Last night, I got to thinking about how "feeling" makes a game into what it is moreso than the mere facts of its description. To illustrate this, I present the examples of War of the Roses and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. These are two games which look very similar on the outside, but feel quite different to the player playing them. While WotR feels rooted in history, Chivalry is really all about the action.
On it's Steam store page, Chivalry is described as "a fast-paced medieval first-person slasher with a focus on multiplayer battles" and it's most popular user-defined tags are "Medieval", "Multiplayer", "Action", "Melee" and "Gore".
User-defined tags for War of the Roses are very similar: "Action", "Free to Play", "Medieval", and "Multiplayer". But the game's description is less focused on describing the gameplay than it is on the historical aspects: "Battle online with up to 64 players through 7 historically inspired war zones as you experience the conflict between Lancaster & York first hand!"
But trying to describe their differences is inherently difficult. In both games you take on the role of a soldier. In both you choose between a variety of weapons, whether long-ranged or close, heavy or light. And in both games your ultimate goal is to slaughter the other team with superior skill and tactics. Getting more specific, both games ask the player to rely heavily on timing blocks and attacks, both try to inspire the player to see the match as a battle in a much larger war and world, and both use similar control and camera schemes. But the games become different as soon as you actually play them--once you actually feel them.
So, let me show you what I'm talking about. Below are two videos of me playing each game. In Chivalry, there is a sense that buffoonery and ridiculous ideas have a place. It is more light-hearted than WotR, wherein a serious sense of historical accuracy is made dominant. Both games feature a wider variety of game types and weapons than I can demonstrate here, so my goal is to focus on what it is like to play an average match rather than explore the potential depth of the experiences.
What cannot be imparted through video or words is the way a game responds to the players inputs. This is an important part of the feel of a game, but short of putting the game in your hands it is not something I can show you. How well you are able to control a game makes a significant contribution to how you feel while playing it--are you in control or out of control?
What you are able to see in these videos is how pace and style develop the atmosphere, community, and sensations of these games. While WotR is slow and serious, Chivalry is fast and frenetic, and yet both games are trying to accomplish the same thing--an enjoyable, medieval experience.
In parting, I would be remiss not to mention "War of the Vikings", the next game from Fatshark and spiritual successor to WotR. I had a chance to play the game in its alpha-stage and, while avoiding saying anything specific, the game does a better job of accomplishing what it sets out to do. It has more in common with Chivalry in ways that don't make it unlike WotR and I feel that it will represent a step forward.
