03-07-2014, 08:09 PM
I have played Wesnoth and loved it. Great game.
Solo gaming in general I find addictive and problematic. Addictive because there are so many really good games out there, and problematic in that they can be so addictive. ;-)
But beyond that, the buzz I get from PBM gaming has everything to do with the fact that there are other human players facing me across the virtual table. Human players are infinitely more dangerous, unpredictable, and personally rewarding than computer opponents.
Playing Wesnoth solo is fun, to be sure. But when I play through a scenario and lose (which is fairly often), I reload it and play it again until I get through it with satisfaction. Since the artificial intelligence never changes, I always ultimately win. But playing against a human would take it to a much higher level.
I remember playing one of the pre-cursors (and inspirations) to Civilization, called Empire. You started off controlling one city on an unmapped planet. You'd set production orders, build a minimal set of armies, tanks, planes, ships, etc. and take over nearby "independent" cities. Sooner or later you'd encounter one of the computer empires. You'd win and lose some battles, but over time you'd concentrate your forces, take a few key beach-heads, and trounce the computer.
One of my old housemates watched me, and asked if we could do a game against each other, "hotseat" style. We did, and it was by far the best and most memorable game of Empire I have ever played. I trounced most of my computer opponents by around turn 200, but Dave and I were at each others throats 800 turns later and still stuck in stalemate! And not a static picket line of trench warfare, mind you -- I'm talking vigorous sweeps, strategic campaigns, clever feints, you name it. We Could Not Beat Each Other. It was truly epic.
I still play Civilization IV, which I consider to be one of the greatest computer games in history. But it doesn't give me the same tingle as my Cluster Wars turn results, or even my "game night" with some of the geekier neighborhood dads.
Solo gaming in general I find addictive and problematic. Addictive because there are so many really good games out there, and problematic in that they can be so addictive. ;-)
But beyond that, the buzz I get from PBM gaming has everything to do with the fact that there are other human players facing me across the virtual table. Human players are infinitely more dangerous, unpredictable, and personally rewarding than computer opponents.
Playing Wesnoth solo is fun, to be sure. But when I play through a scenario and lose (which is fairly often), I reload it and play it again until I get through it with satisfaction. Since the artificial intelligence never changes, I always ultimately win. But playing against a human would take it to a much higher level.
I remember playing one of the pre-cursors (and inspirations) to Civilization, called Empire. You started off controlling one city on an unmapped planet. You'd set production orders, build a minimal set of armies, tanks, planes, ships, etc. and take over nearby "independent" cities. Sooner or later you'd encounter one of the computer empires. You'd win and lose some battles, but over time you'd concentrate your forces, take a few key beach-heads, and trounce the computer.
One of my old housemates watched me, and asked if we could do a game against each other, "hotseat" style. We did, and it was by far the best and most memorable game of Empire I have ever played. I trounced most of my computer opponents by around turn 200, but Dave and I were at each others throats 800 turns later and still stuck in stalemate! And not a static picket line of trench warfare, mind you -- I'm talking vigorous sweeps, strategic campaigns, clever feints, you name it. We Could Not Beat Each Other. It was truly epic.
I still play Civilization IV, which I consider to be one of the greatest computer games in history. But it doesn't give me the same tingle as my Cluster Wars turn results, or even my "game night" with some of the geekier neighborhood dads.