|
Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Serious wargame? (2/20/2014 5:58:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There are many ways to do a simulation. Chess, with its very abstract approach and units, is a simulation. SteelBeasts is a simulation, though it's very different from chess. A designer has to choose which things she or he simulates, and what approaches to use. By necessity, some things get simulated well, some not so well, and some not at all. Even gargantuan games like WitE generate volumes of posting discussing gaps in the simulation or perceived problems of fidelity.
Everyone has their own threshold of simulation goodness. For some, this feature or that rule is essential, and any game that doesn't have these fails to pass muster. For others, those same features are not required, but a third feature or rule is. There is no universal standard for an acceptable level of simulation.
For me, the best way to approach all these games is to take them as they are, and treat them as simulations of certain aspects of war, rather than as all-encompassing models of all aspects of whichever scale of warfare they are working with. Above all, I like to look holistically at the game--does it, overall, deliver a believable and satisfying representation of the subject, where the player's decisions can be based on reasonable assumptions and where good decisions are rewarded and bad ones punished? Does it capture the essence of the time period and scale of the conflict? Does it, ultimately, teach generally believable lessons about the conflict? Beyond that, eh, it's all gravy.
Quite brilliant and a feeling I share as well. I buy a lot of games. I MEAN A LOT. Some good. Others not, but very few are actually fun to play. To me this game is extremely enjoyable. Refreshingly so. Yes it makes sense. Yes there are abstractions. Yes it strikes a good balance and yes, it is fun.
What more can one expect from their purchasing dollars? I feel mine have been well spent on this occasion.
mo reb
|
|
|
|
