In competitive play the external metric is other humans. I'm inclined to think the psychology of that is different. At what point does one cease to care about beating another human, or a computer? Different thresholds and conditions for each I think.
I find ways to role play inside games that don't have it though.
We'd been paid. Period.
In fact, Civilization 3 is directly responsible for my leaving Diablo II. The outside metric of the demogames overpowered Diablo II's outside metrics. The games on their own merit, I'd prefer Diablo II. But the more interactive nature of the demogames in Civilization were more fun.
Perhaps understandably, Civ V and VI making those kinds of demogames impossible has directly resulted in my total disinterest in the series.
I find ways to role play inside games that don't have it though.
I'm not so interested in that as a game designer, because a player such as yourself can / will do it with anything. It's about their own imagination, not about whatever work I do to actually make a game. Famously, I've had nasty words with early fans of Minecraft Alpha. I remember some whippersnapper telling me I "wasn't creative enough" to play a game like Minecraft. As if it was the 1st Builder game that ever came out! I had played far better, in terms of the game designer actually making an effort to accommodate and incentivize Builder play mechanics. I agreed with detractors, that the only thing worth doing in Minecraft Alpha was griefing. Like floods or lava flows destroying everything and whatnot.
Did anyone try to, and succeed, in putting your mercenary organization out of business? Meaning, by killing all of you? If they did it fairly readily because you were putting energy into "role playing" and not personal defense, then you're not actually playing the role of a mercenary. Mercs are generally in it for the money, and to stay alive to use the money. In the words of Han Solo, "What good's a reward if you ain't around to use it?" A merc isn't interested in suicide missions. Nor do I find it reasonable that a mercenary organization would just belly up itself. Yes it could just be a temporary organizational front for individual interests, but why should such fronts rationally exist, on an equal power basis with emerging civilizations in human history? That's like in an era of Musketeers, declaring "well I've got food replicators and lasers so I don't have to worry about survival, pew pew pew!" There's definitely a role playing case to be made for "goofy play", where the character is just whatever you felt like doing at the time.
Gamist = would be concerned with whether you used the game's rules correctly or optimally
Narrativist = would be concerned with whether you produced interesting dramatic results
Simulationist = would be concerned with whether you actually behaved as a mercenary would (per above)
QuoteIn fact, Civilization 3 is directly responsible for my leaving Diablo II. The outside metric of the demogames overpowered Diablo II's outside metrics. The games on their own merit, I'd prefer Diablo II. But the more interactive nature of the demogames in Civilization were more fun.
In part because you had more scope for creatively annoying others, bordering on griefing them?
QuotePerhaps understandably, Civ V and VI making those kinds of demogames impossible has directly resulted in my total disinterest in the series.
I'll be honest: I have no idea what a demogame even is. Civ II and SMAC taught me that playing games in this genre with other players is temporal suicide. Do you mean, the demo of the game is stripped down and of limited duration, and can be played multiplayer?
2 turns after they invaded, we simply bought the needed tech and upgraded the entire army, shooting from the worst military to more than double the strength of the best.
Ahh, Team Pirate.... ARRR ye maties....