View Full Version : Sad but true
I few years ago when I went to my local games store there was always some kind of trun based wargame there. West Front/East Front etc etc. Even had some very good real time games i.e. Close Combat.
Now I dont bother going in. All there is is FPS or bog standerd RTS or somekind of sim be it race or flight. ( each one with better graphics but thats about it). I look to see whats due out for my taste and I dont see much. When something does come out it won't be in a shop anyway. It will be internet only.
How I long to be able to go in there and see a strategy game thats looks good and has depth. How I remember seeing West Front and grabbing it straight away reading the manual on the way home from work. Or waiting for Close Combat 2. Then my god a couple of the m seemed to arrive one after the other.
Oh well. Never mind. Surely there is money to be made by making a game like ASL. I mean keeping it pretty much the same. Not 3d like Combat Mission (which is a godd series). Just top down turn based fantastic tactical game. With loads of options. Great immersion etc etc.
Blackcloud6
10 Dec 04, 21:58
Well, for a few years now in staes the turn based classic wargames for computers have been religated to on-line only sales. It just a niche market when compared to RTS and FPS. The teens rule the gaming world my freind and they spend big bucks on it.
But, I will say that this does not mean the demise of board wargames nor computer wargames. I'm buying more of both that I ever have done in the past. The P500 lists of the board game companies are going to do me in!
Things are good when you put them in perspective. ;)
Full Monty
11 Dec 04, 01:10
The teens rule the gaming world my freind and they spend big bucks on it.
I don't think this is really true. Computer/video games nowadays can cater for a much vaster audience than they could even five years ago. War/strategy games formed a large part of the market five years ago, 15 years ago it was almost the only part of the market. It's not that wargames are less popular, it's that the market has exploded.
Blackcloud6
11 Dec 04, 10:35
It's not that wargames are less popular, it's that the market has exploded.
Oh, I would agree with that.
Don Maddox
11 Dec 04, 11:32
I occasionally talk with the presidents of the various game companies and developers/designers from the companies that no longer exist. Their comments are remarkably consistent.
At one time it was possible to put a wargame into the major computer stores, however, the PC games market is now far more active and lucrative than it used to be. This means the terms for getting a game onto the shelves at Best Buy or CompUSA aren't really set up for a small developer. They charge for the shelf space and the developer has to pay for any copies of the product which fail to sell. This makes it virtually impossible to mass market a hardcore wargame in today's market. Publishers have been forced to resort to internet sales as the primary delivery method. This in turn means the game is only going to be exposed to those who come looking for it (i.e., they already knew about it).
The wargame market is so small that most of the old designers and publishers have quit and moved on to other genres where they can actually have a budget. Some of those that remain are only possible due to contracts with the military as civilian sales are not enough to justify its continued development. Unfortunately, this can mean that wargamers are not the primary target for the developer, thus their wants and needs are relegated to second place status or are rarely considered at all.
Guys, there is a hard truth here. Wargamers need to understand that we are a very small market and in danger of becoming a lot smaller. It just isn't possible for developers to create the kinds of games we want for $30-40 any more. We have now become a specialty segment and it is entirely reasonable for us to pay much higher costs. We need to just deal with that reality or I've had the presidents of two major wargame companies tell me within the last month that they are afraid the traditional wargame market will disappear completely.
Full Monty
11 Dec 04, 11:53
To a certain extent, wargamers should realise that they are fortunate too. Unlike RTS/FPS games, our older games still stand up well so newcomers can pick up great games quite cheaply (OS problems aside) via the likes of Ebay or on budget release. Not only that, but wargames don't demand particularly high-spec machines therefore if our games are more expensive at least our hardware doesn't need to be. The only fear I have is that now the games have disappeared off the mainstream shelves, less newcomers will enter the genre.
I don't think this is really true. Computer/video games nowadays can cater for a much vaster audience than they could even five years ago. War/strategy games formed a large part of the market five years ago, 15 years ago it was almost the only part of the market. It's not that wargames are less popular, it's that the market has exploded.
And actually, most studies show that the average PC gamer is 18-25 or something like that.
Full Monty
11 Dec 04, 23:46
And actually, most studies show that the average PC gamer is 18-25 or something like that.
They'd be the ones with the time and the money to acquire the games. They are also more likely to be interested in faster paced games like the FPS/RTS genres. I wonder what they'll grow into ;)
Guys, there is a hard truth here. Wargamers need to understand that we are a very small market and in danger of becoming a lot smaller. It just isn't possible for developers to create the kinds of games we want for $30-40 any more. We have now become a specialty segment and it is entirely reasonable for us to pay much higher costs. We need to just deal with that reality or I've had the presidents of two major wargame companies tell me within the last month that they are afraid the traditional wargame market will disappear completely.
Sounds like a quote from David Heath at Matrix Games. ;)
I do agree with it but at the same time if the majority of wargames creap up in price to 50+ dollars then I would imagine EVEN LESS new wargamers are going to be attracted. Now they have to both find out about the game online AND decide the price is worth trying the game.
You could argue that the likes of Strategic Command etc. are still available relatively cheaply. But that's still more or less the first rung on the ladder.
Selling wargames cheaply WOULD work if wargamers were a bit more supportive of their own niche market hobby. I mean sure a lot of the wargames are crap but when you go buy the latest FPS INSTEAD of that wargame you are sending the OPPOSITE message of what you yourself would even like to everyone out there. Players, Developers, and Publishers.
Those that do choose to still develop, and publish, wargames are more and more often having to do so simply in their spare time, more out of love of the hobby, than for any strict intention of profitability.
And while most wargamers blame this on the "lack of wargamers" I wonder how much of it isn't our own faults as consumers. I mean how many computer wargames did each of us buy last year? And how many other computer games? Are you all supporting the likes of full-time publishers like Matrix Games and buying their latest titles? Or are you still b!tching about when Combat Leader will finally be finished?
They'd be the ones with the time and the money to acquire the games. They are also more likely to be interested in faster paced games like the FPS/RTS genres. I wonder what they'll grow into ;)
I hate to tell you, but if gameplay in the FPS genre keeps expanding the way it's been with some of the recent releases, most of us aren't going to stop playing them.
Besides, the fast paced games have positive effects, there was a report that surgeons that play fast paced games are 37% more accurate or something like that (I don't want to think about how you gauge that :hush:).
But I don't think blaming the other games makes sense, I play games from just about every genre, wargaming included.
Full Monty
12 Dec 04, 14:50
Veldor, you should try living in the UK. Apart from the Combat Mission games virtually nothing is published here. Therefore we are reliant on a few specialist importers unless we want to try and sneak something through Customs. To give you an idea on what something costs I'll use 'Combat Command 2: Desert Rats' from Shrapnel (a game I want incidentally)
US Price - $44.99
UK Price - £59.99 (roughly $90)
Now the average FPS/RTS from Amazon costs around £30. Much as I would love to support smaller wargame producers I have to be quite picky as to what I purchase, especially when I'm relying on one or two reviews maximum.
All the FPS games Ive played are pretty much all the same but with different graphics.
I would like them more if there was more of a tactical side. When Ive played MP its pretty much everyman for himself. Tactics out the window. Ghost Recon single play was a bit better, but you still really had to move each soldier individualy. OF again was a bit better than the average. I just dont know what expanding gameplay they are supposed to have. Its run, shoot,run shoot isnt it? I also hate the med paks and the shot 5 times and still alive syndrome. How they can get round this Ive no idea as one or two shots your dead would mean the game wouldnt last long............or maybe people will be a little more tactical and actually move as if on a battlefield and TEAM WORK!
Games are in a rut its either FPS or RTS or a sim thats your choice folks!
I I also hate the med paks and the shot 5 times and still alive syndrome. How they can get round this Ive no idea as one or two shots your dead would mean the game wouldnt last long............or maybe people will be a little more tactical and actually move as if on a battlefield and TEAM WORK!
Games are in a rut its either FPS or RTS or a sim thats your choice folks!
Have you ever played SOCOM 1-2 hits will always kill you.
Full Monty
12 Dec 04, 21:24
A good FPS should be a piece of escapist nonsense imho. I want my character to be James Bond/Rambo/Dan Dare so I can take on impossible odds and win!!! Of an evening it's good to play out a few pbem turns of 'Combat Mission' and then run around slaughtering hundreds of evil beings in 'Painkiller'. Helps keep everything fresh :D
Iain McNeil
13 Dec 04, 07:39
We convinced Matrix to release Gates of Troy for $19.99. Although its not a wargame it is a turn based strategy game, so may be worth checking it out as if the new price point works for Matrix I'm sure they'll be dropping the prices of their other games too :)
We convinced Matrix to release Gates of Troy for $19.99. Although its not a wargame it is a turn based strategy game, so may be worth checking it out as if the new price point works for Matrix I'm sure they'll be dropping the prices of their other games too :)
I will pay top money if a game plays the way I want it. If CL delivers the goods I'll pay a big sum for it as I know I will get many hours of game time out of it. Say I get 100 hours of play for £75 pounds thats 75p per hour what else keeps you enterained for that rpice per hour?
Just bought Battles in Normandy from Matrix Games.
Digital download.
Heck I could have been getting some from the wife while buying my wargame.
I agree, I walk into EB locations now only to see if there is something for my son.
Wasting your time trying to sell my wargames retail shelf.
My last purchase was the last nail in the coffin.
I don't play shooters or RTS games, and as they appeal to the younger in better numbers, let them have the EBs out there.
I find my shopping is just fine here in cyber world.
If I had the time, I could list you a long list of good wargames I can buy online.
No gas money lost to transit. No lunch eaten out while shopping.
No disappointment when I get there and they are out of stock at that outlet.
I'm an impulse buyer. Most of us are.
I will just have to go entirely electronic distribution and get over it. Who cares if EBs shelves have nothing on them for me, I don't need EB.
Doesn't have to be digital download, I just want to know, I can decide I want something, buy it, and then get it in the mail if not digital download.
Magazines are almost yesterday, but retail shelf is no longer of any value to me as a wargamer.
It's time to exploit new opportunities.
Maybe someone should start making issues of Armchair General more attractive to the wargamer.
All the FPS games Ive played are pretty much all the same but with different graphics.
I would like them more if there was more of a tactical side. When Ive played MP its pretty much everyman for himself. Tactics out the window. Ghost Recon single play was a bit better, but you still really had to move each soldier individualy. OF again was a bit better than the average. I just dont know what expanding gameplay they are supposed to have. Its run, shoot,run shoot isnt it? I also hate the med paks and the shot 5 times and still alive syndrome. How they can get round this Ive no idea as one or two shots your dead would mean the game wouldnt last long............or maybe people will be a little more tactical and actually move as if on a battlefield and TEAM WORK!
Games are in a rut its either FPS or RTS or a sim thats your choice folks!
Full Monty has a good point, about escapism. You're implying every FPS needs to be a military sim. That would get really old really fast. In fact, I think the most boring FPS I've played were the realistic ones. They're fun for what they are for a bit, but eventually I want some gameplay, give me HL2, Vampire: Bloodlines, the Deus Ex games, etc any day.
Full Monty
13 Dec 04, 15:01
Maybe someone should start making issues of Armchair General more attractive to the wargamer.
I was trying to work out how to phrase this one earlier in the thread and just couldn't find the right way. By 'wargamer', I think we should be embracing a 'broad church'. Board wargamers, miniatures wargamers, computer wargamers are all relatively small markets. I'm yet to see a magazine, in the UK at least, that covers all aspects of the hobby. There should be imho.
If there is such a magazine, can someone point me in its direction
:cool:
I was trying to work out how to phrase this one earlier in the thread and just couldn't find the right way. By 'wargamer', I think we should be embracing a 'broad church'. Board wargamers, miniatures wargamers, computer wargamers are all relatively small markets. I'm yet to see a magazine, in the UK at least, that covers all aspects of the hobby. There should be imho.
If there is such a magazine, can someone point me in its direction
:cool:
The problem is, while they're all small markets, the amount of stuff you can do in any one area is pretty deep. So you run the risk of being considered too light, so to speak, in any of the areas.
But how many FPS do you really need? Nothing wrong with escapism but I just feel that the gameplay becomes very repetitive very quickly. Surly the latest FPS games are pretty much all the same??
But how many FPS do you really need? Nothing wrong with escapism but I just feel that the gameplay becomes very repetitive very quickly. Surly the latest FPS games are pretty much all the same??
Well it depends, there are a few different types of FPS depending on how detailed you want to get. There are the military type ones (and they can range from realistic, Ghost Recon, to cinematic, Call of Duty), there are the hordes of enemies fast paced action types (Serious Sam, Painkiller, Doom I, Doom II, Quake games, etc), there are the more involved action ones (Half-Life, Half-Life 2, and a few others), and then there are the RPG FPS (Deus Ex, Deus Ex 2, Vampire: Bloodlines, and a couple others). Each of these really deliver a different game play type. It's like saying that all top down turn based wargames deliver the same experience.
Full Monty
13 Dec 04, 20:27
But how many FPS do you really need? Nothing wrong with escapism but I just feel that the gameplay becomes very repetitive very quickly. Surly the latest FPS games are pretty much all the same??
You'd be surprised. If you look at 'Half-Life 2' and 'Doom 3', being the two big PC FPS titles to be released this year, you would see two very different games. 'Doom 3' is a classic corridor shooter where you fight powerful enemies but not many at a time - it has a dark and claustrophobic feel with an equally dark storyline. 'Half-Life 2', on the other hand, is set in a far more open environment where your enemies are more numurous but less powerful - it's storyline is equally dark but very different to that of 'Doom'. Of the two, 'Half-Life' is probably the more innovative given that the game plays almost like an interactive movie.
With all genres, you have a few leaders and many, usually inferior, followers. For every 'Half-Life' there's a 'Chrome', a 'Mace Griffin: Bounty Hunter' or a 'Chaser' - generic titles that ape their betters but are never anything like as good. The same is true of wargames (although I'll do no 'slagging' here). Think of it this way, to a non-wargamer, 'Battles in Normandy' would seem the same as 'The Operational Art of War' - as wargamers we know the differences and those differences tend to be in the detail. The same is true of FPS games, boiled down they're games where you run around and shoot things/people in highly improbable situations. But wargames are the same, just the setting and scale are different. I could sit here and draw analogies with books, films, sport ..................... etc. but unless you want an early night's sleep I won't :D
I have played and owned a fair few FPS games. BF 1942,UT,Doom,Ghost Recon,Call of DutyVietnam and Medal of Honour to name just three. Yes they are fun I'd just have prefered BF 1942 to be a bit more squad based instead of run around on your own and kill as many as possible trying to get a flag.
I just wont buy anymore. I like the idea of the RPG style ones but Im not really into Sci Fi or Fantasy (though I loved Fallout,Bualders Gate 1 and 2). I just feel FPS are restricted by the actaul format and each new one Ive tried with the exception of maybe two or three is pretty much the same as the last.
I agree they are good fun its just I'd rather see game devlopers trying something new instead of keeping to what they know is a safe bet sales wise. RTS games suffer the same thing aswell. I want more innovation. Even in FPS and RTS more innovation is needed.
Full Monty
14 Dec 04, 11:01
I think we'll see 'evolution' rather than 'revolution' in both fields. Better physics, better AI and better graphics will feature - recent developments in FPS have been stealth (Splinter Cell), intuitive vehicle control (Halo) and pseudo-interactive storyline (Half-Life 2). Even then, these aspects have appeared in games before but the examples I give are those with the 'proper' implementation. But there are limits to where FPS games can go, partially down to market demands. They are like Bond films - you don't go to watch them for the plot, rather it's the implementation and the detail.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.