c184# GAMES I'VE GOT BUT HAVE YET TO "GET"

[MarkG]

<A href="/misc/column/184_gamer.shtml" target="_top">184# GAMES I'VE GOT BUT HAVE YET TO "GET"</a><BR>
<i>Sometimes things dont turn out good when you buy a game...</i>

by "The Rusty Gamer"

[connorkimbro]

If i buy a game, and can't get into it, or if i do get into it, but don't like it, i take it back. Of course, I give it a few days, maybe even a week or so. . but unless i feel DRAWN to the game, i'll quickly be exchanging it for another.

[SandMonkey]

Gettysburg

I've played this game a bunch of times. I personally find it to be fun, although I admit its one of the few RTS games that i own. I actually even like Gettysburg! enough to buy Antietam!, but enough of that...

I did actually ge "into" this game. Its fun to see how much you can just cream the computer player in certain battles. There have been times when i've forced over 1/3 of the computers army to surrender. That's a whole crapload of points

[d_dudy]

he'll have to quit his computer game habit if screenwritting doesn't make as much as programming.

what a damn waste of money

[Father Beast]

wonder why this is in the Apolyton forum rather han he other games forum

It seems this fellow doesn't get a lot of wargames. In reading this article, I have to wonder if wargames are really what he's into, or just what he thinks he ought to be into.

I know that I don't get turned on by wargames. I don't even like the war part of civilization. I would never even buy almost all the games he mentions.

[Bleyn]

Gettysburg

I'm another that gets this game. And I do play it on occasion even now. But I can see where it can be confusing to people.

I would guess that what is perhaps potentially the most confusing thing about this game is that it isn't really about damaging the enemy. Its really about the art of manuveur and breaking the enemy's morale. Yes, you do score points for casulties, but typically nowhere near the points that can be achieved by holding or taking the victory point locations, or by forcing a regiment to surrender. And trying to take the battle to the enemy too hard and pushing beyond where you should go can be dangerous in Gettysburg. More than once I've ended up sacrificing some of my margin of victory by pressing the enemy too hard and getting some of my troops killed when I had already achieved the victory.

I suppose this is what all really good wargames are about, its probably just a bit confusing to people mostly exposed to games like most RTS games where morale is not a factor. I mean when was the last time you had to worry about an Orc Grunt or a Zergling refusing attack when you told it to.

I will admit I've not played RTS games like AoE or Total Annihilation, but have any of these styles of RTS games ever really implimented morale? It would make for an interesting twist on a game. I can see trying to throw a bunch of grunts at a fortified strongpoint and having them refuse because they don't have the support they want. Hmmmm....

[War4ever]

Good Article...... i suffer from similar poor judgement..... however with the advent of the net.....i now give games a trial run before i buy... i got tired of a collection i never play and fed up with sh!tty games i couldn't get into (admittedly some i just never really gave the time too)

Civ I&II are the only two games which have completely engulfed me to the point of just one more turn.....

other games can be fun for awile but inevitably they fall short

[Mihai]

That guy has too much money to spend! I think that after you buy 10 games or so, you should find the kind of games you like (they are enough categories)
Personally I like when the games have inside a XXXpedia, since I buy only pirate copies, without manuals.

Of topic - What's the difference between "Banned" smilie and "Unbanned" smilie? They look the same to me.

[lord of the mark]

The guy owns Simcity 2000, doesnt play it, then goes and buys simcity3000

Either he's lying, or money is burning a hole in his pocket - in which case I would be happy to post a list of worthy charities, to which he could contribute whenever he feels like spending $50 US on a game that is a sequel to one he owns but doesnt play.

(Sorry to dis a fellow columnist, but this was too much)

LOTM

[Bleyn]

LOTM, I could see someone owning a game, not really playing it much, yet still buying the sequel. Sometimes you try the sequel hoping it will be better than the previous game.

I'd done that with SC3k myself. I'd played SC2k on other peoples computers before. Knew that although it was amusing, it wasn't likely to be a game I'd play a lot. But I got SC3k anyway. I've played it a little bit, but not much. I miss the financing cheat from SC2k. Though, I at least, did not get SC3kU knowing that I wasn't likely to play it.

BTW, if you read closely, he doesn't say he never played SC2k. He more implies that he played it about as much as he played SC3k.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Bleyn
LOTM, I could see someone owning a game, not really playing it much, yet still buying the sequel. Sometimes you try the sequel hoping it will be better than the previous game.

I'd done that with SC3k myself. I'd played SC2k on other peoples computers before. Knew that although it was amusing, it wasn't likely to be a game I'd play a lot. But I got SC3k anyway. I've played it a little bit, but not much. I miss the financing cheat from SC2k. Though, I at least, did not get SC3kU knowing that I wasn't likely to play it.

BTW, if you read closely, he doesn't say he never played SC2k. He more implies that he played it about as much as he played SC3k.

He says wrt to SC3K that he never played a "full game through" - im not sure what that means since SC2K, at any rate, is a "software toy" which you play till your city is what you want - there are scenarios, but they're not the heart of the game, and i assume 3k is the same. SO i take it that while he has started playing SC2K he found it boring and turned it off before really getting into it - before "getting it" as the title of the column says. Thats like the difference between someone who never gets the point of Civ and someone who gets it but put its aside because it doesnt have unique units, and goes back to playing AOK or Starcraft - I can see why the latter would buy CIv3, i cant see why the former would. What did he think was different about SC3K that would make him "get" it? A waste disposal model? Buying and selling power to other cities? Better looking graphics? An extra level of density? I "got" SC2K, but put it aside in part because it was impossible to model real cities - largely because of issues with the zone types, worker transport etc. What at first was marvelous (the first PC game i ever owned) lost some of its "suspension of disbelief". I have not bought SC3K in part because the reviews have indicated that it probably doesnt resolve this to any significant degree. I cant beleive someone would buy a sequel to a game they "dont get" when all evidence is that the basic play of the game is going to be similar, and therefore they will continue to "not get" it.


It doesnt have to mean you'll become a fanatic - even at $50 US, you can play for 25 hours total, and youve gotten a pretty good entertainment deal compared to say movie rentals - put i presume someone who "doesnt get" it is getting zero return on the dollar.


The tone of the column is strongly redolent of the kind of guy who says "Ive got a huge pool, and we hardly ever even use it" The sub-text is not "im an unsavvy consumer" its "im so rich i can throw money away, nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!!"

LOTM
(who generally avoids paying more than $20 US for a game)

[rwprice]

I enjoyed reading this article, because I can identify with it. Not with spending so much money, because I only buy games if I can get a real bargain, but with not being able to "get" a game. Unfortunately for me, this is the rule rather than the exception. I'm fairly new to the whole strategy game genre, but I've spent the last year checking out many different strategy games. Incidentally, it was Gettysburg! that started me off on this journey.

I thought Gettysburg was enjoyable, but it didn't suck me in. From there I picked up Age of Empires, but that only frustrated me. Some of the better ones I checked out were Caesar 3 and Railroad Tycoon 2. Then it was Imperialism and Sim City 3000, followed by Red Alert. All of these were intriguing, but still nothing that just grabbed my imagination. Then I found a copy of Civ2: Test of Time. Finally, I thought I'd found what I had been looking for. I quickly picked up a copy of MGE just to be safe. For the last 6 months I've played mostly Civ games. Included in there was the purchase of Alpha Centauri and Call to Power (it was really cheap).

I've enjoyed playing Civ2 and AC, but CtP just didn't have it. But the thing that's still missing for me is the sense of having great fun while playing. Does this mean I'm not cut out for these games? I want to be.

Some of you have asked why someone would continue to buy games he doesn't play. I can answer that from my perspective. Each new purchase holds the possibility of this being "the one" that I'll finally enjoy to the fullest. Sequels offer the promise that the things I didn't like in the previous version have now been fixed. Usually neither of these turn out to be true. For me, it often seems pointless to move units around the screen. It feels like I'm just doing it to be doing it. Where's the fun in that? So, for me, this is what I have to overcome. I plan to keep plugging away, playing the games I have and occasionally adding new ones. Perhaps one day I'll stumble across "the one"!