Easy to please
When I hear people complaining about 5G -- in particular about not having fun, or not having enough to do -- I find myself asking:
Do I just have really low expectations because this is the first boffer game I've played?
I mean, I didn't think I did. I'm pretty picky about my games. There are many theater-style games I wasn't ashamed to leave ( Read more... )
Do I just have really low expectations because this is the first boffer game I've played?
I mean, I didn't think I did. I'm pretty picky about my games. There are many theater-style games I wasn't ashamed to leave ( Read more... )
There are ways in which it doesn't work for me. My tabletop group has been talking a lot about the GNS spectrum and I think that that spectrum explains a lot of how I feel about the game.
As a game, it does *amazing* things for simulation. The world is complex and consistant. That's where a lot of the focus is. It's so detailed and methodical and it's clear that that is where they're drawing a lot of their material from. For players who want to dive into that world lore and chew chew chew away on the scenery, it's great.
Simulationism is the least important thing for me. It's not a thing that excites me most of the time. That doesn't mean it's not important or that it's bad. It's just not what helps me have fun in a game. And for people for whom it *is* really engaging, I would expect them to love it.
I admit, I really clashed with the rest of my Origin starting out, and I think that dampened the entire rest of my game. My team is great, and I adore them, but I have a hard time feeling satisfied with just sitting around shooting the shit. Also wondering whether or not my team would get in around me (I had prepaid for the year through KS) also made it feel like it was hard to get excited.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it totally makes sense that you're having fun to me! The game is engaging with things that make you happy and thus fun occurs! I am a big proponent of "Not all games are for all people" and even if I'm walking from a game, that doesn't make the game bad. Just that it's not for me :)
Reply
I guess I see the successes of the game more as narrativist successes than simulationist successes? But I think that plays a part, too. My best games have been ones where I've been able to become fully immersed.
I can see how worrying about your team getting in would dampen your enthusiasm. Not having to deal with that Silverfire side is probably part of my enjoyment. I freely admit that if I were left by myself, without a team, my game would be very different -- not bad, necessarily; it's kind of what I want to do in Crossover if I play -- but different.
Are you leaving the game? Or was that a mere hypothetical?
Reply
The agenda of the Narrativist is drama. Narrativist player typically involved using player agency to put characters in dramatic situations and experiencing the results. This may involve interaction with the game’s mechanics (“I spend karma point to compel the monster to elope with me, denouncing all monsterkind”) or pure roleplay (“Please, monster, come run off and elope with me!”).
The agenda of the Simulationist is exploration. Simulationist play typically strives for a consistent world, with internally consistent character motivations, and the interaction with that world. This may involve interaction with the game’s mechanics (“I have the ‘deathly afraid of monsters’ flaw, so let me roll for fear rather than elope”) or pure roleplay (“oh no, a monster!”
Internally consistent character motivations, interacting with the world. Etc. None of this really speaks to me as a player, and I've found it hard to carve out any sort of personal intense scene or dramatics. It doesn't help things like NPCs mistaking another PC for me and giving them the little bit of plot that was earmarked for me (Things happen! I totes get that! but it's a floon killer).
Yeah, I'm probably not coming back. I enjoy my character, but I find a hard time gaining any personal agency within the game.
Reply
Leave a comment