What's wrong with current BBGs?

[Ramblurr]

Building off my earlier break down of the core PBM characteristics, I'm interested in seeing how modern games fail to exhibit all these features.

I am particularly interested in browser (and turn) based games (BBGs), which intuitively seem to exhibit some of these features, but fail to hook me and result in my losing interest. There are literally hundreds of these types of games out there. MPGOD lists 811 text and turn based browser games, but if you include "tick-based" games that number doubles.

I've played only a handful of these, so I will discuss those below.

The sort of games I am talking about are these:
Travian (w) - Medieval - Strategy - Closed Ended
Planetarion (w) - Space - Strategy - Closed Ended
Cosmic Supremacy - Space - Strategy - Open Ended (not actually browser based as it uses a downloadable client)
Astro Empires - Space - Strategy - Open Ended

Like I said before, there are hundreds of these types of games out there, but I think most of them are very shallow, too fast paced, and very repetitive. I'm out of time now, but I'll reply later with a more detailed discussion on these games.

In the meantime, if you have any experience with these types of games, share your experiences. Did they hook you, if not why not? Why don't they compare to the PBMs of old.. what is that missing element?

[GrimFinger]

My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Repetition, itself, can be either boring or fun. I used to do a lot of repetitious stuff, back when I played Warcraft II and Starcraft on Battlenet, many years ago, but I had a lot of fun in the process.

Browser based games also suffer from a malady common to numerous post-postal PBM games - namely, interface issues. Often times, interfaces for games are not very intuitive, and the player invariably struggles with the interface. Interface issues can ruin an otherwise interesting sounding game. The interface can be a real interest killer, at times.

With postal gaming, the time delay between turns can help to build the anticipation factor, even as it acts as a retardant to the potential for game burnout. Players can become burned out, playing PBM games of the postal variety kind, to be certain.

Of the games on your short list above, I've tried Travian. It sucks. It gets old very fast, thus, it has no staying power for me, where its appeal factor is concerned.

Of the browser based games that I have tried, thus far, the one that I liked the best (but which I also no longer play) was Warlords of Eluria. It's been a long while since I have played it, though. I took a glance at the game's Top 100 Player rankings list, just now, and several of the players listed there are current or former players of the play by mail game, Hyborian War. I don't know how many of those players still play Warlords of Eluria, though.

The thing that I liked best about the game was its fledgling character system. One of the things that I disliked about the character system, though, is also one of the things that I also dislike about Fate of a Nation's character system - you have to grow a cast of characters, rather than starting with the equivalent of a royal court or assembly of great leaders, as is the case with both Hyborian War and Middle-earth PBM.

With browser based games, the player faces an accelerated curve for both familiarity and disenchantment. Imagination tends to be the "glue" that holds a postal game together. For all of the numerous deficiencies and shortcomings and outright problems that postal games tended to have (and to still have), whether computer-moderated or hand-moderated or a little bit of both, imagination was the great equalizer for postal games. Because there was a sizable span of time between turn results, players' imaginations were kept active and engaged for longer time spans, than browser based games tend to enjoy. Browser based games tend to be more bug free and more efficient, but efficiency devoid of imagination tends to yield rather dry results. Dry, in turn, equals boredom.

[Ramblurr]

Grim I think you hit the figurative nail square on the head: browser games are boring. I rapidly experience everything the game has to offer, and end up bored with no interest in the gameplay. The rapid turn/tick time contributes to the 'acceleration of disenchantment' as you put it.

Additionally, most browser games are shallow to the extent that I can almost feel/see the raw mechanics churning away between clicks. Even if the game lacks a story/plot, I should still feel part of a narrative, a narrative I'm creating or contributing to as I play my position. However, when I play browser games I feel as if I am merely crunching numbers through an elaborate system.

Your point regarding imagination is key. The PBMs were fun, in many ways, because they lacked graphics and relied solely on your imagination. When playing RTG's RN:ROTE fiddling with my spreadsheet and tracking orders on paper really didn't feel like number crunching, rather I felt as if I was actually planning and issuing orders to my vast empire. In many ways I think many PBMs, while not RPGs, had a certain roleplay element that grabbed our imagination. For example, in SN:ROTE I was able to fully craft my position's species including physical, socio, and religious traits. I wasn't playing some canned or nameless people, but a people I created and gave life too, even though the RP didn't manifest it self during regular gameplay.

I still like have hopes for the web as a gaming medium for "deep" games, for it is accessible and ubiquitous these days, just like paper+mail was (is) two decades ago. I wonder what a web based game without these flaws would look like. Long turn/tick times? More player actions/customization? Less graphics?

Regarding the character systems, did you ever play Olympia?

[GrimFinger]

Ramblurr, I have not tried Olympia. though I have looked at it and considered it. Isn't it similar to Atlantis?

[Ramblurr]

Herm, I think so. Which one came first?

I know there are is active game of each:
http://www.arno-saxena.de/atlantis/atl_home.php
http://olympia.v-labs.be/g3/

Also, a friend recommended me this new browser game Zandagort. I'm going to play a couple turns to check it out.

Edit: Some quick notes about Zandagort after playing for about 30 minutes:

• The UI is very slick. Presents lots of information in a readable manner, and makes good use of AJAX to make performing actions easy.
  
• The english translation is a little rough in some spots
  
• The beginning is slow - which IMHO is a good thing!
  
• The tutorial is helpful
  
• The economy looks complex
  

[Toppers]

I to find the browser games very repeative and boring, the few I have tried did not hold my attention long enough and gave no scope for personal action, only what was allowed within the confines of the game...

[dthacker]

I played cafe-world and farmville a lot for 4-5 months. I advances through the levels, decorated my playspace, but in the end it just turned into a grind. One friday night, I found myself planting a 6 hour crop and cooking an 8 hour dish and thinking "I have to get up at 6am to get a 16 hour crop in before bedtime." I quit cold turkey.

ESMS has a rhythm, I email my teamsheet off, look at the transfer offers, see which of my squad is not getting playing time, and plan for the draft. I wait weeks for my scouts to come back with new talent, I eagerly await each Saturday's email with game results. A season unfolds over 6 months, and I may have to change my goals for the season each week depending on results and injuries. There's definitely plenty of anticipation.

Dave

[GrimFinger]

Herm, I think so. Which one came first?

I know there are is active game of each:
http://www.arno-saxena.de/atlantis/atl_home.php
http://olympia.v-labs.be/g3/

According to this site, Olympia preceded Atlantis.

[JonO]

Browser based games also suffer from a malady common to numerous post-postal PBM games - namely, interface issues. Often times, interfaces for games are not very intuitive, and the player invariably struggles with the interface. Interface issues can ruin an otherwise interesting sounding game. The interface can be a real interest killer, at times.

That isn't the fault of the concept. A lot of programmers, even highly-paid one who have been doing web or desktops for a long time know diddley-squat about how to create a user-interface. Indeed, most of them look down on the interface as some sort of tail that cannot be allowed to wag the data-dog.

A few years ago, I was asked to beta test (and beta program) Microsoft's tablet concept. My response after using it for awhile (computers are too big and heavy, basically Windows XP with so-so handwriting analysis, not capable of being used while being held) was not well received by the boyos at M$FT who talked about all the impressive programming (and it was!) under the hood. When tablets didn't take off, for pretty much the reasons I had cited - the concept was pronounced a niche market in Redmond. Then along came Apple and the I-Pad. Most of the innovative programming in it is in the UI. The focus was on making it intuitive, and easy. . . Now tablets are the fastest growing segment of the market, and may relegate laptops to being the niche in the not too distant future.

One thing good modern game programming (desktop and on-line, computer and game-box) understands is that the GUI makes or breaks the game. Heck, that is true of turn-sheet gaming, too. If you cannot figure out how to give orders, or it is a PITA to give them, you are far less likely to keep playing.

[GrimFinger]

If you cannot figure out how to give orders, or it is a PITA to give them, you are far less likely to keep playing.

That sounds like my experience with Far Horizons, to date (Ramblurr take note). I am trying to sort through it, though.