INTPs and Strategy Games

[Procinogen]

Hey, guys! So I was wondering for some time what the general opinion is on strategy games here. I've been told before that I would be good at chess, and according to what I've read INTPs should be fairly good at strategy games if they dedicate some time to it. But here's the thing; I find strategy games waaaaay too boring for me. I wonder how many of you guys share this opinion with me.

For some odd reason, I always lose interest with strategy games. It might be slower pace, though I'm not too sure. I find that I enjoy faster paced, action-oriented games. Games like rogue-likes/lites, fighting games, or even first/third-person shooters. Perhaps this is because rather than doing the majority of my thinking during gameplay, I do a lot of my thinking off gameplay. What I mean by this is that I like to come up with schemes and do intense research after and before I start a match, and then implement what I learned when I start playing. Then again, this also probably applies to people who play strategy games, but I digress.

With that said, what's your opinion on strategy games? I'm curious to see your guys' responses.

 

[Cognisant]

I play Rimworld mostly and although it can be very slow paced I quite often find myself interrupted from scheming as some event forces me to change my plans/priorities, I like that it's not only a game that's all about scheming but also reacting to circumstances that influence my schemes.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Yea I dunno. I play poker in casinos. Most of it revolves around real-time decisions based on gut-feeling. One can do some calculations off the table but it's of quite limited use. I don't really get chess as it's pure strategy and thus quite one-dimensional. I definitely need the component of real-time dynamics in order to find something truly engaging.

 

[QuickTwist]

XCOM, great strategy game. Really like it. Started a Let's play on youtube but only did one episode.

I typically do high risk high reward strategy in board games. Sometimes I win because of it, but I more often don't.

I feel I am probably good enough at poker to be able to make money playing in online tournaments, but I have a lot of practice doing those. I have found that poker is just too stressful for me and I can't take bad beats.

When I even play a game like Skyrim, I am always trying to figure out how to do things an optimal way without cheating. I want to know how I can break the game within the confines of the game itself.

FF series is also a pretty cool franchise - though that kind of game is more about conventionality (Holland code) rather than strategy.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I like them, but they drains so much energy from me, I mean, I'm devastated after 1 hour play. The fun becomes after a game, when I can think about new strategy, what can I do better or different - I remember those long hours when I was contemplating about Warcraft 3, which units are counters to each other, which mix up best, what my mate should be doing (I played 2vs2 a lot), do I need another mine, and when to make it, how many towers to protect it, what upgrades are worth (because each next one are more expansive and gave same amount of stats) and stuff...

but RTS are actually made for ST types, because they require some or huge amount of micro-managing, and I'm good, but not the best at it

TBS are nice, but I don't actually need that much time to think and I'm frustrated, when I can make my turn in 2 minuts (like in HoMM), and my friends (INTJ and INFJ) are thinking for 10-15 minuts [and still, it's not the best game for INTPs, I lost many times vs ESFP - they have so good tactical thinking and their aggressive and quick play style often won vs mine too long range;

chess is great, but I agree what Bobby Fisher (ISTP) said:

[ISTPs are also the best players in chess in general - fisher, carlsen] (imo)

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't really think type claims can be made about such general skill sets, not well evidenced claims anyway. The starcraft pro scene is home to all sorts of people for example.

I play a lot of strategy games. I tend to have decent macro, and excel when reflexes and raw mechanical skill aren't emphasised. I enjoy the thinking part too. Not many games offer such a deep and evolving problem set. I'm not very gifted tactically: other similarly skilled players tend to make it to the highlight reel more often.

 

[Bizzo]

I really like the civilization series and anything doing with trading, such as the Patrician or Port Royale Series. I played a Gal Civ 2 for a few nights and couldn't really commit to it. And I've sunk hundreds of hours into the Grand Strategy game Crusader Kings 2 - but I often get impatient in that one, playing on maximum speed - Shortening my fun, and quickening the inevitable death. I've also sunk days into KOEI games as a kid, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Genghis Khan etc.

For me the fun came from being able to run and control something as a kid - which evolved into appreciation of the greater systems and mechanics involved. I guess it's kind of like programmers' high, you develop and try a short term strategy(within a greater long term strategy), and when it succeeds you get a bit of a dopamine kick. You can always reset or save scum and go back to the drawing board anyway.

 

[Cegorach]

Full disclosure, I'm not an INTP.
Gasps. Screams. Sobbing. Dames and dudes fainting in constricting corsets and bowties.

That aside, Strategy games, in the broadest sense of the term, are probably my most preferred genre, but my appreciation of them is not necessarily entirely in reference to their immediate mechanics.

Most of the time when people invoke it as a genre they're referring to a competitive social RTS, the type you see played in e-sport tournaments.
They're meant to be contained experiences, brief matches, simple and precise mechanics, and clear victory conditions, highly competitive, social, the analogy of them as a sport is shockingly apt.
You can see why MOBAs are emerging so triumphantly, too. Chess has its parallels as well.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, obviously, even if I share no inclination towards it, but it's a very narrow perspective on the potential of strategy and tactics in video gaming.

A game developer is always presented with limited resources, not just financial either, conceptual, limits of working memory, limits of hardware, limits of time; the end product is always a delicate balance of trade-offs and priorities.

So when they focus on creating a game with carefully crafted mechanics that create fair circumstances between competitive parties, they end up trading away some alternatives of emergent gameplay, worldbuilding, discovery and creativity; and by shrinking the required attention span to what is palatable in the world of these short matches and reflexive action they work in opposition to a holistic perspective that accounts for logistics, politics, economics, narratives, attrition, geography and causality that play such an important role in real strategic interactions, even if this is between fictional parties.
A competitive social RTS reduces a unit to a time vs. potential calculation and you suffer no long-term consequences from their loss or the resources they expend, so long as they meet some immediate tactical requirement. In that sense, they're highly unstrategic, since the strategy element is usually oriented around simple building timeframes and management of a small pool of immediately available resources.

No developer is ever going to incorporate all of those elements at the same time, but the variety of emphases and structural interpretations that are available is exactly what makes the genre as a whole so compelling.

Series' like the aforementioned Crusader Kings, XCOM|X-COM, Civilization, Galactic Civilizations and Rimworld are all great examples, though.
Some other favorites of mine include, but are not limited to: Total War; Hearts of Iron; Dwarf Fortress; The Banner Saga; Sunless Sea; Invisible, Inc.; FTL: Faster Than Light; the ever so slightly more obscure Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines, despite its atrocious interface; and the largely unheard of Wargame series, which is a personal love.

And none of that impedes my enjoyment of other types of gameplay, even highly reflexive or visceral gameplay. I adore platformers like Super Mario and Super Meat Boy (my poor cramped hands), action-adventure like The Legend of Zelda, roguelikes like The Binding of Isaac, horror games like Silent Hill, Amnesia, or the delightfully quirky Deadly Premonition (a Lynch-like!), as well as RPGs of various flavors; Legend of Grimrock, Dark Souls, or Stardew Valley.
I'll stop there, I'm basically just creating lists of games at this point.

But everybody has something they won't enjoy, typology would likely only ever provide a small piece of the puzzle as to why; what you should do is do what you like, and like, like what you do, dude.

 

[LostInPlace]

Chess is probably one of the best.