Troy Goodfellow

Submitting Questions for the Q&A Show

Recommended Posts

We are doing a Q&A show in a couple of weeks, and we hope to answer a lot of questions for a change.

 

So here are your options:

 

You can post a question in this thread.

 

You can post a question on my Ask page (letting me know it's for the podcast): http://ask.fm/troygoodfellow

 

You can email us at [email protected] or [email protected]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I submit the following question to the panel:

 

It is often said that the military technology of World War II makes it an especially good conflict to model in strategy games. Yet much of that technology was also present in the Spanish Civil War, but that's a conflict that is rarely represented in games - in both the digital and tabletop space. Why do you think there is less interest in the Spanish Civil War?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick and choose as you please:

 

1) I'd be interested in a discussion of scope in games.  There's been plenty of mention of it on and off (Bruce's theory that the mid 1990s produced lots of good games in part because of technical limits of scope and complexity, for example, or the discussions of single-scenario games vs. whole-conflict games), but I'm not sure there's ever been a direct discussion of where the sweet spots lie and why.

 

2) The "forgotten wars" and "wishlist" podcasts were fun; it would be interesting to hear a reprise of them. I really wish there was more about pre-modern Asia, personally.

 

3) What do you think of Enemy Starfighter?

 

4) What other games on the horizon look interesting?  Is GalCiv 3 worth getting yet?  What about the new sorta-SMAC?  What are you personally looking forward to?

 

5) On the WW1 theme, I vaguely recall a discussion about a game set in the Russian revolution.  Have there been any others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you thing is the best operational level (e.g. Conquest of the Aegean) game and why are there so few others out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the focus of Europa Universalis IV on multiplayer, the age-old issue of grand strategy is coming to the fore again. In your personal opinion, is it better for those games to focus on balancing scenarios so that plausible historical outcomes are the norm or on balancing scenarios so that any nation can achieve supremacy under player control? Paradox seems to have opted for a half-measure, making the great powers almost unassailably stable and everyone else a tough row to hoe. Recasting the "fun vs. realism" argument as something actually resolvable, what are your feelings?

 

And hey, maybe a bonus question for Troy? After the Samnite wars, do you think there was a point where the Romans could easily have been prevented permanently from achieving dominance over the Mediterranean, barring some catastrophic accident? Bonus points if you have something interesting to say about Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your feelings on the disembodied "historical force" or  generic "commander" that the player usually embodies in strategy games? Do you think we need to see more strategy games that put the player in a more realistic, specific and grounded role, like Captain Olimar in Pikmin or something similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q1) The best video game AI moment, you can remember, as in "No - you didn't just do that?!"

 

Q2) The video game and/or board game, you spent the most time with, by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) What is the historical movie that most get you angry due mistakes? On the same note, there is also a movie that you know that is really wrong, but can´t help but enjoy it? despite everything.

2) I believe that at least once you guy did comment about some Total War clones, like XIII Century, but I am curious of what you found about it.

3) There is one game (or a genre) that you can´t not play for some reason (or just don´t know about it well or have time or anything) but you truly one day want to give a try?

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find most fascinating in video gaming the fact that complex wargmaes that were prohibitively large in time ane space can now be adequately handled in a PC games implementation.  I prefer the upper limit on rules/mechanics complexity that a boardgame requires. Usually the high complexity arises form the large maps and armies with straightforward mechinics that can be internalized.

 

1. What is the panels reaction to the entertainment value of implemnting strictly a complex board wargame into video game format?

 

2. Any opinions on these board game implementations?

a. War In Europe (SPI / Decsions Games)

b. Napoleons Last Battles (SPI / Hexwar.net)

c. World in Flames (Australian Design Group / Matrix)

d. Empires in Arms (Australian Design Group / Matrix)

 

3. Are there any other notable video game implentations of complex war games?

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.