While We Wait: Part 2

[Symphony D.]

That's what shameless advertising is for.

 

[Kal'thzar]

mhmmm indeed.....(too distracted/drunk to reply to humour)

Regardless in my eco rule system, would people prefer a more das'ian system?

 

[Abaddon]

Does anyone dream in NES? I woke up thinking i already knew about the next update and what was going to happen!?!

 

[Luckymoose]

Does anyone dream in NES? I woke up thinking i already knew about the next update and what was going to happen!?!

Only when you are starting nesing. I have gotten over it.

 

[North King]

I've never dreamed about NESing. Maybe once about the forums, but not about NESing.

 

[silver 2039]

I dreamed about NESing. Complete with maps and update.

 

[Thlayli]

Recently I had a really weird dream about DNES2. It was futuristic, and a board NES.

 

[Symphony D.]

I had a dream early in NES2 VI that my orders had failed catastrophically and I had lost everything. I remember seeing the map and waking up in horror.

 

[North King]

Methinks you people might need to take a break from NESing if it's infecting your mind like this.

 

[Symphony D.]

I would have to say dreaming about the forums instead of the actual activity that engages the brain is far stranger and more disturbing. Perhaps you should take your own advice?

 

[North King]

I think the thread topic only incidentally entered in my dream sideways, and that was a year ago when I had said dream. Back then, I actually was obsessed with this forum; now I've sort of grown away from it to an extent.

 

[Symphony D.]

New theory: historical NESes are a waste of time. Maintaining realism without repeating history is a feat at which most players are incapable of or do not aim for. Other forms of NESing are inherently superior in regards to the creation of a stable and functional universe.

Discuss.

 

[ThomAnder]

well technically, how many players actually play an nes with an actual attempt at building the various aspects of a nation? If we play a nation with regards to only stats and fighting wars and expanding, of course there would be little "realism"...

 

[Luckymoose]

I agree, historical NESes are impossible with the typical NESer. Everyone wants to invade or betray allies. Things that rarely happen in history.

 

[Symphony D.]

well technically, how many players actually play an nes with an actual attempt at building the various aspects of a nation? If we play a nation with regards to only stats and fighting wars and expanding, of course there would be little "realism"...

Why not go play an RTS or something then?

My point is more often than not the immediate policies of a NESer represent somewhere between a 90° to 180° shift from the real counterpart. Now in some cases where a state is in decline, that might make sense. But it could be done far more subtly and sensibly; and it rarely ever is.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

I agree. Most players play to win. Most countries IRL (especially in modern neses) do not. Conflict between realism and metagaming is inevitable.

 

[Symphony D.]

Most countries IRL (especially in modern neses) do not.

I disagree entirely. Countries have always and will always do what is best for their continued existence. In the context of life, there is no better definition of "winning." The only difference in today's environment is this tends to be done through economic means rather than military ones (see competition between EU, United States, and China as an example). In terms of the game this again this goes back to the same argument as previously: win what? "Winning" is relative. For Switzerland "winning" might be neutrality. For China it might be global economic and military hegemony. "Winning" is not getting a "U R WINNAR" award at the end, and past arguments on the subject should be enough to have cast off that nomenclature already.

That is not my problem. The only way to behave realistically is to try and do what is best for your country. The problem is most NESers automatically assume that to be "conquer everything" or "do whatever I damn well feel like" regardless of the time period of situation at all. Ideally, a country would want to "win" by doing everything in its power to better its position in the world. It's just that often isn't military action or what have you. These differing interpretations mean any historical NES will be as if the world entered into some kind of twilight zone where all the world's leaders instantly thought "WAR!"

The break with reality is often too severe to suspend disbelief. This is not the case (or at least as severely) with other forms of game.

 

[North King]

Yes; I know a few players who always ally with each other, and a few who always go to war... I am guilty of this as well. It would make some sense in the era of kings, when rulers were personal friends at times, but normally it does not. The only solution I can see is having the player so invested in their nation, that they are determined to try and keep it alive, instead of throwing it away for "fun". This is why a successful fresh start is, in my opinion, the only true NES that will keep sanity.

 

[Symphony D.]

The only solution I can see is having the player so invested in their nation, that they are determined to try and keep it alive, instead of throwing it away for "fun".

Isn't that more the fault of the players, rather than the scenario then? Not making the connection and giving it up is one thing, but a joy ride to destruction is something else entirely, and is entirely dependent on the maturity and commitment of the player, not the game type. That can happen in any scenario.

This is why a successful fresh start is, in my opinion, the only true NES that will keep sanity.

Again, there's nothing to stop anyone from repeating this same behavior--setting out to do maximum possible damage--in a Fresh Start. The connection only comes from the fact countries are player generated. I refuse to accept this possibility for two reasons; implying that players can only connect with a nation if they create it implies an extreme lack of imagination or flexibility on the part of all involved, and the resulting tunnel-vision of functional scenarios so created is extreme and unnecessarily limiting.

Ultimately I think this is more an indictment of the capability of players to behave in a semi-serious, or to put it more succinctly, in character fashion. The problem is universal to all game types. It is only more prevalent in non-FS types because the initial countries in those are already crafted to player preferences instead of being molded to them over time.

 

[shortguy]

New theory: historical NESes are a waste of time. Maintaining realism without repeating history is a feat at which most players are incapable of or do not aim for. Other forms of NESing are inherently superior in regards to the creation of a stable and functional universe.

Discuss.

I pretty much agree. Wanton abandonment of strong preexisting alliances and the insta-secular-western-rational-bureaucracy (usually with equally fast modernization of armed forces) are unfortunately frequent.