2 different kinds of gamers?

[mrmitchell]

jamski where is apolytropolis

[Jamski]

Whoops.

/me heads over to the right thread *

-Jam

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski


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.

ah youve said it perfectly - AND WHY - What Civ is about is the AND WHY part.

Now you might ask can you learn this in a game that actually models real events - I would say NO. The whole point of the view of history which i think civ (at least Civ2) espouses is only completly visible in the context of WORLD history. To show how from any particular starting point, there are certain forces that drive forward to the end (of history, that is) you simply cant show that with a "short" period game, and certainly not one filled with "history on rails" events (as I gather EU2 is) . And as has been clearly demonstrated elsewhere, you cant make a playable, commercially viable 6000 year game that historically accurate. USing random maps is even more powerful - since it enables one to see the same dynamics play out on a different geography. The names of rulers is also quite irrelevant - individual rulers simply dont play any role in Civ2, nor is it apparent that they should from this point of view.

Let me put it this way - if you believed that WW2 was unwinnable by the Germans for largescale economic reasons, and wanted a game that showed that, would it make sense to develope a platoon level game with accurate tank stats??? I think not, youd develop something like HOI, but balanced to make your point. Civ is NOT a game about rulers, and only partly a game about geographical determinism - it is largely a game about the underlying, impersonal forces of history. Could it be more accurate in many respects while keeping to that vision = perhaps, but for a commercially viable game, it comes close to that goal.

The only way youre ever gonna convince me im wrong on this is if you can Brian Reynolds to come along and tell me it aint so.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
Civ3 is not, and was never intended to be, a historical game. Its an abstracted strategy game with a quasi-historical background. As you can see, simply renaming the units and buildings and changing the interface a bit creates SMAC. The game itself is a simple strategy game covered with a thin layer of historical varnish. No real historical events happen in Civ, and the "historical characters" are simple stereotypes.

See?

-Jam

[Zero]

I dont think there is such thing as historical games. As soon as you start the game, you have choice to not take the path of history.

[Zero]

Originally posted by 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.

Not bad. But there are few things youve overlooked.

Not all "sunday gamers" are scrubs. and vice versa.

I have a friend who's been playing Soul Calibur I-II with me for about 2 years now. He seriously wants to get better and motivation to beat me has been keeping him playing. But he's just not smart. he doesnt understand the subtle mind game and strategy i use against him. Even as Im describing it. He's been slow to learn, and he still sucks. He plays it alot... so hes no sunday gamer, but still a scrub.

In another case, my other friend is just brilliant. I tell him one thing and he can innovate 5 more on his own. He's not much of a gamer, but he plays soul calibur with me sometimes. Just when he plays, he plays to "master", but doesnt play as much as you call "gamer".

I just divide gamers into simple 3 groups

Ones who seek recreation
Ones who seek realism/fantasy/(escape from reality)
Ones who seek competition/challenge/sportsmanship

[Jamski]

You forgot the 4th catagory, beyond competition - Ones who seek perfection. The gaming monks.

-Jam

[Zero]

nah that fall under competition/challenge/sportmanship.
after all, perfection is a competition agst urself and challenge to you.

Note you can be a sunday gamer, or hardcore gamer and still fall under all 3 generalized categories. You could be cutting class to play Mario sunshine for 19 straight hours, but what youre seeking from it is recreation... You could be playing chess once every two months but when you play you like learning strategy from the hallmates that play the 24/7... You could be a sunday gamer wanting to experience WW2 Dday invasion thru FPS because you had long workday, you could be a hardcore gamer wanting civil war detail to be perfect cause ur a history buff.... etc etc etc

[mrmitchell]

Zero, your categories are better than mine.

I would like to add that it can be seen as related to sunday gamer/regular gamer. Sunday gamers are more likely to seek recreation, and regular gamers more likely to seek challenge. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are in the tiny minority, AFAI can tell.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski


See?

-Jam

well yeah, obviously about unit types, leaders, no historical events.

Doesnt answer the question about Hegel, Fukiyama, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zero
I dont think there is such thing as historical games. As soon as you start the game, you have choice to not take the path of history.

Oy vey.


Of course. Thats WHY we play a game, to see how we could have changed history. You want to call it an alternate history game, instead of a history game, fine. I think the terminology of calling say, The Ardennes Offensive a history game works fine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Zero, your categories are better than mine.

I would like to add that it can be seen as related to sunday gamer/regular gamer. Sunday gamers are more likely to seek recreation, and regular gamers more likely to seek challenge. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are in the tiny minority, AFAI can tell.

well yeah, and that distinction is one thats emphasized by many here, and is the particular concern of some posters (wont say who ) I was trying to draw a different (if in some ways analogous) distinction.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski


See?

-Jam

Reverse it - alter the units, change the interface, and you can make SMAC into Civ. Does that mean that SMAC is NOT a sci fi game??? Does it mean that SMAC is not a game about philosophy? Is the ethics of scientific progress, the relation of science and society, and the relation of man and the environment, not a theme of SMAC. Is all that stuff just a veneer for the unit workshop, borders, and all the abstract gameplay features? I doubt Brian would say that. We dont expect a sci fi game to follow a specific set of sci fi events -for obvious reasons - in the case of SMAC we have certain THEMES. Well why should a history game have to follow specific events, etc?? If it showcases historical themes and the philosophy of history??? Civ2 is a lot more subtle than SMAC - it doesnt rub the philosophy in your face, with tech quotes from philosophers, and "will to power" as a tech - but i insist Civ2 is a Hegelian game, as SMAC is a Nietschean game,
and i await a quote from BR denying its a Hegelian game, not one making the obvious point that its not historical in the way that EU2 is. I would think its obvious by now that I understand that. Did you read my column?

[Jamski]

...but i insist Civ2 is a Hegelian game, as SMAC is a Nietschean game,

I wouldn't disagree with that. But being based on a "Tory historical ideal" doesn't make a game historical. How CAN it be historical if it has no actual history in it?

But we're deviating far from the main topic - different classes of gamers. Or are we? Perhaps the seeds of Civ's popularity was the mixture of simple abstracted rules combined with comic book history that everyone can relate to. Its a real Disney version of history really. And Disney make LOT'S of money because people can relate to what they see. Its the appeal of the familiar. Why do you think people eat McDonalds? Because they make the best burgers? No, because they are familiar and everywhere.

The "two kind of people" are those that are happy with what they have, and those that are not happy with what they have. The set is complete with these two subsets. Those that are happy with what they have like to play games that are more abstract. Those that are not, try to play games that are more realistic - they are trying to change the world. Civ is unusual because it places familar elements in an unfamilar way - Ghandi leads a panzer attack on the Egyptian Communist Empire, for example.

Reverse it - alter the units, change the interface, and you can make SMAC into Civ. Does that mean that SMAC is NOT a sci fi game???

No, of course its a sci fi game.

Does it mean that SMAC is not a game about philosophy?

No, it means SMAC is a game about variables. Its pure algebra. The variables just have names. But it would be the same game if a base was called a Brothel, Impact weapons were called Blue Moods etc...

Is all that stuff just a veneer for the unit workshop, borders, and all the abstract gameplay features?

Yes. Most games are just a veneer of "style" over a real mathematical, logical or geometrical framework which is the actual game. I HATE to play games where I'm told "The unit is quite fast with good rate of fire." I LOVE to play games where I'm told the unit moves 5 hexes in 4 seconds and fires once every 2.5 seconds. Yes, I was the kid that took his dad's watch apart to see how it worked. For me the real game is the play of the numbers, and the increadable way the human brain can work it all out WITHOUT ACTUALLY CALCULATING IT to get a good result. Dune 2 REALLY IS the same game as Warcraft 3. Just some of the variables contain different values.

-Jam

[CygnusZ]

What Lord of the Mark is saying is pretty important. Video games are not released in a social void, but rather in an existing society built to reaffirm our system of values. In nearly every game (some exceptions exist of course, Tetris and Dance Dance Revolution come to mind) there are built in meanings and morals that we are supposed to learn. Even a game as outright immoral as Grand Theft Auto 3 teaches us that through hard work we can make our way from rags to riches. Civilization has a number of morals, including the eventual dominance of democracy over all other inferior types of government. It is significant that the condictions of victory in Civilization were either flight to Alpha Centauri or global conquest. In the newest incarnation of the game it is possible to win by subujgating the world by sheer force of culture (no doubt influenced by the growth of transnational space in the real world). A game of Civilization created in Saudi Arabia would have very different ideas about how effectively each government functions and what constitutes "victory".

It is interesting how video games, in the very least, reflect our value system.