Agreed, I think a more interesting graph (maybe even what they wanted to go for) is something like pace of decisions versus depth of strategy. Go would be toward the bottom right, since the strategy is extremely deep and players are given considerable time between each move, as well as have time to think during their opponent’s turn. Starcraft would be near the top of the “pace” spectrum, but is significantly less deep strategy-wise than Go. Strategy is very important, but it’s small adjustments and making split-second decisions off of cues, rather than careful consideration of all options.
I was surprised and pleased to see that this is based on aggregate opinions of a survey - those dots aren’t placed by one person’s subjective judgement, as I’d assume most things of this nature are. So, maybe they can refine the questions in a future iteration.
Taking it as data about a subject that matters to me, I do wish it had asked a question more like yours, but it’s still interesting.
What I’d really try to ask is something along the lines of “what mode of thought do you use while playing this game”. And then maybe I’d try to draw survey-takers out more, giving timelines of major events in the game and how many minutes test players needed for each and asking how respondents' mood was and how they’d describe the mental state they needed to find to progress. … I guess if the researchers could afford test players, they wouldn’t need the survey as well, but you get the idea.
I tried to place Fallout on this graph. I think it can move around quite a bit based on play style. It can be strategic or exciting, but this compromise puts it a little behind the frontier. Several games have this flexibility. Starcraft, too, but I think there’s a limit to how far you can push it in either direction. It would be interesting to see the graph overlayed with ranges instead of points.
I am deeply disappointed the graph misses the ‘harder’ Paradox games: HoI 3 and Victoria 2. It would be interesting how these would be rated. EU4 is regarded as easiest to grasp game from that procuder.
Victoria 2 is one of my favourite games, so I was disappointed.
Crusader Kings 2 is considered easier to get into if you have an RPG as well as a strategy background. Hearts of Iron (historically, at least) was more of a wargame and attracted more wargame over grand strategy players.
[Comment removed by author]
Agreed, I think a more interesting graph (maybe even what they wanted to go for) is something like pace of decisions versus depth of strategy. Go would be toward the bottom right, since the strategy is extremely deep and players are given considerable time between each move, as well as have time to think during their opponent’s turn. Starcraft would be near the top of the “pace” spectrum, but is significantly less deep strategy-wise than Go. Strategy is very important, but it’s small adjustments and making split-second decisions off of cues, rather than careful consideration of all options.
I was surprised and pleased to see that this is based on aggregate opinions of a survey - those dots aren’t placed by one person’s subjective judgement, as I’d assume most things of this nature are. So, maybe they can refine the questions in a future iteration.
Taking it as data about a subject that matters to me, I do wish it had asked a question more like yours, but it’s still interesting.
Action, pace, slow/fast build up?
What I’d really try to ask is something along the lines of “what mode of thought do you use while playing this game”. And then maybe I’d try to draw survey-takers out more, giving timelines of major events in the game and how many minutes test players needed for each and asking how respondents' mood was and how they’d describe the mental state they needed to find to progress. … I guess if the researchers could afford test players, they wouldn’t need the survey as well, but you get the idea.
I tried to place Fallout on this graph. I think it can move around quite a bit based on play style. It can be strategic or exciting, but this compromise puts it a little behind the frontier. Several games have this flexibility. Starcraft, too, but I think there’s a limit to how far you can push it in either direction. It would be interesting to see the graph overlayed with ranges instead of points.
I am deeply disappointed the graph misses the ‘harder’ Paradox games: HoI 3 and Victoria 2. It would be interesting how these would be rated. EU4 is regarded as easiest to grasp game from that procuder.
Victoria 2 is one of my favourite games, so I was disappointed.
Crusader Kings 2 is considered easier to get into if you have an RPG as well as a strategy background. Hearts of Iron (historically, at least) was more of a wargame and attracted more wargame over grand strategy players.