How do YOU play the game?

[Kaljamaha]

Some years ago, on a Civ related forum, someone (sorry, I have zero recollection of said person) said that strategy gamers can be divided into two categories: gamers and sandbox people.

Gamers view the game a challenge to be beat, be it against the AI or other people. They don't care if their units are blank boxes or pink elephants, if the numbers are right, those units will be used. Gamers strive to win and nothing else, and will pursue the most efficient way to achieve the goal.

Sandbox types view the game as more of a simulation, and like to imagine (in the case of Dominions) a whole medieval fantasy kindom working in front of them. To these people, context and style is everything. They like to behave in a manner consistent to their vision of the world and its inhabitants (for example, no angel commanders leading devils into battle). They refrain from doing a lot of "efficient" things because it doesn't suit their vision and seems wrong.

Now, these are the extremes, and most people are probably somewhere in between. Reading these Boards it seems to me that the people here who play MP games are tilted heavily towards the gamer side, and evaluate things from that perpective. Guess that's why its called competetitive MP, huh.

I on the other hand am most definately a sandbox type. I've played roleplaying games for the Last mm... 17 years, and even if I wanted to, I would find it hard to divorce myself from the mindset.

I like to imagine the my nation as a real place with real people, view my commanders as individuals, and so on. I often make choices, both in pretender design and in-game commands that are suboptimal, but fit my vision of my nation. My pretender is a god (or at least a god wannabe)! He behaves like one. If one commander gets a heroic ability, I try to foster it so that he may become a true hero of legends. Troop choices (especially summons) must make sense. And so on...

Now, I'm fully aware that my style handicaps me if I were to play against a gamer. Therefore I play MP with like-minded friends. So no, this isn't a rant.

I'd like to hear how you all play.


K.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Kaljamaha:
Now, I'm fully aware that my style handicaps me if I were to play against a gamer. Therefore I play MP with like-minded friends. So no, this isn't a rant.

Im sandbox. I think that this is only one scale in what a player is, but it is interesting. The psychology of this might come into play with these balance/not-balanced arguments as far as whether or not something is any big deal. The gamers would consider any small imbalance as a major problem while the sandboxers would be willing to make some allowances if its in theme.

The sandboxers also would have a focus of wanting all nations to balance against all nations, while the sandboxers would be more willing to accept a rock/paper/scissors mode of balance. Very interesting.

[RadiantFleet]

Count me as a sandbox player. I can be a ruthless gamer, but I find it more satisfying to play within the "mindset" of the race I'm playing.

[Tuskerlove]

I'm all about the challenge. I didn't even know people could have a sandbox mentality. I'd still be playing D&D if I wanted to approach gaming from that angle. Although, D&D was more like a alter reality than a game imho.

I look at Dominions like a game of Risk but with the depth of Chess.

[PrinzMegaherz]

I am definitly a sandbox player.

sandbox. I think that this is only one scale in what a player is, but it is interesting. The psychology of this might come into play with these balance/not-balanced arguments as far as whether or not something is any big deal. The gamers would consider any small imbalance as a major problem while the sandboxers would be willing to make some allowances if its in theme.

I think it is the other way around. Gamers are the ones to imagine ways to abuse game mechanics by twisting its original purpose. A sandbox player would propably forge a clam and give it to that special astral mage he wants to leave the capitol so that he does not run out of pearls during his journey, while the gamer builds massive amounts of clams because he can use them to gain insane magical power. A sandbox player would propably play Black Forest Ulm and take a Vampire Queen with lots of blood and Death and maybe a third path if he really has leftover points to spent. The gamer would take as many different paths you would never expect on a vampire just to make her invincible.

Just a small comparison.
Two children play with their sandcastles on the beach. Both are aware of the goal (destroy enemy castle), but they have a very narrow view of how to do this (hurling small rocks against the walls). Then the third child comes, is aware of the goal (destroy the castle), but has no restraints on how to accomplish his goal. It starts to stomp the castle with it's feets. The sandbox children start to complain about him using abusive methods, and it replies that they could have used their own feet to begin with, and that it is a legimate strategy if they are unable to build unstompable castles.

[Maltrease]

Another peaceful thread is born...

I certainly fall within the middle of these categories. I don't think one is really any better than the other but they do certainly conflict if they play each other.

I think a better sandcastle analogy would be that the "gamer" figures out the multiple small rocks all thrown together are much more effective than a single rock. Or perhaps a better use of the flatter rocks is to use them as makeshift shovels and tunnel beneath the enemies castle.

Stomping on the castle directly is leaving the confines of the game. Carrying your analogy to dominions would have the "gamer" hacking the game to directly remove rival players. Or sabotaging their computer so they can not fight back. Since the ultimage goal is to be the "Only god remaining".

[ June 04, 2004, 16:12: Message edited by: Maltrease ]

[PvK]

It's definitely not a matter of two distinct categories. I'm not sure it's even a spectrum between two poles. More like, players have a different degree of interest in each type of play.

Personally, I'm more interested in what you called the "sandbox" aspect, but I also enjoy the balance issues and friendly competition.

I very much enjoy playing leisurely single-player games, where I only resort to hunting for the most effective techniques when I'm about to get wiped out, and otherwise follow the careers of my warriors, try to keep them alive, explore things I haven't tried before, and so on. Tons of fun to be had there, for "sandbox" players.

I also very much like playing PBEM games against other players, with only partial in-character roleplaying aspects.

I even get tempted to want to play games such as Asynja versus munchkin-wannabes trying to exploit what they think are the latest "abusive" tricks.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
...
The sandboxers also would have a focus of wanting all nations to balance against all nations, while the sandboxers would be more willing to accept a rock/paper/scissors mode of balance. Very interesting.

I think you got that mixed up. Sandbox = thematic roleplayer = don't care much about balance = does not particularly want to balance all nations = more likely to be bored by rock/paper/scissors. I think you meant "gamers", from the original post context. (Though, I don't really think those terms exactly mean what the original post suggested they do, in general.)

PvK

[PrinzMegaherz]

Stomping on the castle directly is leaving the confines of the game. Carrying your analogy to dominions would have the "gamer" hacking the game to directly remove rival players. Or sabotaging their computer so they can not fight back. Since the ultimage goal is to be the "Only god remaining".

My sample was not meant to be perfect. Indeed I do not see the gamer as the bad guy. I think gamers have much fun playing against other gamers, as well as sandboxers have fun against sandboxers. But they dont mix very well.

But of course, noone here is truly black or white.

[ June 04, 2004, 17:03: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

[littlemute]

Originally posted by Kaljamaha:
Some years ago, on a Civ related forum, someone (sorry, I have zero recollection of said person) said that strategy gamers can be divided into two categories: gamers and sandbox people.

I'm a sandbox at first, then a gamer after a month or so. I was in a fantasy cream dream with warcraft 3 and thought the unit designs were just awesome, now I don't care if they are little chits on a hexboard as long as my Night Elves beat you again and again and again in the most efficient manner possible saying GG after 5 minutes.

King of Fighters, Last Blade, Samurai Shodown, Shadowfist all the same, loved the fluff (what if the Korean Team was joined by Yagami rather than Kim! Would they revert to crime again?) but then it's the 9-hit cross-up combos buffered into super despiration moves that thrill me.

It's when the fluff sucks (CIV, Age of Empires) that I can't get into the game enough to enjoy the mechanics.