Matrix Games Forums

I personally think it is when it has precisley been released. The witing is over and you are installing the game.

I love to play the first campaigns of a new wargame. At the early stages you actually think about miltary strategies and how the best way to defeat the enemy would be in reality.

Later when you know the game you start to play it as a GAME and thereby the feeling of real miltary operations is gone. You know how the mechanics work and you don't need to think anymore. All the illusion is gone.

The current release of War in the Pacific got me dreaming about my dearest wish. A new version of War in Russia! That games has the right scale for a game covering the entire war in the east. Corps are just the right size. It never get to clutty with to many units. The second thing that I like about it is that you can see the equipment that the corps elements are using.

Anyway, what stage in a games lifespan do you think is the best?

I suppose I would be the opposite in many respects. I like the game when I've got my head around the game mechanics, when I've got an understanding how the designer(s) have modelled the terrain effects, weaponry, unit capabilities etc. etc. Then I find I can start applying proper military tactics and test the 'realism' of the game as well as its playability.

I understand what you mean. I might have been rather confusing in my post. Of course the game is better when you know how it work, I mean after reading the manual etc so you know what you are doing.

After that comes the time when you still haven't figured out how to win properly and the AI seems good.( which it never is) You loose some battles and situations seems desperate and you fight for your life.

Later on you never loose and you know exactly what to do and the limitations of the game engine becomes obvious. Thats no fun.

I see what you're saying, I'm starting to get that way with 'Highway to the Reich'. Playing on-line is the best part of that nowadays, I tend to use play against the AI for messing with tactics, formations and the like. Saying all that, I've been playing Civ2 for nearly five years and I'm still not tired of it. As a general rule, strategy games have a longer lifespan than other genres because there are many more ways of beating the AI[:)]

When game is at least 2 years old and still popular. By that time there is plenty available stuff made by gamers. Like mods and strategy & tactic guides. Games are patched and players have learned how to play the game (or course this mean players of the 1st year of the game). If game is good enough, it gets all of this. If game is REALLY good, it get mods and stuff even after 5 years! (Half-Life, Doom, Total Annihilation, Steel Panthers: Worlds at War).

ORIGINAL: Kung Karl

Anyway, what stage in a games lifespan do you think is the best?

Pretty much the same as Eric. That time when you find you don't need the manual any more, are confident with the game systems and are just getting down to working out tactics and improving your game. Before that it can be a bit of a chore, and after that it never seems quite so much fun.

It's pretty genre dependent, too. What I just said would apply to a wargame, TBS game or simulation (aircraft/tank/sub). For a shooter, the pattern is different - you know how to play after about five minutes, so the best period would be shunted along to the point where you know the maps, know most of the good tactics, and are starting to really compete well online.

I take Matti's point, but I rarely play anything for that long. Not because there isn't plenty stuff well deserving of an extended lifespan, but because there are always new games and so little time to play them in. At times I almost think it would be nice to just not buy anything for two years and go back to some of the great games I already have.

I believe every game worth its weight has two great moments.

1. The moment you open the packaging and get the first whiff of that "new game smell." If it's a product of any quality at all, the manual, box and any game-related inserts are almost head-spinning. Then you dive into the manual and gently set the disc in the tray. From there all bets are off.

2. Now, provided the game turns out to be something good, <i>and</i> something that tickles your individual fancy, the second greatest moment (tied for first, really) is when that game you've been playing for days - maybe weeks - just "clicks." You are the master of the game. You understand its nuances. The manual is just a pleasant refresher. You can lecture others on the games mechanics. And you realize that this one will be on your HD for a long time. That is the real pinnacle of gaming. For me, the first game I remember hitting that plateau with is the original "Pirates!"

ORIGINAL: Kung Karl

I personally think it is when it has precisley been released. The witing is over and you are installing the game.

I love to play the first campaigns of a new wargame. At the early stages you actually think about miltary strategies and how the best way to defeat the enemy would be in reality.

Later when you know the game you start to play it as a GAME and thereby the feeling of real miltary operations is gone. You know how the mechanics work and you don't need to think anymore. All the illusion is gone.

The current release of War in the Pacific got me dreaming about my dearest wish. A new version of War in Russia! That games has the right scale for a game covering the entire war in the east. Corps are just the right size. It never get to clutty with to many units. The second thing that I like about it is that you can see the equipment that the corps elements are using.

Anyway, what stage in a games lifespan do you think is the best?

I find the best time during a games lifespan is when the AI defeats me over and over and over again, until that fateful day I finally get the upper hand and win one game, and then it beats me over and over and over again! LOL Spartan 1.013 version is like that to me.

Civilization is another on it's extreme difficulties that I also get that best time feeling from. Because it remains a game I have not "conquered" yet, and that means it has longevity, these games that you open the box and within a weeks time have conquered it time and time again, even on it's highest difficulty really make me disappointed in the purchase, all the HYPE about being inovating and an IMPROVED AI, lol, many times is just a joke and a laugh on me.

Which is better a game that is challenging for a week to a month or a game that is challenging for a lifetime?

ORIGINAL: ravinhood



Which is better a game that is challenging for a week to a month or a game that is challenging for a lifetime?

Depends on the game really. Some games have a relatively short lifespan but in that time give you a very intense experience. 'Max Payne 2' is like that, I played it several times all the way through and really enjoyed it but after a month to six weeks of gaming that was it. Civilisation, on the other hand, is a far more sedate ride, spreading its pleasures far more thinly but with the bonus of knowing that the next game will be on a different World where you'll face different challenges in different places. I love both games but each for very different reasons.