How do YOU play the game?

[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.

[Wauthan]

If sandbox players are thematic roleplayers then I'm the fourth kid in Prince Megahertz example. The one hiding behind a rock out of fear that his carefully decorated sandcastle might get ruined by hurled rocks and stomping feet.

For some reason I have very little drive to actually win games. I just want to create something I find interesting and see if it works. If it's really competitive I tend to go for the quickest win possible just to get back to empire building. I think I'm running about 22 mods on Dominions now for the sole purpose that I want the game to reflect my vision on how the factions ougtho behave. If they ever make a Civilization spinoff from this game consider one copy sold already.

It's greatly annoying that noone seems to be interested in creating the ultimate game for a player like me. It would be something like a Dominions/Master of magic/Alpha Centauri hybrid. But the future seems to be all realtime 3D hackfest were the fastest and most focused tactics win all the time.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Wauthan:
It's greatly annoying that noone seems to be interested in creating the ultimate game for a player like me. It would be something like a Dominions/Master of magic/Alpha Centauri hybrid.

Well, such a game would be sadistically massive, and playable only in single-player, as most multiplayer folks can't stomach that kind of enormous slog. As such, the AI had better be pretty awesome, and this ain't easy to do, as computers, by their nature, are inherently stupid.

But the future seems to be all realtime 3D hackfest were the fastest and most focused tactics win all the time.

Hmm. I wouldn't go so far as to say THAT. I wouldn't exactly say that the "fastest" tactics win all the time, either: My tactics are widely regarded as being a slow, grinding, slogfest. Although certainly focus is important: It's kind of hard to win a game if you're stumbling around aimlessly with no plan or objective beyond "look at the pretty lights". Depending on the game settings and general aggressiveness level and crowding, it's certainly possible to maintain and hold an empire of reasonable size just kinda plodding along trying to stay alive into the end game, though: Inevitably, however, a lack of any plan will not bring you to ultimate victory, no matter what the game is: Any game where somebody can win without an objective or plan is one which requires absolutely no skills and is functionally indistinguishable from playing Rock, Paper, Scissors over the Internet.

[Maltrease]

My only small wish for the game is that there would be more "Builder" style stuff.

I like to make long term investments in the economy and infrastructure of my empire. You can do a little of that now by picking a high admin to cost fortress (such as wizard tower, castle) and plopping it down in a rich province. Or by collecting clams and other gem producing items. Early site searching, Archaic Record, represent this as well.

The Builder vs Momentum (conqueror) play style is yet another control bar for the strategy game player.

[HJ]

I'm also a sandbox player, so to speak, although I do enjoy the challenge that the AI can present. I don't like to play vs. people, as that's too stressful and I play the games to relax from the real world stresses. I like to lay back and try out things for the sake of trying them out, and without any competitive drive behind it. If I were to approach the game in any other way, it would lose it's charm, and instead of having a beautiful toy that I can enjoy with a (somewhat naive) fascination of a child, I would have to reduce it to a cookbook with recipes on how to win it as efficiently as possible. And I don't like cooking, so....

[ June 04, 2004, 20:32: Message edited by: HJ ]