ask Lord of the Mark - about games

[Zero]

if ur feeling dumb after playing console games then maybe either you just have really bad luck selecting console games... or dont know how to avoid those. Or either that, you are just ignorant of why certain game is good because you dont understand it. and ur playing a game expecting something else, when it wasnt clearly meant for you.

i mean, take street fighter for example. I try showing my eye candy SP playing friends why sf has so competitive and addicting gameplay for old schoolers like me and all they say is:
- "that guy looks ugly... why is the animation sprite messed up when i fireball?",
- "I've seen better looking game that came out 2 yrs before this one",
- "i beat the game and thats it for the ending!?"
-"that thing on his right arm is now on his left! (cause animation just gets mirrored when u face different direction) omg i cant play this horsecrap!"
-"this game sux. all you have to do is mash buttons."

and they drop the game after half an hour of playing it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva
What about Shiva?

I havent played it yet.

Im not done with MI4, and one adventure game at a time is quite enough.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
Which game is most jewish?

I wouldnt know, my gaming interests are not particularly related to my Jewish interests (my interest in Shiva and Divided Ground and some AOE scenarios, aside)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by El_Cid


1)Why are most console games unable to maintain a longterm interest?

2)Why do i feel dumb after playing most console games?

3)Why has console gaming started to dumb down PC gaming?

4)Will we ever see the likes of Xcom, Planetscape, Elite, Fallout, Pirates, EU2, Masters of Magic, Betrayal at Krondor, Darklands again? Or has the "consolification" of gaming doomed us to a future of turgid but sexy looking games?

Not having spent more than a few minutes playing a console, I couldnt begin to answer 1 and 2. It would be pure speculation.

3 and 4 Well I havent played enough post-2003 games (in fact, hardly any) to really say. I will note a few things however. I was hearing cries of PC is domed, consoles are teh future, BEFORE EU2 came out. So without checking out all the post 2003 PC releases for gameplay vs graphics (an interesting possible thread, though) my gut is that we will see more good PC games. Not as many as before, perhaps, but still some.

And I suspect the reasons are not so different on the PC side from the console side - the rapidly improving technology, and the inclination of many purchasers to go for the best looking game, either because they genuinely value the graphics so much, or because its easier to see relative graphics quality than relative gameplay, esp if you dont haunt boards like this. One would expect it to change IF and when Moores law slows down dramatically- I have no expertise to speculate on that, but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting. Or perhaps graphics get so good that theres no more that can be done with them, but I wouldnt count on that either - theres larger screens, potential for multiple screens, etc, etc. What if we end up with the holodeck, but the gameplay is poor?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy
A bit outdated, but what is Imperialism 2 like?

Do you really love spreadsheets, economic input-output tables, etc? Then you will LOVE Imp 2 Really I found the detailed economic model quite lovely, and actually the production values that cover the spreadsheets are not bad for the time it was released. It has some other aspects, diplo, warfare, exploration, but not are particularly strong. And no happiness/internal politics model whatsoever. Other than the economics its a less is more game, which contrasts with a fairly granular economic model. Its kinda fun to play, but there really arent many different ways of winning, even in SP, once you get past the easiest levels. Alot of folks find that quite frustrating, and even I, who had other reasons to like this game, found that placed a limit on replayability.

I dont know of any recent games that are quite like it, and you can probably pick it up pretty cheap (if not close to free) these days, so it might be worth taking for a spin.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ive never played either. Only Pacific war game I bought was Talonsofts Rising Sun, it wouldnt run on my computer (something weird, not a specs issue) and I returned it. Of course it was a tactical game mainly focused on ground combat, I presume WaA and VitP are strategic level naval games. Which do you prefer, and what to do you think of Grigsby's War in the Pacific (?)

They were awesome boardgames by Avalon Hill. Very much strategic with rather large advantages for the allies. I found that a clever German strategy could provide a victory, but the Japanese are pretty well doomed. I have a preference for strategic level games but do like some tactical from time to time. I'd not heard of War in the Pacific before but it sounds interesting.


Edit: Interesting until I saw the $79.99 price, that is.

[Main_Brain]

Hello LotM,

Whats your Opinion on 'Theatre of War'?

Too much detail, too few details?
I would try it myself but the Demo is too big =)


(linkey)

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/index.html

[El_Cid]

Hi Lotm, thanks for the replies you gave to my first batch of questions and i have some more.

1. Do you think it right(morally speaking) that political parties/ideological groups(etc) use gaming, sometimes in very subtle ways/sometimes not, to 'groom' young minds to their point of view?

On one side of this equation we have a game like America's Army - a free fps that is aimed as a recruitment tool for the us army. Mercenaries 2, where you go in and destroy Venezuela. And a whole slew of 'kill bin-laden'/freedom vs terrorism type combat fps games.

On the other side you have games like Ethnic cleansing and a few 'take the side of the terrorist(or freedom fighter) vs American imperialism' type fps games. Both sides of that divide with non compromising attitudes to their particular point of view.

In the middle ground of this 'genre' you have games like Darfur is dying with a much more low key(but also powerful) message.

Is it acceptable to promote views in games that generate hate against another nation/race, even when such views do have legitimate grounds based on real world events past or present?

Does this help promote the building of a peaceful and stable world? And if not then what is the value of such games, and should they be allowed to be made at all?

Or should these games try less to spread hard propaganda and concentrate more on the message of trying to help one another(as in the Dafur is dying browser game?)?

thanks.

[Wiglaf]

why do you care what lotm says about that?

what a weird question, anyway. LOTM WHAT PHILOSOPHER WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO PLAY TURN BASED STRATEGY GAMES, AND IS RTS GOOD FOR WORLD PEACE!?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by El_Cid
Hi Lotm, thanks for the replies you gave to my first batch of questions and i have some more.

1. Do you think it right(morally speaking) that political parties/ideological groups(etc) use gaming, sometimes in very subtle ways/sometimes not, to 'groom' young minds to their point of view?

On one side of this equation we have a game like America's Army - a free fps that is aimed as a recruitment tool for the us army. Mercenaries 2, where you go in and destroy Venezuela. And a whole slew of 'kill bin-laden'/freedom vs terrorism type combat fps games.

On the other side you have games like Ethnic cleansing and a few 'take the side of the terrorist(or freedom fighter) vs American imperialism' type fps games. Both sides of that divide with non compromising attitudes to their particular point of view.

In the middle ground of this 'genre' you have games like Darfur is dying with a much more low key(but also powerful) message.

Is it acceptable to promote views in games that generate hate against another nation/race, even when such views do have legitimate grounds based on real world events past or present?

Does this help promote the building of a peaceful and stable world? And if not then what is the value of such games, and should they be allowed to be made at all?

Or should these games try less to spread hard propaganda and concentrate more on the message of trying to help one another(as in the Dafur is dying browser game?)?

thanks.

"Serious Games" are one of the more interesting things happening in the gaming world.

I posted here some time ago on "A force more powerful" a game about using non-violent means to bring about social change, including color revolution style regime change. It got lost in a debate about neocons.

Re other specifics

1. recruitment, whether you approve of it or not, is not really ideology. I think the Army using a game for that is as legit as any other recruitment tool.

2. It seems inevitable that some games will use contemporary adversaries. I played and enjoyed Red Star/White Star and Sixth Fleet by SPI. Whether the games you mention are strategically realistic, or are gung ho generators of hate, I cant say. Im skeptical that an FPS would handle that issue as well as a TBS, but since the only FPS ive played much is Half Life, I cant be sure.

3. Similarly, a game that presents the real strategic situation our adversaries face would be quite interesting.

4.Im not sure what you mean about hatred based on real events. Sixth Fleet simply let you play as NATO or as the USSR. I dont think Ive yet seen the game that could make a good political argument about which side is right. Im also not sure what that has to do with "hate" During the cold war, I beleived the West was "right" but I didnt hate Russians.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
why do you care what lotm says about that?

what a weird question, anyway. LOTM WHAT PHILOSOPHER WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO PLAY TURN BASED STRATEGY GAMES, AND IS RTS GOOD FOR WORLD PEACE!?

1. Hegel, and he'd play Civ2.

2. RTS is certainly good for world peace. Much like Cheerios, and beer.