Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Gameyness

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Gameyness Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Gameyness - 1/4/2010 3:13:26 PM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I keep seeing this term being used and yet there has been no defintion. I suspect it is used mainly to describe tactics that fall outside of some undefined personal rule, or that one doesn't agree with.

Many instances have shown me that it is used hypocritically at best.

Is there some convention somewhere that I've missed that requires players to do only what was historically accomplished by the respective nations? Hmmph.

ToW is first a GAME. Attempts to simulate actual historical events and capabilities are futile as neither the AI or a human opponent will restrict themselves to such absurdities.

If one chooses to attempt a recreation of the conflict as it actually happened, I say Good Luck with that.

The use of the term "gamey/gameyness" in response to a player using a tactic outside of some undefined convention is derogatory towards that player. I don't make the rules and if one has a problem with the way others choose to play, then perhaps they would be well advised to examine their game manual again. Check the advertising for ToW. I didn't read anywhere in either publication that ToW was designed only to accurately re-create the historical WWII conflict in Europe.



_____________________________

Assume nothing.
Post #: 1
RE: Gameyness - 1/4/2010 5:39:32 PM   
AH4Ever


Posts: 628
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: NU JOYZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harbinger

The use of the term "gamey/gameyness" in response to a player using a tactic outside of some undefined convention is derogatory towards that player...

...I didn't read anywhere in either publication that ToW was designed only to accurately re-create the historical WWII conflict in Europe.



It's not at all about accurate recreation of WWII, the designers have stated as much in the past.

It is about the game and how the individual chooses to play it.

When some aspect of the ToW is considered "gamey" among the community, players then come up with a House Rule to deal with it.

I don't feel it the term is meant to insult, it is just to point out something that detracts from the realism or historical flavor.


_____________________________

JJMC

The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.

You weren't there Thursday... You MISSED it!

(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 2
RE: Gameyness - 1/4/2010 6:22:41 PM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

It's not at all about accurate recreation of WWII, the designers have stated as much in the past.


Yet the references to gameyness are based on this same accuracy.

Who decides what is realism or historical flavor? You? Me? Pure perception, purely subjective.

quote:

It is about the game and how the individual chooses to play it.


Exactly. It is this choice that some wish to label as gamey. Not insulting? Not derogatory?

Is there anyone who wishes to be labelled for the way they play the game?

I could submit that since the game wasn't designed to be historically accurate (see post above for confirmation) that those who continue to insist that historical accuracy and capabilities be adhered to, and any style of play outside of these conventions be labelled as gamey are...ignorant.

Would this be acceptable? Of course not.

There is no right way to play the game. We are all bound to the same rules as designed. If one doesn't like the game mechanics and systems, why are they playing? If one feels that there are only certain acceptable methods of play, then I suggest they find an agreeable group of players to game with and keep their mouths shut about how others choose to play.

Fair enough?

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to AH4Ever)
Post #: 3
RE: Gameyness - 1/4/2010 9:08:48 PM   
AH4Ever


Posts: 628
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: NU JOYZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harbinger

Who decides what is realism or historical flavor? You? Me? Pure perception, purely subjective.

...those who continue to insist that historical accuracy and capabilities be adhered to, and any style of play outside of these conventions be labeled as gamey are...ignorant.

There is no right way to play the game.

If one doesn't like the game mechanics and systems, why are they playing?

If one feels that there are only certain acceptable methods of play, then I suggest they find an agreeable group of players to game with and keep their mouths shut about how others choose to play.




Realism is not subjective, something is either realistic or not.

I must admit the term "historical flavor" is not the best choice of words. What I meant by it was how much enjoyment one derives from playing the game, which is certainly subjective.

I don't see how anyone who posts their concerns is insisting that others agree with them or that they are setting parameters of acceptable play. One of the functions of this forum is to find others to play against and then of course agree on how to go about it.

Asking that others keep their mouths shut is downright impolite.

We play because the game calls to us and it will not be denied. As we play we find things that we feel could be improved upon. So we petition the powers that be to consider the possibility. While we wait for a determination, we modify if possible or find some common ground we can proceed from in our quest for perfection.



There is no right way to play the game.


_____________________________

JJMC

The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.

You weren't there Thursday... You MISSED it!

(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 4
RE: Gameyness - 1/4/2010 10:13:00 PM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

Realism is not subjective, something is either realistic or not

Ahem..please do not confuse realism with reality.

In reality, you, I and all others choose to play this game any way we see fit. How realistically we use the game systems to create any kind of historical accuracy and at what level of realism we choose for that accuracy (if any) is completely subjective to our own desires. Not yours or anyone elses.

quote:

Asking that others keep their mouths shut is downright impolite.

I wasn't asking.

How players choose to play the game is not for me to judge.

Calling any player, or labelling any style of play as gamey for any reason is disrespectful, both to the player and the game developers....beyond immature and in my opinion infantile.

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to AH4Ever)
Post #: 5
RE: Gameyness - 1/4/2010 10:17:29 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline 		The right way? My way, of course.

I suppose the reawakening of this thread is because I recently labeled the use of paratroopers to block the retreat of armored corps as gamey? Of course it's gamey. It exploits a game rule/game mechanism to do something that is completely ahistorical.

Reminds me of the old exploit in HOI1 (or was it Making History?), wherein one could conquer half the world by simply repeatedly leapfrogging parachute units everywhere. Gamey.

What is this reluctance to label? Should there always and everywhere only be grey? Why not black and white?


_____________________________



(in reply to AH4Ever)
Post #: 6
RE: Gameyness - 1/4/2010 10:37:31 PM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

... the use of paratroopers to block the retreat of armored corps.... It exploits a game rule/game mechanism to do something that is completely ahistorical.


Since you appear to be some kind of authority on how the rules/mechanics are supposed to be used, explain to me what the game rule/mechanic was designed to accomplish please.

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 7
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 1:39:45 AM   
AH4Ever


Posts: 628
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: NU JOYZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harbinger

quote:

Asking that others keep their mouths shut is downright impolite.


I wasn't asking.

Calling any player, or labeling any style of play as gamey for any reason is disrespectful... beyond immature and in my opinion infantile.



NO,YOU SHUT UP!

Now that's infantile

We should all strive to use our words better

I tend to be realistic when expressing an awareness of things as they are or while relating to a representation of actions.

Am I being subjective when I arbitrarily use my discretionary abilities to pass judgement on something personal to an individual?

When it is slightly spoiled, corrupt and tainted, it is just plain gamey.


_____________________________

JJMC

The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.

You weren't there Thursday... You MISSED it!

(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 8
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 2:49:07 AM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

Am I being subjective when I arbitrarily use my discretionary abilities to pass judgement on something personal to an individual?


You tell us AH4ever.

Nice trap.

If you feel that calling players gamey because they don't play according to your historical realism is a worthy goal.....go right ahead.

Be prepared for adversity to your arrogance and condescension.

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to AH4Ever)
Post #: 9
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 3:56:56 AM   
Magpius


Posts: 1632
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

The use of the term "gamey/gameyness" in response to a player using a tactic outside of some undefined convention is derogatory towards that player.

No that's more likely your take on the definition. In the context of any computer game, IMO, it is finding and exploiting loopholes in a system that diminishes the original intent, and creates an unbalanced outcome or advantage. Most play within a the game's intended framework, if you, or anyone else, chooses to play and win by all means necessary, then so be it. State a no holds barred position from the outset.
If a move is considered 'gamey', it is little more than describing the move. How it is said, and the recipient of the comment knowing the tactic is exploitative, may consider it derogatory, if perhaps there is some guilt present.
(my 2 cents)

_____________________________


(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 10
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 3:57:12 AM   
Manalishi

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/1/2008
Status: offline 		deleted by author

< Message edited by Manalishi -- 1/5/2010 7:47:16 AM >

_____________________________

Obstacles are what you see when you take your eye off the goal.

(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 11
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 4:22:54 AM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

In the context of any computer game, IMO, it is finding and exploiting loopholes in a system that diminishes the original intent, and creates an unbalanced outcome or advantage.

Who defines the intent of the developers? Who defines these loopholes and advantages?
quote:

Most play within a the game's intended framework, if you, or anyone else, chooses to play and win by all means necessary, then so be it.

Who decides what this framework is? Do you play not to win?
quote:

State a no holds barred position from the outset.

Do you reasonably expect any player to tell you how they will play the game? Are you going to hold yourself to this same convention?
quote:

If a move is considered 'gamey', it is little more than describing the move. How it is said, and the recipient of the comment knowing the tactic is exploitative, may consider it derogatory, if perhaps there is some guilt present.

Are you an authority on what is "exploitive"?

If there is any guilt involved, I daresay it is by the accuser. I'm sorry you won't play the game as designed. That's your fault, not mine and accusing me of "exploiting" anything is the mark of a small mind, one limited to its own perceptions of how the game "should" be played. I'm sure this was intended by the designers as you insist on using them as the support for your argument.

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to Manalishi)
Post #: 12
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 6:36:31 AM   
Manalishi

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/1/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  gwgardner
I suppose the reawakening of this thread is because I recently labeled the use of paratroopers to block the retreat of armored corps as gamey?  Of course it's gamey.  It exploits a game rule/game mechanism to do something that is completely ahistorical.


Agreed. You tend to use this term more than anyone else.

How is this mechanic exploitative? What is historically inaccurate? Did the powers not have this ability? Could they not have done this? Or is it just that you dont like it?

I dont know why you insist that the rest of us view ToW as an exercise in historical accuracy, but I can say that it is often offputting. I dont share that same preference. Neither do I agree that ToW is or should be anything more than it is - a game. I play it as it shipped to me.

Most of us are just playing a WW2 game. We play to have fun, we play to win, we play to learn things. We share these game experiences so that we may learn and develop gameplay strategies to further our enjoyment. We do this so that we will have a friendly, competitive community in which to socialize and have fun. One in which we can share our success and failures.

We do not play to argue historical accuracy. We do not play to argue game mechanics. The designers have already accounted for much of this, and last I heard this was a finished game. It seems to me that almost everything works. Discussions may arise from time to time, but they are not the reason we play the game.

You may play the game to find it's flaws, and that is fine. I appreciate it. A lot of what you say is merely your opinion about how you think the game should be, not how it really is. I think you need to step back and realize this: most players are playing a WW2 game whereas you are playing your version of a WW2 simulation. These are not the same thing, and you should know it.

No one labels you because you insist on your historical accuracies or your house rules. All I ask is the same respect and regard in return. You are not the only person posting and reading these posts. You are entitled your opinion and are free to disagree with other players, but please do not minimize those players with labels simply because of your disagreement. You damage the entire community by doing so.



  <M>

< Message edited by Manalishi -- 1/5/2010 7:08:51 AM >

_____________________________

Obstacles are what you see when you take your eye off the goal.

(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 13
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 6:36:37 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline 		it's a flawed game mechanic, see my previous posts concerning the retreat rules; for my own solo ToW games, I use a mod that reverts back to the retreat mechanism employed in Road to Victory

_____________________________



(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 14
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 6:47:35 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Manalishi



How is this mechanic exploitative? What is historically inaccurate? Did the powers not have this ability? Could they not have done this? Or is it just that you dont like it?


Never read of an historical instance when a parachute force could completely wipe out an entire armored corps, simply by blocking its ability to retreat.

quote:




I dont know why you insist that the rest of us view ToW as an exercise in historical accuracy, but I can say that it is often offputting. I dont share that same preference. Neither do I agree that ToW is or should be anything more than it is - a game. I play it as it shipped to me.



I have never so insisted. I couldn't give a crap how you or anyone plays the game, unless you're playing PBEM with me. Perhaps I have been wrong in my many posts referring to ToW as a historical simulation, thinking that the 'history' part of that phrase might interest other forum participants. Excuuuuse me!


< Message edited by gwgardner -- 1/5/2010 6:49:06 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Manalishi)
Post #: 15
RE: Gameyness - 1/5/2010 9:03:30 PM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

Never read of an historical instance when a parachute force could completely wipe out an entire armored corps, simply by blocking its ability to retreat.

Trying to employ the good ol' threadjacking tactic ehh, Gary? Divert attention away from the subject of this thread by attempting to introduce a historical subject to debate?

quote:

it's a flawed game mechanic

Flawed for who Gary? Obviously your opinion is that it's flawed for your game. As are the retreat rules and many other things you have posted about. All in all, I'd say that your opinion is that the entire game is flawed simply because it doesn't measure up to what you want.

Yep, we are all gamey because we don't necessarily agree with all of Gary's opinions.

You are not the final authority for the community on what is exploitive or ahistorical. Calling people names and labelling game tactics that you disagree with is incredibly disrespectful to the entire ToW community.

I demand an apology for this grossly immature behavior.

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 16
RE: Gameyness - 1/6/2010 3:56:09 AM   
Texashorns

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 11/23/2009
Status: offline 		Pardon me while I jump into the middle of this fray. I am an old board game wargamer who plays computer war games to sub for lack of opponents. In looking at gw's arguement concerning whether an airborne division can cause an entire armored corps to evaporate by cutting off it's retreat, how many board games have we played that disallowed a retreating unit to retreat through an enemy zoc and have to be eliminated instead? Many board games have utilized this retreat rule. In terms of historical accuracy it may be playing loose, but if you know that's the rule going in, then you plan your strategy accordingly. You don't say hey we are going to change the rule. If that is the case you'll be rewriting the whole rule book, or in this case designing your own game. If you consider the actions of the allied airborne divisions in Europe during WW2 I think you will find multiple examples where they performed beyond what was considered their capablitlies vs much larger formations. I vote to play the game as given to us by the designers without all the mumbo interpretation of what they intended. That being said,I do enjoy the aesthetic mods to the counters and maps.....

<<<<<<<(stepping back) okay ya'll can continue to trade blows.......

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 17
RE: Gameyness - 1/6/2010 4:59:48 AM   
Razz1


Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline 		Gee sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Gameyness is very close to a cheat. A better word is exploit.

Sometimes you have to come down to the level of the AI, design or mechanics of the game.

If action A always results in wins because of the above then it is considered an exploit. aka Gameyness

PS is that a word?

ha ha

(in reply to Texashorns)
Post #: 18
RE: Gameyness - 1/6/2010 6:58:39 AM   
Manalishi

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/1/2008
Status: offline
quote:

...how many board games have we played that disallowed a retreating unit to retreat through an enemy zoc and have to be eliminated instead?


Hehe. Nice. If anyone thinks it hurts to lose a unit because it's retreat is cut off by actual units, imagine the pain they must feel when their unit is eliminated because the retreat is cut off by a vacant hex!

Ahh the good old days. Soak offs and attrition attacks. Pretzels, anyone?

Tex makes the point and successfully articulates what I have been trying to say all along. If anything at all is "gamey" it is the disregard and/or rewriting/replacing of the original rules, systems and mechanics to suit your personal tastes, and then passing them off to the community as accepted errata. 

I mean, seriously. What is more gamey than changing the rule because you disagree, or you dont like it, or it doesnt suit your desire?

I dont mind if you want to play the game by whatever ruleset you can cook up, because you paid your money so you are entitled to play the game any way you see fit. I think you are selling yourself short, but that is just my opinion. If it makes you happy, run with it.

What I do find objectionable is when those persons come into these forums and flame the original rules, systems or mechanics or other players who play with them. As if those who play the game by the original rules or by their own ruleset are somehow exploiting the game. As if your cooked books are generally accepted as more correct or "better." As if your view of what the designers intended is absolute.

And then you have the audacity to label those other players or rules as "gamey!" Huh? Isnt this the pot calling the kettle black?

I have seen this happen on a number of occasions, and I personally just dont think it is very nice, and it certainly doesnt lend itself to good gamesmanship. 
~

With regard to the term "gamey" and it's ill definition and usage on these forums, I suggest folks just start calling these things what they suspect them to be - Exploits. Broken systems. Bugs. Only Wastelands can confirm the correct assignment of these simpler, less ambiguous terms to actual game design and intent.

As for the rest of us, as players all we can do is announce our suspicions that this, that or the other thing qualifies as an exploit or a bug, or a broken mechanic, and hope Wastelands confirms or denies these suspicions. It may turn out that some of the things identified by the term "gamey" are revised in the future, but we wont know until Wastelands either tells us or takes us there.

Until then, in my opinion, stigmatizing the original rules or anyone playing by them is just poor form.


  <M>


_____________________________

Obstacles are what you see when you take your eye off the goal.

(in reply to Texashorns)
Post #: 19
RE: Gameyness - 1/6/2010 6:58:42 PM   
Harbinger


Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
I keep seeing this term being used and yet there has been no defintion. I suspect it is used mainly to describe tactics that fall outside of some undefined personal rule, or that one doesn't agree with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever
..it is just to point out something that detracts from the realism or historical flavor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
It exploits a game rule/game mechanism to do something that is completely ahistorical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever
When it is slightly spoiled, corrupt and tainted, it is just plain gamey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S
In the context of any computer game, IMO, it is finding and exploiting loopholes in a system that diminishes the original intent, and creates an unbalanced outcome or advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
it's a flawed game mechanic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
Gameyness is very close to a cheat. A better word is exploit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manalishi
If anything at all is "gamey" it is the disregard and/or rewriting/replacing of the original rules, systems and mechanics to suit your personal tastes...


As one can see from these statements, nearly everyone has a defintion of "gamey". The commonality in all of these statements is that "gamey/gameyness" is bad and/or wrong.

I don't disagree with this assessment. It is bad in my opinion also.

However, by the admission of our own defintions, the context in which it is being used is derogatory. If one thinks that any particular use of the game systems, tactics or strategies is exploitive or cheating (thank you Razz), then simply say what you mean.

Call it exploitive and/or cheating. Using an obscure, undefined term such as "gamey/gameyness" is derogatory to everyone involved.

Tell that person that you think they are a cheater/exploiter, if you have the evidence to support your accusation.

Fortunately with the efforts and submissions from the many in this thread topic, we now have a usable defintion of the terms "gamey/gameyness". A perceived "cheat/exploit".

The terms historical, ahistorical, realism and realistic have not been included in this defintion because, by the mutual agreement of many, these terms do not apply to ToW as a game. Using these terms to support an argument of cheating/exploiting simply will not fly as it has been agreed that ToW is not a historical, realistic recreation of WWII in Europe.

To my knowledge, the only cheat/exploit that has been announced by the only authority I'm aware of (Matrix/Wastelands Interactive) is the possible abuse of the F11. The evidence that this is indeed an exploit can be found in ToW documentation and also in many posts in this forum.

I've said my piece and will now terminate my participation in this thread discussion, unless called upon.

Good Luck and Good Game.

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to Harbinger)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Gameyness Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.422