your favorite game for each setting.

[lord of the mark]

list of games and favorites by game genre always makes me think the assumption is that my hobby is something called "gaming" . Now if somebody tells me their hobby is "reading" I tend to think they're either 12 year olds or they're not very intellectual. We intellectual snobs say our hobby is history, or science, or whatever.

Now games hasnt reached that point, a sign I think of the immaturity of the medium. The technology and the issues it generates still dominate. But at least for me, that is not the reason i play games. I think we should start to think differently - our real interests are NOT 1. Spreadsheet management (TBS) 2. Fast clicking (action games) 3. Fast clicking with some spread sheet management (RTS) 4. Puzzle solving (Adventure) 5. Managing character stats (RPG's) etc.

Rather our interests are History, fantasy, science fiction, etc.

Thus for me playing a history game is an extension of my interest in history - just as reading a history book, or seeing a historically themed movie, or visiting a historic site is. So when i play a history game its the history that matters, not whether it RT, TB, or whatever. Similarly a good sci-fi game should hold my interest as sci-fi, just as a novel or movie would, regardless of its genre.

In the interest of furthering that i invite all to list their favorite games by setting. I will not be tabulating anything, so feel free to list as many as you want. In the interests of clarifying my meaning, I will list most of the games I own.


Categories - History - (including wargames, empire builders, city builders, etc)
Science fiction
Fantasy
Post-apocalypse (this should be seperate setting from sci-fi, no?)
Contemporary life (could include a strategy game, though im thinking more of games like the sims, or tycoon games. I'll use 1989, the fall of the Berlin wall, to set apart from history games.)
Abstract ( no particular setting, like free cell, or, arguably, chess)
Nature (sim ant. the never made dinosaur game?)

My games

History
1. Civ2
2. Imperialism2
3. Age of Empires
4. Caesar 3
5. Sid Meiers Gettysburgh/Antietam
6. RE Lee: Civil War General
7. 1602 AD

(note in addition to strat games and citybuilders, this could include WW2 era flight sims, historical setting adventures, etc)


Sci Fi
1. SMAC

(this will include many strat games, but also RPG's, shooters, etc)

Fantasy
1. Myst
2. Zork
3. Collosal Cave

(though lots of adventure games here, obviously also lots of RPG's, action games, and strat games)

Contemporary life
1. SimCity 2000
2. Simtown
3. Simtower
3. simcopter

(Mainly "tycoon" games and flight sims, but really should be wider if gaming is too be genuine interactive fiction. Also hoping for the great contemporary power politics game)

Nature
1. Simisle
2. Simsafari

(Seems to belong to will wright)

Post-Apocalypse

( i dont have any - seems to be popular in RPGS and RTS)

Abstract
(Only ones i own are the ones that came with windows, but there seems to be some market)

[Stuie]

History:
Civ3
Operational Art of War would be a close second, followed by the Total War series.

Science fiction:
Tie Fighter

Fantasy:
Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic

Post-apocalypse:
Fallout 2

Contemporary life:
What was that Britney Spears dance software called? Never mind...
I'll go with High Heat 2004 since you've neglected to include any other category that might encompass sports.

Abstract:
Microsoft Excel. Weeee!

Nature:
Nothing comes to mind.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Stuie
I'll go with High Heat 2004 since you've neglected to include any other category that might encompass sports.

Me bad. Sports definitely should be a seperate category - OTOH its usually already treated as seperate genre, so maybe this isnt such a bad oversight. I was thinking similar thoughts re Flight sims, but then thought leaving that out was good, as it broke up contemporary flight sims from historical ones. Dont suppose there's an equivalent distinction for sports though?

[Datajack Franit]

SimEVERYTHING

[Az]

History:
Civ2, CTP2, Ceasar 2.

Science Fiction:
SMAC, Privateer 2: the Darkening, Crusader: No Regret, Quake 3, MoO, Fragile Allegiance ( a lost gem!), Half Life, C&C, esp. the first one.

Fantasy:
Diablo 1, HoMM 3, Warcraft.

Post-Apocalypse:
Fallout 1,2.


Contemporary:
The SimCity series, Transport Tycoon Deluxe, Counterstrike.

Abstract:
Global Conquest ( the follow-up to command HQ ). A game which isn't set in any particular time, but the battles are modern ( with some weird twists, though. )

Nature:
Simant.

[St Leo]

History
0. Europa Universalis 2
1. Civilization 2
2. Imperialism II
3. Hearts of Iron
4. Imperialism I

Sci Fi
0. Total Annihilation
1. Duke Nukem 3D
2. Serious Sam

Fantasy
0. Warlords Battlecry II
1. Warlords III
2. Doom (could be sf too, but I feel it's closer to fantasy)
3. Kohan
4. Fantasy General
5. Uh, Heretic II

Contemporary life
0. Transport Tycoon Deluxe
1. SimCity 2000

Nature
0. SimEarth

Post-Apocalypse

Abstract
0. Minesweeper

[MariOne]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
...our real interests are NOT 1. Spreadsheet management (TBS) ...

... So when i play a history game its the history that matters, not whether it RT, TB, or whatever. Similarly a good sci-fi game should hold my interest as sci-fi, just as a novel or movie would, regardless of its genre.

Well, erm...
I'm not very intellectual.
My interest is in TBS as a form of game, and the (micro)management part is what attracts me....

I would play a history TBS, but (almost) never a History RT(S?)...
I would play a sci-fi TBS, but (almost) never a sci-fi RT(S?)...
I would play any good TBS, regardless of its setting...

____
Besides, if the reason you play Civ2 is not it's a good TBS but because it *fulfills* the needs of your interest in History, well, your level in the latter could be a bit shallow...

If you're interested in History, you read books and go to musueums.
Movies are entertainement, and games provide you with history nurture just like visiting a makeshift movie-set city can substitute visiting an art-city...
imho

[Jon Miller]

a lot of rpgs are really like an interactive story

so I agree there

I also have freinds who only play sci-fi rts and tbs (or only fantasy ones)

they just prefer the setting better

actually, while I think that SMAC is the cooler game, I like Civ2 better because the setting grabs me more

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MariOne

____
Besides, if the reason you play Civ2 is not it's a good TBS but because it *fulfills* the needs of your interest in History, well, your level in the latter could be a bit shallow...

If you're interested in History, you read books and go to musueums.
Movies are entertainement, and games provide you with history nurture just like visiting a makeshift movie-set city can substitute visiting an art-city...
imho

I do read books and go to museums. I also enjoy expressing my interest in history through gaming.

And if you think Civ2 as history is shallow, you fundamentally misunderstand Civ2. You need to read my column "Civ2's Hegelian Tech Tree" .

My column

By the way, this does not mean the game doesnt need to be good as a game. Just as movies need to be good as movies, museums need to be good as museums, etc. As a history fan i can even enjoy a relatively shallow historical film (can you say "Gladiator"?) And so I might enjoy a relatively shallow historical game (can you say "Age of Empires"? ) But Civ2 is not shallow - it only looks like that way. (By the way thats not even getting into the historical scenarios for Civ2)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MariOne

Movies are entertainement,

This from someone whose "flag" is that of Italy, the land that gave us Fellini. Maybe you need to get beyond Hollywood blockbusters .

Films are more than "entertainment" They can be serious works of art, that can be as deep and complex as books. Think Kurosawa, Fassbinder, Bergman, etc.

Games too can be something more, but not if we keep thinking of them as JUST entertainment.

[Dis]

History
Civ2
Civ3

Fantasy
Baldurs Gate series
Neverwinter Nigts
Diablo series
Icewind Dale series
Planescape: Torment
Masters of Magic
Morrowind

sci-fi:
SMAC
Crusader series
X-Com

post apocalyptic
Fallout series
Wasteland

And sports might be considered contemporary life right?

Madden football series
Flight Simulator

[GhengisFarb™]

History
1. Civ3
2. Port Royale
4. Sid Meiers Colonization
5. RoN


Sci Fi
1. MoO 2


Fantasy
1. Elder Scrolls series (any of em)
2. Dark Omen
3. That Birthright game, where you played and Awnshweigh and conquered the whole continent......


Contemporary life
1. Railroad Tycoon


Nature
Can't think of any.


Post-Apocalypse
Can't think of any.


Abstract
Can't think of any.

[MariOne]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Films are more than "entertainment" They can be serious works of art, that can be as deep and complex as books. Think Kurosawa, Fassbinder, Bergman, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree.
I was trying to not be too longwinded.

What I meant was:
Movies are art, but their art is CINEMA, their worth is their cinema worth.
Historical movies are *usually* big meatloafs, poor as movies, and historically useful only for the uneducated masses.
Historywise they are "divulgative" at best.
Think of Barry Lyndon. A cinema masterpiece. But if you're versed in history, it's nothing more than a curiosity in that sense. If you barely know something about history, in that sense it can be nothing more than a luring introduction, not a reference source.

Just like reading Asimov because you're interested in "science". He wrote some great "science divulgation", for those who dind't know about it and wanted to get a glimpse at its surface. But if you're *interested* in science, you study it. If you like Asimov, like him because he's a good sci-fi writer and you like his style, not because you're "interested in science".

Same goes with "historical movies", "historical games", and "interest in history"
imho

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MariOne


I wholeheartedly agree.
I was trying to not be too longwinded.

What I meant was:
Movies are art, but their art is CINEMA, their worth is their cinema worth.
Historical movies are *usually* big meatloafs, poor as movies, and historically useful only for the uneducated masses.
Historywise they are "divulgative" at best.
Think of Barry Lyndon. A cinema masterpiece. But if you're versed in history, it's nothing more than a curiosity in that sense. ".

Same goes with "historical movies", "historical games", and "interest in history"
imho

Barry Lyndon is a double adaptation - its Kubricks film version of Thackerays novel - so even if the film (which I enjoyed) was faithful to the novel (which I never read) it would still be limited by the degree of Thackeray's historical accuracy. (though was it really that bad as history - you had semi-mercenary brit troops, the brit-prussian alliance in the seven years war, the very rough Prussian army, attempts to purchase Brit titles of nobility, etc - all accurate and things quite a lot of educated americans wouldnt be particularly aware of)

In any case I did not mean to indicate that games should serve as references - the same would apply to films ( as you indicate) historical fiction, and quite a good portion of non-fiction history. Im a history buff, not a professional historian. Not every expression of my historical interest has to serve as a reference.

and can i give 3 examples of films by a director definitely less artistic than Kubrick, but which were still very good AS films, and also better as history than Barry Lyndon - im thinking of 3 films by Spielberg - "Saving Private Ryan", "Schindler's List", and "Amistad"
Now I wouldnt suggest any of the three as substitutes for a reference work - and I wouldnt claim any of the three in the league of Bergman, Fellini or Kubrick. But they were all powerful moving films, and they all had something to learn even for someone well versed in history, if that person wasnt familiar with the period in question. In fact in the case of "Amistad" I would suggest that even lots of people quite familiar with the period had a lot they could learn.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MariOne

Just like reading Asimov because you're interested in "science". He wrote some great "science divulgation", for those who dind't know about it and wanted to get a glimpse at its surface. But if you're *interested* in science, you study it. If you like Asimov, like him because he's a good sci-fi writer and you like his style, not because you're "interested in science".

But as you say, you read asmivov because youre interested in SCIENCE FICTION, not because youre interested in novels per se.

The case of history is somewhat different from science which (apart from natural history) is not essentially a narrative. So if youre interested in science in a narrative sense you must read science fiction, which is a large genre on its own. History DOES present as a narrative. So if youre interested in history, you can read history that not academic, for its narrative interest. Historical fiction therefore, is a more limited interest.

[lord of the mark]

How about science documentaries? Fairly popular on public television over here. Can you learn from them. Arguably you can learn things from them that you could NEVER learn from a book - so short of actually entering a lab, or a wild place, its the best you can do.


I would suggest the same for say a war game (of the relatively historically accurate variety) You can learn things from it that would be very difficult to explain in a book. Short of actually fighting a battle, its the closest you can get to understanding a commanders real problems. Which is why actual militaries use wargames. And at least some commercial wargame designers (like Jim Dunnigan) also worked with the military.

Now I suspect the folks who play say, The Ardennes Offensive, are more interested in World War II then they are in the art of the TBS game. While, OTOH, the folks who play Civ, or MOO2, MAY be more interested in the art of the TBS than in history or science fiction. So it seems to me that discussions that focus on game "genre" tend to bias us towards certain types of games, and towards certain aspects of those games. Which is why i wanted a thread with a different focus.

[Static Universe]

History:
Transportation Tycoon
Civ II

Science fiction:
SMAC/X
Starcraft
X-Com
Elite

Fantasy:
HOMM II/III
Master of Magic
Myst
Riven
Warcraft

Post-apocalypse:
???

Contemporary life:
Capitalism
Sim City 2000

Abstract:
Alchemy (on MSN games/shockwave games/wherever)
Princess Maker II
Super Mario Bros II/III

Nature:
???

[vmxa1]

Post-apocalypse:
???


How about Fallout?

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Static Universe
History:
Transportation Tycoon
Civ II

I'd forgot to add "Seven Cities of Gold" to my history list.

[Zero]

history - battlefield 1942 erm... return to castle wolfenstein? and ww2 combat simulator games from microsoft
scifi - UT 2k3, Q3A, starcraft, Wing commander prophecy
fantasy - soul calibur II, warcraft Marvel VS capcom 2, guilty gear XX
contemporary life- counterstrike? c&c generals? madden 2k4
nature -
post apoc -
abstract - games like eternal darkness and alice could fit in here i guess.


99% of the game I like could fit under one category called battle/war. Or 99.99% if u called in violent games.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zero
history - battlefield 1942 erm... return to castle wolfenstein? and ww2 combat simulator games from microsoft
scifi - UT 2k3, Q3A, starcraft, Wing commander prophecy
fantasy - soul calibur II, warcraft Marvel VS capcom 2, guilty gear XX
contemporary life- counterstrike? c&c generals? madden 2k4
nature -
post apoc -
abstract - games like eternal darkness and alice could fit in here i guess.


99% of the game I like could fit under one category called battle/war. Or 99.99% if u called in violent games.

well to you too - I appreciate your trying to take this in a different (the opposite?) direction from where I was going - thats exactly the conversation I wanted to start

Battlefield 1942 - yup, though I didnt mention any FPS, and i dont tend to think of them as history games, you are completely correct, an FPS in a historical setting does belong there.

RTCW? Dont really know it - doesnt it involve time travel? - I would suggest that since time travel does NOT occur in history, and is however a convention of science fiction, that it belongs in Sci-fi - in the same way Mike Uhl's "Time Threat Paradox" scenario for Civ:TOT is sci-fi, and in the same way that Stirlings "Island in the Sea of Time" is normally shelved with science fiction.


C&C Generals: Dont play C&C myself - isnt that set in an alt universe where WW2 had a different outcome? Now I realize that some would call many of the history games I like "alt history games" but they generally start with a historical setting, however much abstracted (even Civ2, if you start on a historic map, and dont worry too much about the names of some of the starting civs) - the alt history starts from there. But a game that starts out with different units and techs based on an alt history that happens before the game starts is not a history game - and when taken into the present era, do not thereby become contemporary life games. A cont. life RtS should let Americans fight Pashtuns, Russians fight Chechens, etc. If it is too have Russians fighting Americans, it should be under a believable scenario, with a contemporary point of departure.

Dotn know about the Counter strike setting.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Stuie
History:
Civ3
Operational Art of War would be a close second, followed by the Total War series.

Science fiction:
Tie Fighter

Fantasy:
Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic

Post-apocalypse:
Fallout 2

Contemporary life:
What was that Britney Spears dance software called? Never mind...
I'll go with High Heat 2004 since you've neglected to include any other category that might encompass sports.

Abstract:
Microsoft Excel. Weeee!

Nature:
Nothing comes to mind.

TOAW is high up on my "to buy" list

What version do you have?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Static Universe


I'd forgot to add "Seven Cities of Gold" to my history list.

Never heard of it - whats it about?

[Dis]

that's an 80's game.

It is similar in tone to colonization- though the gameplay is more action like.

basically you are exploring the new world.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
TOAW is high up on my "to buy" list

What version do you have?

Century of Warfare, affectionately known as "COW". What an acronym!

If you see it, buy it. TOAW: COW is hard to come buy but very much worth the price. It contains everything from the entire series.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Fantasy
1. Myst
2. Zork
3. Collosal Cave

Change that

Fantasy:
1. Baldur's Gate
2. Myst
3. Zork
4. Colossal Cave

[Cookie Monster]

Century of Warfare, affectionately known as "COW". What an acronym!

I got that! Great game btw and it does have everything in there.

History: (in no particular order)
C3C
Civ2 TOT
Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
TOAW:ACOW
Talonsoft's 12 O'clock High
HOI
EU
Medieval Total War

Science Fiction:
SMAC(X)
GalCIv
MOO2
Stars!

[General Ludd]

History:

Victoria
Europa Universalis
Hearts of Iron
WW2 Online

Sci-Fi:

X-Com
SMAC
Master of Orion 2
Uplink

Fantasy:

Master of Magic
MMORPGs (I don't want to list any one in particular because, frankly speaking, none of them are really that good. But I love 'em anyways)
Age of Wonders
King of Dragon Pass
And an honourable mention for Dominions. (good idea, but not executed as well as it could of been, I think)

Contemporary Life:

SimCity 4
Transport Tyoon
Railroad Tycoon
Roller Coaster Tycoon

Post Apocolyptic:

Fallout, I guess. Although I wouldn't rate it in my top favorites. I have a nagging feeling that I'm forgeting a game in this category, though.

Nature:

Inherit the Earth. (A great adventure game I played when I was younger.)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Now games hasnt reached that point, a sign I think of the immaturity of the medium. The technology and the issues it generates still dominate. But at least for me, that is not the reason i play games. I think we should start to think differently - our real interests are NOT 1. Spreadsheet management (TBS) 2. Fast clicking (action games) 3. Fast clicking with some spread sheet management (RTS) 4. Puzzle solving (Adventure) 5. Managing character stats (RPG's) etc.

Rather our interests are History, fantasy, science fiction, etc.

You're insane LotM

We play games for fun, not because they are history, fantasy, SF, etc.

Games are traditionally divided into various genres because players tend to find some of the genres more interesting than others.

I like Alpha Centauri more than Civ 2 not because it's SF instead of history (what?) but because it's more fun. I don't like RTS games because they are not fun to me. I like RPGs because I like intricate stories and wonders of exploration. Etc. Etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You're insane LotM

We play games for fun, not because they are history, fantasy, SF, etc.

I dont see your point. I go to the movies for fun. And yet i pick a movie based in large part on its subject matter. The subject matter IS PART OF THE FUN.

Similarly i read books for fun. Yet I tend to think of the books ive read by subject matter.

If games are a medium just like films or books, WHICH THEY CAN BE - then the subject matter is relevant.

Now I guess I must admit - some people DO find the mechanics of whichever game they play fun. Fine. Thats your privilege.

But i think it makes no less sense to approach games by subject matter. Certainly not insane.


In fact I daresay there are millions out there who buys games cause their interested in the subject matter.

All those teenage girls who buy the Sims - their mainly interested playing house, not in "simulations" oer se. Loads of people who play Simcity are interested in cities and urban planning. Most of the people who buy deerhunter games are - guess what - interested in deer hunting.

Of course these people are the dreaded "sunday gamers" Not the "hardcore" gamers who want the latest RTS who cares what the subject matter is - after all most of the clone type RTS are lousy models of ANY particular subject matter anyway, Right? whats fun to these people is making units, pushing the units, and big melee fights. And FPS' who cares about the subject matter, its mainly about shooting things, right? (which would mean it IS about the subject matter, just defined differently)
Rant over.


Now I'll admit lots of folks who play CIV dont do it with any interest in history. And lots of people dont understand the real historical nature of Civ - they get caught up in the inaccurate details and miss the underlying themes.