what do people like more?

panzerfist · Post by **panzerfist** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:12 am

just out of curiousity, do you think gamers genrally like to play scenarios that are based on factual events? or do you think they like to play scenarios that are more what if? OR, is it do you think more people would rather create their own situations from scratch?
just wondering
thanks

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:24 am

A fascinating subject. I think most would know my preference, which leans strongly toward the historical.

Reliving the tension of a gripping historical battle and catching the feel of that battle from the commander's point of view just can't be beat!

Hypotheticals are good too, of course. What if the Japanese Home islands, Midway, or Malta had been invaded? What if Rommel had reached Alexandria, what if the US and Russia had locked horns at the Elbe? Or fighting had reached the avenues in front of the Kremlin?

A WELL DONE historical scenario, playable and challenging, gets my vote.

I do play and design the others, butnot that much....Wild Bill

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

Grisha · Post by **Grisha** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 7:07 am

I'm with Wild Bill on this one. Replaying an historical scenario is always a learning experience for me. If it's a well done scenario it can impress on one the conditions and concerns that the actual commanders had long ago, giving new appreciations and insights.

Rickenbacker · Post by **Rickenbacker** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 7:26 pm

Yep, what WB said

. I definitely prefer historical scenarios, trying to see if you can do better than the real commanders is an added thrill, IMO.

------------------
Rickenbacker
------------
rickenbacker@innocent.com

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 7:46 pm

I like both, though in terms of originality and challenge the historical scenerios tend to be more meaty.

In addition, though i acknowledge its *totally* illogical

there is always that sense of acomplishment that one feels when they take the reins of a battle that was actually fought to see if they can either do better, do the same or whatever vs what the historical commanders were able to do (yeah, like those commanders had our er....'unique' point of view of the battlefield?

)

and i'm still taking that town in Russia. just wait!

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 8:48 pm

Both.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

fdlu · Post by **fdlu** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 9:04 pm

I especially like what if.... scenarios.
Because they can use experimental equipment,
add a lot of uncertainity. Allow some kind of
alternate history ( I am a big SF/F fan)
And because they are not often done, and with
SPWaW they can be very well done.
On a personal level i like shorter ones.
But i like historical ones also. ( I am interested in history in general)
Quite some very contraticting interests.

Major_Johnson · Post by **Major_Johnson** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 9:11 pm

My vote is for the historical!! There is more than enough documentation to pull from. But the game should have both to suit all tastes.

------------------
MJ
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

nikb · Post by **nikb** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 1:22 am

Well I like both, though I tend to play the historical ones first.

The good historical scenarios are the ones that make you want to learn more about them. Actually, some of Wild Bills make me go an look up info prior to actually playing the scenario. Interesting as well as fun playing.

Nik

waynef · Post by **waynef** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 1:23 am

In SP2 I really enjoyed "what if" scenario's. I enjoyed putting different equipment from countries against each other.

In SPW2W I enjoy the historical "events".

Fabs · Post by **Fabs** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 3:12 am

I enjoy historical scenarios, but I also like a hybrid type of scenario where although units and places are fictional they try to portray the feel of engagements in the theatre in question.

In other words, a fictional situation that could well have happened.

The advantage of these scenarios is that they take less time to design, because the map can be made from fantasy taking into account ideas from pictures and accounts about real engagements, and you can invent the names of the units involved.

The challenge is then to make it feel as real as possible.

Having said this, nothing beats a well researched and well produced historical scenario.

------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited September 16, 2000).]

Kerg · Post by **Kerg** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 8:34 am

I will take anything as long as it is well written.

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 9:46 am

My preference is for historical scenarios, but I do set up a lot of battles.

My primary purpose in doing an historical scenario is to play out how the actual battle happened. When I design a scenario. I strive to get a computer vs computer to play out as the battle happened, then I tweak it to make it a better playing as human vs AI or for PBEM.

By watching the computer play itself, it is like watching the writing of Paul Carell or Werner Haupt come to life

------------------
Grenadier
SPWAW Beta Team