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]

Re: 2 different kinds of gamers?

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]

Re: Re: 2 different kinds of gamers?

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]

Re: Re: Re: 2 different kinds of gamers?

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 different kinds of gamers?

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?