I suppose it comes down to “Keeping up with the Graphical Joneses”. It’s an understandable choice, but not one that makes you stand out.
I like it (speaking from the POV of a gamer who just wants an understandable interface, and doesn’t care about the originality of how the info is presented to me).
It could have the most innovative U/I and unit display imaginable. But if The Bulge Factor isn’t mitigated, I won’t buy/play it.
I am not buying it as I find foolish to spend money on games whose gameplay I don’t like (I didn’t like the first ones either).
Yet I can appreciate the effort to make something with appeal, even if that means reverting to the mean of “beauty standards”, and what I think is a honest attempt to strike a balance between going off the beaten path and making money out of games.
I was talking more about the content of the design diaries. They are adding a ton of detail over pretty simplistic (yet very effective) systems, thus, I fear, losing the simplicity that made the first game click.
Too obscure. The naval campaign in the Philippines during the Spanish American war of 1898 is a better example. Some dudes even made a game out if that you can buy on Steam.
I did enjoy having the Spanish fleet massacred in one single engagement. It was a short quick game.
So give me a good, clean term. The Spanish-American War Effect? Good, but seems wordy, aesthetically. Is that your suggestion? I’m gonna do a poll/vote on whatever gets suggested and officially use it in my lingo/comments from hereafter. Make the term a “thing”. :)
Jenkins’ Ear has a ring to it.
I buy any game on the Russian Civil War regardless of quality.
So gimme a clean term using that conflict! :)
Dig, but could be too ambiguous. That might work though.
Brooski
5221
Triumph of Chaos v2 is done.
I like it. It has some double entendre/innudendo (“Rough Trade”, to “Ride”) to it, as well as if used as “Rough Rider”, Rider has an alternative definition of:
a condition or proviso added to something already said or decreed.
“one rider to the deal—if the hurricane heads north, we run for shelter”
Vote for the term, for a game where you buy it, despite how flawed it may be, or how unoriginal the design may be because the conflict, theater or scenario is rarely, if at all represented in game form.
Poll will remain open for 48 hours. The terms below are the terms, verbatim (Example, “I bought that game from Legion on the Great Northern War because of the Rough Rider”).
- San Juan Boundary
- Jenkins’ Ear
- White Russian
- Rough Rider
Wait. “Rough Riders”? Don’t make me start a write-in campaign for Silverado
Boxer rebellion – European powers vs. Chinese nationals. As the French. Run the gamet as all 4 western powers with a Japanese intervention as a What If?
I’d say that is really almost the perfect example.
SamS
5226
Any Chinese battle would qualify as they are rare as hens teeth. At the risk of sounding Orientalist, I would call them Shangri-La games, (which also picks up Roosevelt’s comment about the Doolittle raid, another under represented battle). “Yeah the game was expensive, but it was a Shangri-La game”
Yes, I’m inclined to agree with the fears about UoC’s added complexity. The introduction of command HQs and complicating the reinforcement steps suggest they’ve lost track of how the abstracted supply and cunning scenario design encouraged the role-playing of the stereotypical German/Soviet commander (aggressive punching through and disrupting supply lines being the only way to win as the Germans and slow careful grinding down the front line first followed by deep battle for the Soviets)
Maulet
5228
This could be interesting:
