deMangler
Posts: 227
Joined: 7/13/2013
Status: offline
|
There were some questions in the poll that compared SE to other games to 4x's and it started some responses.
I thought it was an interesting conversation and I would have derailed that one, so I thought I'd start a thread.
Some games I sometimes find myself comparing SE to, while playing SE - or comparing them to SE while playing them, well obviously loads of 4x games, but these ones in particular inspire more detailed comparisons.
Distant Worlds has a private economy and living-world type background sim that makes choices meaningful and also provides a consistent context for emergent gameplay. SE does this same thing really well.
I can lose myself in Dwarf-Fortress in the same way as SE mainly because it feels like a faithful sim. It has an angle where there won't add some fluff merely to make it more appealing, it would rather present the results of the sim that it is in an honest way - without bending itself out of shape to fit something else.
DF, and SE, feel honest as representations of themselves. This is also reflected in the interface design of the two games. For better or worse the interfaces are driven more from representing the game and game world than interface design norms. The one huge plus of this is that the things that make the game unique can be better expressed. This is subtle, but it isn't always bad if an extra click is required or diving into a sub-menu needed to find related information - it can add a lot to the flow experience of the game that could never happen in an optimally efficient interface.
I am not saying that bad interface design can be excused, just that more organically representing the game can be as valid a choice as more efficiently designing an interface.
If I am honest, the main reason I spent so much time on the later civ games was that I loved Civ I so much, back in the day. With the later ones, I usually ended up after mega civ session feeling a bit like I want those 30 hours of my life back. The reason for this is that it doesn't feel like any particular skill has been improved or that any game-mechanic that is worth learning has been learned. Shadow Empire does not have this problem.
ASL and other hex-based war games like OAW, Panzer General, etc. These produce satisfaction from the clarity of flow from situation or threat or other objective to situation safe and/or objective attained. Because of this it is also satisfying to fail because it is easy to analyse why and you feel like you have learned.
Shadow empire builds on this by combining the hex-based goodness with the living world goodness to provide huge amounts of replayability that also feels satisfying and doesn't get old. You want to play another game to apply what you have either learned about the game, or yourself.
Slay The Spire
Is a really good deck-builder. I have loads of thought on how SE's deck-builder aspect complements and enables other parts of the game, it would be a wall of text, but it boils down to simplicity exposing depth and naunce.
Supreme Ruler
Shadow Empire is completely free of all the frutrations that plague Supreme Ruler.
SE reminds me of King of Dragon Pass also. A decision about how to respond to a leaders actions can be lost in the cognitive flow of managing the whole empire, until 30 turns later you remember it because it clearly caused the current situation.
Also, more contextually the various decisions re. leaders shape the constraints and opportunities provided in other aspects of the game in a way that is consistent with the feel the BGS/living world. This adds to immersion and engagement.
Anyway - I was going to splurge all that into the poll thread, I just managed to reach this thread before it was too late....
:)
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Shadow Empire compared to other games - 
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