Moonlight Soldier wrote:Well, you'd have to give me some examples when you say strategy and sim. But, I play a lot of what I'd consider strategy games, (IE: Age of Empires, Ogre Battle, etc)?
See, that's why I was afraid of getting into this discussion, for fear of sounding like an elitist
I'll say I don't want to do that because my list will have titles that will immediately smack of elitism.
I'd put it this way - there is a gradient of things in any genre, because as we all know there's actually no such thing as 'perfect genre fit'? There is a HUGE market for RTS (real time strategy) in North America for example, but I'd class most of those as fairly light titles (doesn't mean easy - just less technical)?
There's a lot of nuances in strategy, but the main difference is the technical depth (and sometimes realism)? I sure as heck know that people who casually want to play something prettier than chess don't want to play War in the Pacific (a single game of which can take months), but I am surprised that very few people (of the groups I am referring to), especially those who play lotsa games, poke beyond the surface so to speak.
Another point is attitude towards gaming I think. There are a lot of people around me whom I would not call casual gamers, and yet they keep playing what I'd consider casual-oriented games. I'm not surprised that someone who wants to conquer some landz before lunch is best-advised playing Age of Empires. I am surprised that people who engage in the more prolonged terms of escapism rarely lean to more complex and realistic titles.
In other words there's a certain barrier people don't want to cross, and I think that barrier is called 'geek'? Unfortunately even the self-confessed geeks don't want to for some reason
Or maybe it is just marketing?