Casual Strategy Gamers?

[Jon Shafer]

EU2's problem is not that it is huuuugely complex, what was an issue was it's 'attitude'.

EU2 exudes historical strategy game-geekdom. Imagine you're a n00b and start up the game. As soon as you jump in 50 popup boxes appear every minute with an enormous map and very little guidance. Since it's real-time the game is moving while you're trying to figure out what's going on, and then all of the sudden things start happening and before you know it 10 countries have declared war on you and there are little guys marching everywhere over your empire.

That sort of thing will very quickly scare off many 'casual gamers'. One of the things we focused on with Civ 4 was the ability for people to simply pick it up and start playing their way through from the beginning. Even so, it's a complex strategy game so you won't be able to grab everyone, but things can be done to help smooth the learning curve for those who aren't REALLY into the game or genre.

 

[unmerged(4825)]

I think I can honestly admit to being a 'casual strategy gamer'. Not because I resort to easy-going beer and popcorn games, but because I simply don't have the time to play the complex titles Paradox churns out. I love Paradox and their games and I'm very found of their detail and historical accuracy, despite the fact that I lack any 'academic degree' (I'm a simple Maintenance Man). I can spend hours just scrolling through the map, or look at what armies and navies certain countries have and so on, until I notice too much time has gone and I haven't really played (just marvelled).
Seriously I do play, but usually at a slow pace to not miss anything, so I never or rarely have finished any GC in any of the games I own (EU I&II, HOI I&II and Vicky).

To me something like Sonny said would be fine, the ability to automate certain mechanics, I do subscribe to the critics of that though, but it will certainly suit a more varied consumer-base anyway.
For instance I liked the idea of short scenarios in HOI II, where you only had to take care of the warfare and skip the rest, I hope something of that will be implemented in EU III.
So, keep all the complexity and detail, but have some easy-going gameplay possibilities for us with limited computer-time.

Btw, I've tried CIV 4 too, but it's mostly polish...some fine features, but I simply never got any nice atmosphere and the famous 'just one more turn' feeling from it. CIV 2 and Alpha Centauri is still the top titles from Mr. Meier imho.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Casual gamer doesn't mind complexity, probably likes, but it has to be behind the scenes. He doesn't want to have to micromanage, but he might want to if he feels up to it, ie he's interested in that aspect. He's also pressed for time usually and this is a way for him to unwind for a bit, but he can't nessarily spend 4 hours straight in the game.

Finally the casual gamer doesn't read a manual (sad, but true...i have no sympathy for people who can't atleast skim over the manual). He might play a tutorial, but would prefer to jump into the game right away and learn as he's playing and grumbles if he actually has to look something up (and might post a nasty message on the forum about it).

 

[Duuk]

I consider myself a very casual gamer. I honestly don't care if the Panzerkampfwagen IV had a 22 centimeter gun making it have a slightly higher armour pierce value than the PkwIII. I do care that the next "level" of tank be better than the last "level" of tank, and I don't want to spend an hour trying to figure out which track width works best.

I don't want to manipulate 7500 POPs, I just want them to grow and mature and promote/demote/move/emigrate/etc on their own.

I don't want to have to pick tactics for each battle. I just want to throw guys in big piles in the right places and expect them to win.

I don't want to set up 10,000 counters on a massive game board and consult a 100 page rulebook every turn (Empires in Arms!).

 

[Haukionkala]

EU2 has just about the right level of complexity. It is moderately accessible, but still very deep and you can learn new things even after years of playing. I enjoy Victoria too, even more than EU2, but it is not accessible for the casual gamer. Even someone who has played most Paradox games before will have hard time trying to figure it out. Going into the Victoria direction would probably be a bad idea, even though I would most likely love it.

Keeping the EU2 level of complexity sounds fine to me. There just has to be a good and thorough tutorial, with extra tips during the game that give advice on events and other choices. The gameplay tips shouldn't be like they are in EU2 for example, they should appear during the game, suggesting things to the player. For example, a player that starts a new game gets a pop-up that suggests building tax collectors to increase income. When the player gets to a war, a pop-up should appear suggesting how many troops should the player need and where should the investments go during the war.

All this should make the game accessible to the casual strategy gamer, while still retaining the complexity and deepness that made EU2 so great. Of course, experienced players should have the ability to skip the tutorial and disable those gameplay tips.

 

[TheLand]

Personally I've never really got into Civ4. Better than Civ3 but it's still basically Civ2 with some bells on. I like the bells. But essentially I am bored with the situation: you start with a few people, build cities, advance your techs, build mroe cities, fight wars, get railroads, build more cities, fight more wars.

The reason I prefer Paradox games is the greater detail of the setup, the greater appropriateness of gameplay to the period concerned, and the ability to introduce particular mechanics in greater detail to get a result that's more satisfying to someone who knows the history. That doesn't necessarily mean micromanagement.

 

[unmerged(485)]

..............................................

Finally the casual gamer doesn't read a manual (sad, but true...i have no sympathy for people who can't atleast skim over the manual).

..........................................

I do have sympathy for those who do read manuals. What little information they get from them is usually not correct (or at least not correct after the first patch).

 

[Waldzwerg]

I guess what is needed are difficulty levels that scale appropriatly. 'Very easy' should mean 'a retard can play and have success and fun on his first game' while 'very hard' should be something that only the resident demi gods can truly master. Too often there are only varying degrees of easyness resp. hardness (for paradox games they are for most part on the easy side of the spectrum).

 

[lordy80011]

Yeah, but you can automate or forget about most of these, and still manage to play the game fairly easily.

I'd imagine that this would be the way EU3 would go -> keep the depth of the gameplay and player choice, but make a lot of it automatable or not crucial for playing the game (eg. like in HOI2, where you can auto-assign and promote leaders, and not like Victoria where you MUST micromanage everything constantly!).

Actually, I consider the auto-promote leader function to be a critical function for playing some nations in HOI2. It's quite intensive to constantly shift Manstein, Model, von Rundstedt, Rommel, etc. to be involved in each and every possible battle so as to get their skill level up to a reasonable level while still being at a reasonable rank (such as general) in time for Barbarossa, etc.

Of course, the Germans aren't one of the nations that hurt the worst from having the auto-promote feature turned off, either. That's just the only example that comes off the top of my head.

So sometimes, an automation function can operate in a crucial fashion to gaining some extra measure of success. (at least, IMHO! )

Turning to the topic at hand: I think that I am not a "casual strategy gamer" in any sense of the word... I like to get deeply immersed if possible! However, I also have a 15-month old to care for, and a wife whom I love madly, not to mention all of the other work that needs to be done, etc.! So it's nice to have a game that is designed in such a fashion that it is accessible to the casual strategy gamer. An accessible game does not have to be "dumbed down" in any sense of the word. To my mind, this merely means that a great deal of thought and time has been devoted to the interface in order to make it as easy as possible to play, understand, and enjoy the game.

This is the "Holy Grail" of the Paradox gaming universe... a game that loses none of the in-depth complexity that we have all come to know and love since EU was first released, while improving the accessibility of the interface and the ability to easily grasp what is going on where without having to search for the one obscure place in the manual (or these boards) where a particular feature of interest is mentioned...

In any event: Viva Paradox! I look forward to the newest EU addition.

 

[Rich Oliver]

Finally the casual gamer doesn't read a manual (sad, but true...i have no sympathy for people who can't atleast skim over the manual). He might play a tutorial, but would prefer to jump into the game right away and learn as he's playing and grumbles if he actually has to look something up (and might post a nasty message on the forum about it).

Oh come on be fair. The first law of computing and not just gaming has always been 'if all else fails consider opening the manual'. besides my EU2 never had a manual.

 

[Rich Oliver]

Actually, I consider the auto-promote leader function to be a critical function for playing some nations in HOI2. It's quite intensive to constantly shift Manstein, Model, von Rundstedt, Rommel, etc. to be involved in each and every possible battle so as to get their skill level up to a reasonable level while still being at a reasonable rank (such as general) in time for Barbarossa, etc.

Ive always gone for complex games but the whole leader thing in HOI seemed an utter waste of my time and the processors.

Put the complexity into economics and supply. Thats what make for a realism and interesting decisions not tedious micromanagement.

 

[lordy80011]

Ive always gone for complex games but the whole leader thing in HOI seemed an utter waste of my time and the processors.

Put the complexity into economics and supply. Thats what make for a realism and interesting decisions not tedious micromanagement.

I'm definitely not pro-tedious micromanagement. That's precisely why I consider the auto-promotion feature in HOI2 to be a crucial factor to my HOI2 experience.

However, I do disagree with regards to the leaders. I think that leaders add a lot of flavor to the game. I'd much rather have Patton leading my tank corps, and Kesselring guiding the defense of northern Italy than a faceless group of divisions, and I suspect that this is also true for most "casual strategy gamers" who will likely appreciate the flavor that this brings.

However, I can appreciate what you are saying with regards to economics and supply. I don't want to see them become too intensively complex though. I am not any more interested in spending outrageous amounts of time managing the economy and supply lines than I am in micromanaging leaders to help them garner experience!

 

[unmerged(33709)]

A casual strategy player is the guy who buys a game every year or two and his last purchase was Civ4. Not a stupid lad as he most likely is 30 or so with an academical degree. He doesn´t care about fantasy or violence that is just too geeky or juvenile for his taste.

Actually I think the casual gamer refers to the opposite of this. The casual gamer likes simple yet fast paced RTS games such as Dawn of War and Warcraft.

 

[Cormac]

Casual Strategy Gamers should either step up to the plate, or go play Civilization. I do not think I am alone in stating that I would be dissapointed to see the series take a step back in complexity.

Bingo! Well said, and I couldn't agree more. Where's a poor history buff to go if Paradox starts appeasing the masses???

As for me, if I'm not intimidated by the depth of a game right out of the box, I'm going to put it right back and go do something else. Seriously. Complexity means the game has "legs"--infinite replayability that will keep me coming back for more. And the emphasis on realism makes me feel like I'm re-writing history instead of playing a colorfully dressed-up variation of chess.

 

[Duuk]

Bingo! Well said, and I couldn't agree more. Where's a poor history buff to go if Paradox starts appeasing the masses???

As for me, if I'm not intimidated by the depth of a game right out of the box, I'm going to put it right back and go do something else. Seriously. Complexity means the game has "legs"--infinite replayability that will keep me coming back for more. And the emphasis on realism makes me feel like I'm re-writing history instead of playing a colorfully dressed-up variation of chess.

You know... if Paradox took your advice, they'd make the greatest historical games ever made.

...and then they'd be bankrupt in 6 months. You don't sell games by deliberately excluding 99% of people that buy games. Paradox has to make a fun and interesting game that has rich depth for the hardcore gamer while still maintaining playability for the gamers that want to sit down and beat up France for an hour.

Welcome to Economics 101. My name is Duuk, and I'll be your host.

 

[lordy80011]

And some of us who enjoy the rich depth of gaming, and are poor history buffs only have an hour or so a day (if that) to play these games, so it's nice when you can actually accomplish something in that hour.