Newbie's first impressions

[Sammas]

"They've been refined to the point where they're just right in terms of size, length, pace, ease of learning, and level of challenge. ... At this point in my gaming life, however, I think maybe it's time to turn to some of the classic games I named above."

Have a look at the Land of Legends demo - easy to understand, but there's a lot of depth to it.

[spirokeat]

Actually I think there comes a point with some people (myself included at times) when you simply burn out on games and no ammount of UI/theme/Styles will do.

You just can't please everyone and its a bad business idea to try. Personally I despise why that is, but thats a different story.

Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

When I first started I thought...damn no tactical combat. But the advantages outweight anything else. And Im sorry Patrick but to say that you dont get to see spells working is not true...MoM had limited spell effetcs, they reminded me of 8 bit sprites.

Dom is without any debate the successor to MoM....I signed the MOM2 petition with I'm sure the rest of you. But to be honest, I just get the feeling your not in the mood for anything right now.

Good luck in finding something to ring your bell.

Spiro

[sushiboat]

If you like games that can be played quickly yet have some thinking involved, try the games by Freeverse.

[Alneyan]

spirokeat said:
Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

I have one opening for Jotunheim in a beginner's game: link to thread is here .

[Wyatt Hebert]

One small clarification to one of the things I was trying to say. When I say 'mental hold', I am primarily talking about the ability to maintain the current _local_ game state in your mind. I have no problems with large and intricate game _worlds_, but the ability to maintain knowledge about what is going is crucial to many games these days.

As an example, I am a long-time RPG GameMaster. I've run about 12 different game systems in my life, and played in more, and I love large and detailed worlds. However, I can maintain the pertinent game information mostly in my head while playing, and this is merely a subset of the world.

To put it another way, I think very few people honestly are upset when they are out-played. I think true anger or disappointment with games is when they believe that it was an oversight on their part that led to the problem or defeat. In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations. In games of the current complexity, trying to keep the game-state in your mind is extremely difficult, and most likely impossible after the early turns. If I lose provinces due to an oversight on my part, I will be upset that I missed it, and possibly at the game engine for not being clearer.

In any event, this was just an attempt to explain what was in my mind when I referred to 'mental hold'.

Wyatt

[PCarroll]

Wyatt Hebert said:
One small clarification to one of the things I was trying to say. When I say 'mental hold', I am primarily talking about the ability to maintain the current _local_ game state in your mind. I have no problems with large and intricate game _worlds_, but the ability to maintain knowledge about what is going is crucial to many games these days.

As an example, I am a long-time RPG GameMaster. I've run about 12 different game systems in my life, and played in more, and I love large and detailed worlds. However, I can maintain the pertinent game information mostly in my head while playing, and this is merely a subset of the world.

To put it another way, I think very few people honestly are upset when they are out-played. I think true anger or disappointment with games is when they believe that it was an oversight on their part that led to the problem or defeat. In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations. In games of the current complexity, trying to keep the game-state in your mind is extremely difficult, and most likely impossible after the early turns. If I lose provinces due to an oversight on my part, I will be upset that I missed it, and possibly at the game engine for not being clearer.

In any event, this was just an attempt to explain what was in my mind when I referred to 'mental hold'.

Wyatt

Errmmm . . . I thought I understood what you meant by "mental hold" the first time you said it. Now, after your clarification, I'm not so sure.

I certainly agree that the main reason people get upset over a game is that they feel they've overlooked something that they should have noticed. And sometimes (depending on what the player overlooked and other factors) the player will shift the blame to the UI or something outside himself.

But the part I don't understand is when you say, "In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations." That's true, but are you saying that in chess a player does or does not have "mental hold"? Is mental hold "see[ing] the entire game situation at once," or is it seeing "the winning and losing combinations"?

Because if it's the latter, then it seems to me "mental hold" would be undesirable in all games. The whole challenge of playing games is *reaching* for the foresight or insight to see all the winning and losing combinations. As soon as someone attains that level of mastery, the game is no longer challenging. It becomes trivial, like tic-tac-toe (naughts & crosses).

The reason I'm having trouble understanding you this time is that in my mind, there's no difference between being outplayed and making an oversight. If we're playing chess, and you outplay me, it means there were moves and combinations that I overlooked. You may have overlooked some too, but you overlooked fewer of them than I did.

My understanding of "mental hold" from your first message was that either of two things could be a problem: (1) a rulebook too thick to ever memorize in a lifetime, or (2) a game so big and elaborate that it's impossible to consciously take care of *everything* under one's control. In board-wargaming terms, Advanced Squad Leader is an example of (1), and The Longest Day (a monster game with a five-foot-square mapboard and thousands of unit-counters) is an example of (2).

Chess is nothing like ASL or TLD. The rules to chess can easily be memorized, and the most a player ever has to do is choose which one of sixteen pieces to move on the 8x8 grid. Very small and manageable. Perfect "mental hold," in this sense. And yet, comprehending *all* the winning and losing moves and combinations is next to impossible.

So, IMO, it's good when a game is challenging; otherwise it'd be as trivial as tic-tac-toe. But it's bad when the size or complexity or length of a game becomes daunting to one's mental grasp--because then the player tends to give up before he ever gets around to facing the challenge of figuring out winning strategy & tactics.

--Patrick

[quantum_mechani]

spirokeat said:
I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

We are always looking for players every weekend on the #dominions IRC channel (irc.gamesurge.net).

[Scott Hebert]

While I cannot speak for my brother (Wyatt), I tend to agree with him.

To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.

I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).

Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. That may be the reason that R'lyeh is my favorite nation, because of the Void Gate. There is also with the Void Gate something akin to the 'level gain' feeling with role-playing. I can see my priest's summoning skill rising, in a direct way. I guess a good comparison is the HoMM level gain pop-up. It's like, 'Oh wow, my achievements have this direct benefit.' It's not like Dominions where your commanders got a star, whee. It is a nice thrill once you see you can lead more troops, etc. etc., but it's not on the same level.

Anyway, I guess I'm rambling. Wyatt's much better at concise writing than I am.

[PCarroll]

Scott Hebert said:
To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.

Is there such a point? Perhaps. When I bought a boxed Go set (back in 1975), I read a curious point of etiquette in the instruction manual: it said that it's not uncommon to allow an opponent to take back a move--or even several moves--even in a tournament game. The rationale given was that it's considered dishonorable to win just by capitalizing on an opponent's oversight.

I've always had mixed feelings about that, and I've always continued to wonder about it. On one hand, I'm all for letting an opponent retract a move or two; I'll even agree to start over. But OTOH, theoretically a game could go on forever that way: every time you get in trouble, you say, "Oops. Can we go back six or eight turns? I think I must've made another mistake."

I'm inclined to believe that *all* games are won by capitalizing on opponents' oversights (or lack of foresight or insight).

And yet, I suspect you're right too: there's a difference between missing a direct threat and missing a setup for a knight fork. But what is the difference really?

Seems to me we're talking about the line between what's considered obvious and what's not considered obvious. Beyond the beginner level, direct threats are supposed to be obvious to a chess player; so if an experienced player misses a direct threat, that's just an oversight.

The trouble is, at an intermediate level, setups for knight forks are supposed to be obvious to players. So if an intermediate-level player misses one, why doesn't that also count as an oversight?

"Obvious" is a matter of degree and experience. Grandmasters sometimes, in hindsight, consider their moves (or their opponent's moves) obvious blunders.

There may indeed come a point where "someone can be simply out-played." But the test of that is losing repeatedly to a given opponent. And even if player A consistently loses to player B, how do you know whether player A is being outplayed or is just prone to making oversights?

I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).

Now you're speaking my language. This sounds like the "mental hold" problem I was describing in my last message: a game that's too big, with too many moving parts, to comfortably hold in one's mind.

To me, size (including number of units to command), rules complexity, and game length are the three things that can weaken one's "mental hold."

Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. . . .

That's a twofold topic: (1) the joy of learning all the possibilities a game affords, and the pleasant surprise of making a new discovery, and (2) the surprise of a random or unforeseen game event occurring, and the challenge of having to deal with it.

The first type of surprise is, IMO, a big reason for being attracted to games like Dom2 or a good RPG or wargame system: it seems there's always more to discover. The size and complexity of the game gives a player a lot to explore before he's seen it all (whereupon he often gets bored and turns to a new game).

The second type of surprise is what makes backgammon different than chess: there's a factor (the dice rolls) you can't accurately predict; you have to take them as they come and make the best of them. In a sense, each dice roll is a surprise (all the player's calculations notwithstanding).

The latter is a kind of surprise that occurs during the play of a game. The other kind only occurs during the learning of a game (which, for a very complex game, can be a never-ending process).

So, the question is: What do you really want to do--play a game, or just keep learning games? Those who get more joy out of learning games may hate "mental hold"--because if they can comprehend the whole game, there's nothing left to learn. But those who get more fun out of playing will welcome "mental hold"--because once they've got it, they're free to focus on strategy & tactics, on playing well.

Is it dishonorable to know about the Void Gate in Dom2 if your opponent doesn't? Do you really want to win just because you happen to know something that comes as a surprise to your opponents? Theoretically, nothing in the rules or structure of the game should ever be a surprise to players. Yet, there are players who thrive on exploring the game-system and its possibilities; and once they've tried everything, the game becomes like a stick of gum that's lost its flavor.

It's weird when you stop and think about it. What would you say to a person who says, "Chess is boring now that I've learned all the rules"? Learning the rules is just the beginning of being able to enjoy chess. Yet we hear people saying, "The Void Gate was the last thing of interest to me in Dom2; now that I've experimented with that, the fun's over for me." That's a little like someone saying, "I didn't know about en-passant captures in chess, and that was kinda cool; but that was the last rule I had to learn, so now the fun's all over." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Clearly some modern games (wargames, RPGs, etc.) have a very different kind of appeal than traditional games.

--Patrick

[BigJMoney]

This is a little out of the blue, and it probably won't apply, but what about the RTS/TBS hybrids? You admitted that, initially you were surprised with maybe a shade of disappointment when you first noted that Dom2 did not allow you to control tactical situations.

Rome: Total War is a game that has a very "board game" like strategy element that is VERY easy to grasp: the economy; recruiting; all of it. In fact, the game right before it in the series, Medieval: Total War, actually played out on a game board map of Europe. In the Total War games, you can choose to resolve the battles instantly (if you aren't feeling up to it) or you can actually fight them out in a turn-based strategy fight. Here is the sweet part: it's nothing like the TBS that is genre-contrived (WarCraft, AoE, etc) because you don't have to fuss with building bases and recruiting units! You already built them in the TBS(main) part of the game. It's 100% battlefield tactics. And if you know you've gotten caught with your pants down because you made a strategic mistake in the first place, you can at least choose to not waste your time by actually experiencing the defeat: just auto-resolve the fight. R:TW does have a few battle AI problems, but from the way you talk, it sounds like a minor quibble for you. Besides, none of them are game ruining.

I hope I've been descriptive enough. I also hope R:TW isn't a curse word around these parts.

=$= Big J Money =$=