The downsides of computer games

Though PC wargames are getting better all the time, for years I've had
my share of complaints about them--and I still do. How do you deal
with the following:

1. What's behind the interface? When I played board wargames or
miniatures games, I always knew just what was going on--because I had
to do everything myself. If I wasn't sure how to handle something, I
had to look it up in the rulebook; and if it wasn't there, I had to
make a house rule to cover it. But computer games are often poorly
documented; and even when they're well documented, the player doesn't
*have* to study the rules. So, either for lack of documentation or
laziness about paying attention, computer wargames often become
something of a clickfest. I find myself just pushing pieces around and
seeing what happens. But most of the time I really don't know *why*
things are happening--and I don't have the patience or interest to slow
down and find out.

2. Obsolescence. Back when Panzer General was new, I thought,
"Wow--this is it. They'll keep expanding and improving this game, and
it'll satisfy me for life." Now I can barely get PG to run on any
system I have, and when I do it's a joke. I wonder what I ever saw in
it. *Everything* has advanced--computers, game design, AI, and all.
Back in the heyday of Avalon Hill and SPI, I griped about the release
of more wargames than I could possibly keep up with--and the
discontinuation of some of my old favorites. Nothing has changed,
except that in this home-computer age people seem to *expect* every
game to become obsolete before long--or at least to be surpassed by
something newer and better.

3. Complexity creep. The Squad Leader/ASL phenomenon illustrates how
ever-increasing complexity can finally kill a game--or at least
necessitate a complete revision. Before ASL came along, the SL modules
had become too complicated for anybody to play. It made some of us
long for the good old days when wargames were simpler. But with PC
games, much of the complexity is hidden--handled by the computer. So,
we end up with games that would ordinarily be too complicated to play,
but with the help of the computer we play them anyway. This leads back
to point 1 above--the phenomenon of not really knowing what's going on
..

4. Screen limitations. Thumbnail maps help, and we've all gotten used
to scrolling around maps. But zooming and scrolling are still a pain
in the neck compared to having everything laid out on a physical
mapboard or tabletop.

5. Glitz and dazzle. Many PC wargames aim to delight the user with
eye and ear candy--sound effects, musical scores, animation, graphic
detail, and so forth. Apparently the goal is to make the player feel
like he's really there on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the more a
game succeeds at that, the less I like it. I really don't *want* to be
on a battlefield. I don't want to see all the blood and guts and
terror; I don't necessarily even want to hear the clash of steel. I'm
an armchair general, not a real-life general. I want to experiment
with strategy and tactics and military maneuvers *without* going
anywhere near real war.

6. The lure of convenience. Five years ago, I was packing to move,
and I dragged all my old board wargames down out of the closet. Though
they brought back fond memories, I realized there was no way I'd ever
play any of them again. Just setting one up seemed like a monumental
task. Re-learning the rules was an unwelcome burden. In short, I'd
been thoroughly spoiled by computer games. Instant setup, no need to
learn the rules, ability to save and reload games--it's all so very
easy. Too easy. Pretty soon I'm just mindlessly clicking, staring at
the screen, enjoying the show--but really having little idea what's
going on. Back to point 1 above again.

Despite all these downsides, originally there was one big upside to
computer games for me. Before the home-computer age, I found myself
playing solitaire most of the time, for lack of opponents and because I
liked playtesting games at my own pace. Suddenly I could play wargames
on the PC anytime I liked, without having to play both sides against
each other. That was a real dream come true. And computer AI got
better and better--until the Internet came along. Now some designers &
developers figure a mediocre AI is sufficient, since hardcore wargamers
will play each other online or PBEM. So, I've bought a couple PC
wargames that were a waste of time to play solitaire.

The more I play PC wargames, the more I miss board wargames and
miniatures. Only in my mind, though. In reality, I'd never have the
patience to go back to them.

--Patrick

On 18 Mar 2006 19:04:48 -0800, "Patrick" <patrick55carroll DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Though PC wargames are getting better all the time, for years I've had
>my share of complaints about them--and I still do. How do you deal
>with the following:
>
>1. What's behind the interface? When I played board wargames or
>miniatures games, I always knew just what was going on--because I had
>to do everything myself. If I wasn't sure how to handle something, I
>had to look it up in the rulebook; and if it wasn't there, I had to
>make a house rule to cover it. But computer games are often poorly
>documented; and even when they're well documented, the player doesn't
>*have* to study the rules. So, either for lack of documentation or
>laziness about paying attention, computer wargames often become
>something of a clickfest. I find myself just pushing pieces around and
>seeing what happens. But most of the time I really don't know *why*
>things are happening--and I don't have the patience or interest to slow
>down and find out.
>
>2. Obsolescence. Back when Panzer General was new, I thought,
>"Wow--this is it. They'll keep expanding and improving this game, and
>it'll satisfy me for life." Now I can barely get PG to run on any
>system I have, and when I do it's a joke. I wonder what I ever saw in
>it. *Everything* has advanced--computers, game design, AI, and all.
>Back in the heyday of Avalon Hill and SPI, I griped about the release
>of more wargames than I could possibly keep up with--and the
>discontinuation of some of my old favorites. Nothing has changed,
>except that in this home-computer age people seem to *expect* every
>game to become obsolete before long--or at least to be surpassed by
>something newer and better.
>
>3. Complexity creep. The Squad Leader/ASL phenomenon illustrates how
>ever-increasing complexity can finally kill a game--or at least
>necessitate a complete revision. Before ASL came along, the SL modules
>had become too complicated for anybody to play. It made some of us
>long for the good old days when wargames were simpler. But with PC
>games, much of the complexity is hidden--handled by the computer. So,
>we end up with games that would ordinarily be too complicated to play,
>but with the help of the computer we play them anyway. This leads back
>to point 1 above--the phenomenon of not really knowing what's going on
>.
>
>4. Screen limitations. Thumbnail maps help, and we've all gotten used
>to scrolling around maps. But zooming and scrolling are still a pain
>in the neck compared to having everything laid out on a physical
>mapboard or tabletop.
>
>5. Glitz and dazzle. Many PC wargames aim to delight the user with
>eye and ear candy--sound effects, musical scores, animation, graphic
>detail, and so forth. Apparently the goal is to make the player feel
>like he's really there on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the more a
>game succeeds at that, the less I like it. I really don't *want* to be
>on a battlefield. I don't want to see all the blood and guts and
>terror; I don't necessarily even want to hear the clash of steel. I'm
>an armchair general, not a real-life general. I want to experiment
>with strategy and tactics and military maneuvers *without* going
>anywhere near real war.
>
>6. The lure of convenience. Five years ago, I was packing to move,
>and I dragged all my old board wargames down out of the closet. Though
>they brought back fond memories, I realized there was no way I'd ever
>play any of them again. Just setting one up seemed like a monumental
>task. Re-learning the rules was an unwelcome burden. In short, I'd
>been thoroughly spoiled by computer games. Instant setup, no need to
>learn the rules, ability to save and reload games--it's all so very
>easy. Too easy. Pretty soon I'm just mindlessly clicking, staring at
>the screen, enjoying the show--but really having little idea what's
>going on. Back to point 1 above again.
>
>Despite all these downsides, originally there was one big upside to
>computer games for me. Before the home-computer age, I found myself
>playing solitaire most of the time, for lack of opponents and because I
>liked playtesting games at my own pace. Suddenly I could play wargames
>on the PC anytime I liked, without having to play both sides against
>each other. That was a real dream come true. And computer AI got
>better and better--until the Internet came along. Now some designers &
>developers figure a mediocre AI is sufficient, since hardcore wargamers
>will play each other online or PBEM. So, I've bought a couple PC
>wargames that were a waste of time to play solitaire.
>
>The more I play PC wargames, the more I miss board wargames and
>miniatures. Only in my mind, though. In reality, I'd never have the
>patience to go back to them.
>
>--Patrick
Patrick, I could not agree with you more