowd are firm that Civ aint a history game - in both cases from a mistaken view of what history is really about, i think.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
war gamers (as in history war gamers, as in grognards) versus everyone else

war gamers - subject matter as important as gameplay - "i want a Pacific campaign game, im tired of the eastern front'
Everyone else - gameplay trumps setting - "i want a 3d first person game with easy multiplay"

That sounded like a horrible example of gameplay emphasis. Changing campaign doesnt necessarily affect gameplay. It does affect look/history/aesthetic of the game though.

War gamers - accurate modeling of setting (usually history) is key measure of gameplay
Everyone else - "fun" is key measure of gameplay

War gamers - this is a way of learning about historic events
Everyone else - its just entertainment

Wargamers - this matters
Everyone else - its just a game


your thoughts?

Sounds like you're talking more about kinds of people that want realism/history VS fantasy. Im more toward liking games that are unreal because gameplay gets boring when games get too real to appease demand for realism.

[Nostromo]

"Wargamer" isn't general enough. How would you classify people who play Flight Simulator? Or people who play Europa Universalis or Victoria? They're not wargames, but people who love those games are pretty anal about historical detail, just like grognards.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo
"Wargamer" isn't general enough. How would you classify people who play Flight Simulator? Or people who play Europa Universalis or Victoria? They're not wargames, but people who love those games are pretty anal about historical detail, just like grognards.

i agree with you, the Paradox games have shown a market for historically accurate strategy games focusing on specific periods, other than war games. I dont know what broad term to use - serious gamers?? What do you suggest?

[Zero]

Originally posted by nostromo
"Wargamer" isn't general enough. How would you classify people who play Flight Simulator? Or people who play Europa Universalis or Victoria? They're not wargames, but people who love those games are pretty anal about historical detail, just like grognards.

Well grognards or whatever that is.. isnt that basically wargamers that desire realism? So than a broader category of "Gamers who desire realism" would accomodate that category.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


i agree with you, the Paradox games have shown a market for historically accurate strategy games focusing on specific periods, other than war games. I dont know what broad term to use - serious gamers?? What do you suggest?

Serious gamers wouldn't do. After all, chess players are a pretty serious lot. One thing wargamers and EU players have in common is this: they want an accurate simulation. The more accurate the better. So I would suggest to call them simulation gamers, or simgamers Of course, that would also include those who play Flight simulator or any other simulation. If you don't like that, you could always call them strategic simulation gamers, or stratsim gamers.

[mrmitchell]

First division level:
SUNDAY GAMERS and GAMERS.
"Gamers" are fellows that play their games, master them, and play them very often.

"Sunday gamers" play games because they are fun--not because they know how to play them, or the games kick ass. Sunday gamers are preferable to regular gamers because Sunday gamers have taken a shower at one point or another in their lives.

Then, another division would be the type of game they like. RTS/TBS, FPS, Simulation would be the three major parts. Many FPS players, and depending upon its geekiness RTS/TBS players, fall in the "regular gamer" category. Sunday gamers flock to simulations because they are generally easier, goal-less, and have a noticeably less painful learning curve.

The last type of division you might want to consider is their sociality--I know there's a far better word, but if I knew words, then my name would be Noah Webster--for example, a gamer that immerses himself in the culture of the game or its genre would be a regular gamer, whereas a person who games for fun or casually are sunday gamers.

[Jamski]

firm that Civ aint a history game - in both cases from a mistaken view of what history is really about, i think.

LotM, with the greatest respect, I think you're making an error. What is history really about, if not the accurate story of what happened in the past, and why? One thing the Civ games do not deal with is history. They use made-up maps, have rulers that live for 6,000 years, etc etc etc. History is the record of what actually happened, not what could have happened if.

Sunday gamers have taken a shower at one point or another in their lives.

Damm, I'm a Sunday gamer. I had a shower before Xmas.

-Jam