Game Categories
Simulation: “How strong is the game at accurately recreating real life situations?”
Games very strong in this aspect would be wargames. Take a game like Advanced Squad Leader that takes the kitchen sink approach and includes everything that was used during WWII (even down to bicycle regiments). Balance, or rules simplicity take a back seat during design and making sure the results simulate what would have likely happed given the conditions. As a design process these games often start with a specific situation and attempt to recreate it by developing the system. A game like Ogre takes traits from wargames but adds in experience by creating this new world, this new setting and new vehicles and machines to use.
Experience: “How strong is the game at providing the player with a “role” to step into?”
AmeriTrash Games are often the ones that I feel provide a strong experience, sometimes at the expense of the other two categories. A game like Twilight Imperium III makes me feel like I’m in the roll of a Galactic Emperor controlling and directing my people when to expand, when to build up an army, when diplomacy is the best action…etc. Miniature games are another experience game where you take on the roll of a general outfitting your troops, telling them what to defend and where to attack. But miniature games also have a simulation aspect to them. Intricate worlds are created, entire races are developed and the technology and fighting style are all supposed to represent and reflect the back-story and history that these particular races have.
Balance: “How strong is the balance between players?”
This one was a little harder for me to define or come up with a word for but I think balance fits. Euro titles and Abstracts would fall into this category. Abstracts often put players on an equal playing field with a minimal set of rules and win/loss comes down to the player’s skill and ability to execute strategy within a given system. Some of heavy Euros would fall into this like Caylus and Through the Desert. Both of those games I don’t think do a good job at simulating anything. They don’t do a good job at giving me the experience (I don’t feel like a caravan leader in Through the Desert nor a builder in Caylus). What they do a great job at is creating a framework, which can get very complex at times, which tries to find out who has the better skills at working in and manipulating in a particular system. A game like Mississippi Queen gives everyone the same starting resources and has everyone floating down the same river, but also adds in things that add to the experience like ramming and river obsticles.
The reason why I feel the classification system should change is because as I mentioned the current terms are restrictive. Games are fought over by people who identify with the different camps or genres of games when in reality the majority of games do not fit nicely into one of the three current categories. By boiling it down to what I feel is the defining trait of each respective genre it allows you to classify games as being strong in experience, above average in simulation but weak in balance (Like TI3). Or weak in experience, strong in balance but weak in simulation (like TtD). Or strong in experience, average in simulation but weak in balance (like the majority of miniature games).
I see these traits on a sliding scale. Think of the back of a wargame box where it rates difficulty or solitaire suitability on a sliding scale…That’s how I see the traits I define. To me it provides the consumer with more and better information on what to expect from a particular title. If a game is high on balance but low in everything else (these would be “Heavy Euros”) chances are it is not for me. I tend to value experience highly so a game like Fury of Dracula which I feel provides a strong experience but is pretty low on balance rates high on my list.
Perhaps my definitions aren’t correct, but I am correct in saying that our current classification system is wrong and of minimal use. The current terms have no clear definition. As games that share traits with Euros or AT or Wargames come out these definitions, often defined by the groups that identify with them, are dynamic and continuously get redefined, but not refined as games we want to call AT or War or Euro (and could really be argued for multiple sides) call the old definition into question and that definition gets morphed to defend a particular title. Then when a game really can’t be classified as one or the other and is a true hybrid or melding of traits terms like Waros pop up further proving that the current classification system just doesn’t work since nothing is as clean cut and we all want them to be.
‘Til Next Time - Happy Gaming
LvT
