Where Have All the Good Games Gone?

[Don Maddox]

Discuss the article from the main Warfare HQ webpage here.

http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=articles/wargame_articles/gaming%20trends.shtml

What have your recent game experiences been like? Do you play many games or just a few?

[freightshaker]

I haven't bought a "new" game in a long time and don't even check out the software section at Best Buy anymore. I finally bought TacOps last week but that's hardly considered a new game. I seem to jump from 1 old game to another and rely heavily on mods to renew my interest in games. Suppose the last "new" game I bought was Sacred and as for wargames I suppose it would be CMBB when it first came out. The games that are coming out now just don't have any replayability to them and usually are of limited scope. No more are the long campaigns of SP:WaW. In the RPG spectrum everyone has gone to high graphics 3D games and sacraficed immersive game play and innovative plots. Wargames are sliding more and more to 3D graphics and RTS, although the CC series has shown that 3D graphic don't comletely ruin a game system. Guess I'm old fashioned and still like the 3/4, 2D view for my RPG's and hexes and turns in my wargames.

[Jim H. Moreno]

Good article, Don. Didn't know we were thinking on the same page.

A Bad Gaming Run (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19742)

[Prester John]

I read the article but it doesn't mention anything about the internet and it's impact on the way games have changed. The internet and now broadband are defining mainstream gaming. Blizzard have set standards like StarCraft and Diablo and the Blizzard factor seems to have driven persistant online gaming over the top with World of Warcraft. Where does a wargame like a modern version of Steel Panthers with state of the art sound and graphics fit in? Alternatively a very tuned up (fixed and cheat proofed) version of The Operational Art of War could be produced but to what effect when the internet seems to be the place to be? Now a lot of gamers don't play online but it doesn't seem to stop massive amounts of effort being put into it, even for console games.

Anyway there are way more 12 year old gamers than players my age so I don't know if anybody from the bigger production houses really cares for my opinion because they seem to think Blitzkrieg is a strategy game. Either that or the market really is in Asia so you better start to like manga games.

[Veldor]

I use to b!tch and moan about this more than anyone. But then I decided to do something about it. Okay well first I pretty much quit wargaming altogether for over 6 months. Then when I came back I realized that not one thing had changed with wargaming or computer games in general. I still could play the EXACT same shooter I played years ago, just one with better graphics, or I could play nearly the EXACT same RTS game I did years ago, just one with better graphics. I'm sick to death of that. And wargames are no better. Most of the wargames I want to play don't even exist in a form that has been published in the last decade if ever. That is a GREAT epic fantasy wargame, a modern/cold war era strategic/tactical naval/air wargame, and an ultra-tactical level WWII/Modern Infantry wargame. So I got together a very small group of dedicated and talented people, set aside a bunch of money, and founded a game development company. Worst case I get the games I've always wanted at a cost of $$,$$$.$$ each. Best case I achieve the same results for a large number of other people out there too and make a hell of a lot of money in the process. Here's to hoping for the later....

[Legion]

Yup, i am with you Don.
I have to say that for myself HALO2 was one of the 2 purchases i made this year, the other was the German-language version of Codename; Panzers, in both cases your comments captured my feeling entirely. They were great to look at and even great to play but still never really hit the magical 'it' button that games like Neverwinter Nights and the Total War series do.

HALO2 was over in just 7hours on Normal; the Heroic level is taking longer, but is about the same difficulty as the Legendary level of HALO. Legendery in HALO2 is impossible and i dont know why they bothered. Still, 7 hours for a first playing of an A$95 game is ridiculous... i bought SASL just this week for half that cost and have played it for 10 hours, and have yet to even really get into it!

Codename: Panzers is cute, beautiful to look at but just formulaic, the game play has a lot of bark but no bite at all.

Personally i think that there are 4 reasons.

1. Games are produced to standard formulas.
I used to be an arcade game programmer on the old 68000 chip in the Amiga500, coding then was an expression of individuality and living on the edge, there was no money, just boundries to be pushed... Just like the early 80's brought punk and the late 90's boy-bands, games have gone from pushing the boundries to just looking good but failing to go test 'the edge'

2. Internet gaming is killing the games.
Games are more and more being writen for multi-play on the internet... Look at HALO2... it is screaming to be played with XBox Live, the single played campaign that comes with it is just the entree before the main course. Another example is Battlefield1942, a fantastic game on the internet (especially with the DCmod) but the single player modes are a joke.

3. Stop the mods.
One of the things i like the most about NWN is that it has the ability to play any mods that someone wants to put the time into devising. The same for Total War, the Napoleonic mod is great and there are others that i have yet to try. If a game can be modified that it might have unlimited shelf-life, ths is detremental to point #4

4. Its all about money.
Well, this one is obvious, "we got your do$h so P!ss off"

A game in Australia (for XBox, PC, PS) sells for A$90 in the first 6-24months... yet the cost of making them is insignificant in comparison to a movie ($150million+ to make: $17 in a cinema, $29 for a DVD) and about the same as a bands CD ($29 to buy)

Unfortunately if you own an XBox or PC you quickly understand that for every excellent title there are 10 rubbish ones, but someone is buying them.

Nope, it is all about money, and once middle aged guys in suits start dictating the line between profit and fun then the fun quickly come off second best

[Bloodstar]

Discuss the article from the main Warfare HQ webpage here.

http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=articles/wargame_articles/gaming%20trends.shtml

What have your recent game experiences been like? Do you play many games or just a few?

Don,

I can agree with you to some degree because since spring I didn't played too much some games on PC or PS2 - I mean to hold my attention for to long, so I started TOAW FitE pbem but it's over now. I also played some Koei games on PS2 - PTO IV, Kessen 1, 2 and Romance of the Three Kingdoms 7-9. etc...

Since I've been following game developments, here's a list of games that I've been expecting - some of them will be OK, some of them will be so-so, but I am sure that some of them will be very, very good :

1. Hearts of Iron 2 (I liked 1 very much, so I preordered HoI 2 at 39.99 € at Paradox website, it will be good game)
2. Brigade E5 (Jagged Alliance alike game by some polish developers, we will see)
3. Rig'n'Roll (GREAT looking truck driving game, yes, truck driving game, don't laugh, it's great fun driving atruck in King of the Road, this game is sequel to that game. It will cover San Francisco, LA, Orange County (I was there once visiting Broderbund in Novato, Lucas Arts in San Rafael, Mindscape...great journey ;)) This game is developed by SoftLab NSK, great Russian company based in Novosibirsk, they know a lot about Virtual Reality, they also develop training software VR for Russian astronauts and MIR space station simulation software.
4. Heroes V (Ubi Soft and Nival (rumors that it's Nival, Russian company - many good games coming from Russia, pay attention)
5. Officers (developed by some guys from Ukraina that worked before in GSC Game Company) - www. officers-game.com it looks grear, looks like Wartime Command clone :D
6. Wartime Command (Codemasters / 1C, preview on Warfare HQ, great looking game)
7. Norm Koger's Russo-Japanese War
8. Pacific Storm (great looking RTS strategy game, check it out!!! HIT, it's not ordinary rts)
9. 1933 (not a lot info on this one, something like hoi)
10. War Leaders www.warleaders-game.com game like HoI, looking great, check it out!)
11. ALFA: Antiterror (Strategy First/Mist Land, JA clone, looks ok but we will see)
12. Civil War: War Between the States - Civil War RTS with dynamic campaign developed by Texas based Walker Boys Studios that worked on Age of Kings... good game hoe that it will came out!
13. The Fall - Last Days of Gaia (Fallout / JA clone, already came out in Germany, maybe it will be a hit, looking forward to this one very much)
14. PS2: Kessen 3, PTO V, ROTK 10. Xbox: Fable looks ok, Nobunaga's Ambition
15. Empire in the Arms (Matrix)
16. Command Operations : WW2 (Matrix)
17. Grisby - World at War, Eastern Front game 2006?
18. Parkan II (something like Elite)
19. Elite IV

maybe there is some more titles, also by Matrix, but mainly this is the list of potentially interesting games for me...
So, i hope that 2005. will be a lot better than 2004.


Mario

[freightshaker]

Don,

3. Rig'n'Roll (GREAT looking truck driving game, yes, truck driving game, don't laugh, it's great fun driving atruck in King of the Road, this game is sequel to that game. It will cover San Francisco, LA, Orange County (I was there once visiting Broderbund in Novato, Lucas Arts in San Rafael, Mindscape...great journey ;)) This game is developed by SoftLab NSK, great Russian company based in Novosibirsk, they know a lot about Virtual Reality, they also develop training software VR for Russian astronauts and MIR space station simulation software.


Does it take you 5 hours to get from the Bay area to Sacramento at 1300 on a Friday afternoon?? :D Are the DOT guys at the Banning and Grapevine scales real jerks and anal about everything? :mad: Do 4-wheelers expect you to move over at on-ramps? Glad you enjoy the game, the real thing can be even more fun...

[Krink]

I keep trying demo's of these new games, and I just don't see the attraction. I really enjoy the CS series, and I don't see myself getting tied of it as long as there are opponents. I never play against the comp unless I am trying a game out. After playing the demo, I don't think playing a human will raise the entertainment enough to invest the time. I even have trouble with the 2d graphics of some of the turn based games, so I'm sure there are alot more older titles I would enjoy if I could get over the 2D thing. Why does it seem everyone has abandoned the turn based games? Not everyone has the time to spend countless hours playing real time online, just to see who is faster with the mouse.

I just recently got Steel beasts, even though it is old, from what I tried it does hold promise. maybe a game like that could be evolved into a more elaborate, realistic playing field.

Hoefully, even though I still have lots to learn about CS, when and if I get tired of CS, there will be a better turn based game with 3D graphics and maybe a little navy and air power to sink my teeth into.

[Bloodstar]

Does it take you 5 hours to get from the Bay area to Sacramento at 1300 on a Friday afternoon?? :D Are the DOT guys at the Banning and Grapevine scales real jerks and anal about everything? :mad: Do 4-wheelers expect you to move over at on-ramps? Glad you enjoy the game, the real thing can be even more fun...
LOL :D

Actually, game will be out in 2005. So I didn't played this game (yet), I only played King of the Road, fun game.
My friend actually drove me around LA, to many places, high way, to some movie studios, mexican restaurant, strip bar hehe, through Chinese, Mexican parts and he told me that if you see a Chinese driving a car, you better be careful because they are lousy drivers :D


Mario

[Redwolf]

I think the wargame makers in particular are falling behind because they continue to refuse to open up their games to any kind of interoperbility. No DLLs to load in to change behavior or load your own AI. Usually not even capabilities to import and export OOB, or to make maps from other tools. People would have a blast writing upper-level utilities (campaigns etc).

Every single one of these Quake clones allows you to do that, and if you haven't downloaded REd Orchestra for UT2004 you should just to see how much hobbyist communities do.

[Aries]

I'm no genius, but sometimes the truth is alarming.

Fact one, if you didn't make it, you won't get paid for it.
Thus, we have lots of people attempting to be just that, paid for it.

Add to the picture the Personal Computer.

In 1970, if I wanted to make a wargame, my challenge was definitely a different one.
And it wasn't just that they were predominantly physical items.
You likely didn't have use of a computer in designing it.

Today, thanks to my PC, anywhere is my office. Staff doesn't need to be in the same country either thanks to the internet.
And all of the tools of the trade generally sit on your computer.

Today, just about anyone can sit down and deside they are going to market wargames.
It's assumed you have software skill, just not established you are a wargamer.

Now remember, people want to make and sell games like the next guy.
They can do it with some effort, as long as they know their software, and have a decent computer.

But then someone makes a truely good game, and what do the other designers do, they merely copy it.

Copies are copies are copies.

And every designer figures they must make a game based on the tried and true theaters of war. So for WW2 default is Russian Front, followed rapidly by the biggies like Normandy, Battle of the Bulge and fighting in the Pacific.

Not surprising, we have a large swath of the cliche, and not many of the lesser valued battles.
Only games that actually give you a large array of battles becomes a long time hit.
Steel Panthers would not have been as successful, if it had just been set in the opening part of the war in Russia.
What has made it great, was it was the whole darned war.

No genre really has escaped this dumb effect of shameless unimaginative cloning.
And I think most of it is due mainly from a desire to be the one selling it.

And I will be blunt, to many of the people out there selling, couldn't find their ass with both hands when it comes to making a wargame that should have seen the light of day.

Or at the very least, they can be accused of nothing better than ripping off the original creators idea on the thin excuse they could do it better.

Examples, we have lots of potential examples.

What is needed, is just some designers willing to think on their own.

Veldor actually has had the brightest ray of hope for a game in a long time. Have not heard on it recently, but he had hoped to make a computer version of Up Front.
No board, no counters, and a program akin to what is already out there for card based games.
His only barrier, copywrite issues.
I hope he is successful though.

Tin Soldiers looks interesting too.
I would love to play Miniatures in WW2, and have it LOOK like miniatures (not yet another dumb 3d game). Hey it would be slightly different.

I just bought Battles in Normandy. I bought it because it looked well made.
But I won't be gushing on about it re inventing the wheel.
It didn't.
It looks like a board game.
But I have a weakness for them.

[Veldor]

Veldor actually has had the brightest ray of hope for a game in a long time. Have not heard on it recently, but he had hoped to make a computer version of Up Front.
No board, no counters, and a program akin to what is already out there for card based games.
His only barrier, copywrite issues.
I hope he is successful though.

Thanks for the positive comments but sounds like you haven't visited our website in awhile.
And hopefully not to highjack the thread but instead remain on topic just wanted to comment..
Electronic Rights to nearly all AH/VG games now come from Atari, including Up Front, ASL, and the SL & Diplomacy ones that Paradox recently picked up. However they are incredibly over-valued. At least when not exploited which is why Im personally 100% positive the SL Paradox will turn out will be little like the real thing. So Electronic Rights speaking its not that they aren't available or even not affordable, just a bad investment. More importantly is the fact that purchasing such in the case of Up Front DOES NOT give one ultimate control of the game system since MMP continues to promise to evolve it on their own based on their non-electronic publishing rights. Which means now you'd have two different people doing that in two different directions so which one is even the "official" Up Front anymore? Yeah you guessed it NOT mine, but the actual card game. So even more a bad idea.

Which gets back to the topic of this thread. Doing a strict conversion really just got us to thinking how "unimaginative" such a thing would be when there is so much room for enhancing it etc. etc.

Something we've found we can do better, and cheaper, with absolute full and final control by simply designing our own title from the ground up... So that is now what we are doing..

Our current game, SNIPER AMBUSH (TM), will convey a similiar feel with individual soldiers represented and everything at that small ultra-tactical scale. A larger than normal amount of fog of war will be present and "abstraction of terrain" will be accomplished through advanced random generation of terrain that unfolds around the units. We are experimenting with other concepts as well that are not officially part of the product yet (such as the endless mapboard) which is akin to what UF accomplished from an abstract point of view.

[medievalbanquet]

Much of what Don said is true regarding "good games" if you look at it now b/c there are so many being made, much is crap while only a few rise to the top. I can't STAND real-time strategy games b/c they are simply not strategic, they are click fests and silly. Turn-based engines are the only way to truly have a stategy game; i.e. one can ponder a situation without a clock being a consideration. The dominance of realtime strategy is partly to blame- EVERY publishing house wants one and puts one out, rather hastily.

IMO, one of the best games I've ever played is Half-Life. That hooked me, it was so well done. HL2 is good as well. Combat Mission was fun for awhile but it just can't hold my interest.

:p

[Scott Tortorice]

I checked out your website and love the idea of Cold War Fleets! I have another suggestion: one type of wargame I miss is a serious look at sci-fi combat, something along the lines of OGRE. Unfortunately, the gaming industry treats sci-fi like Hollywood does, as a venue for special-effects laden jokes. I would love to see this changed.
I have always wanted a sci-fi wargame that came in three parts.

Part One would be a serious tactical wargame, with equipment along the lines of the aforementioned OGRE as well as David Drake's HAMMERS SLAMMERS. It should provide a game experience like Combat Mission, TACOPS, or Steel Panthers.
Part Two would be a sci-fi based operational wargame, which would allow for players to intergrate their tactical battles into the larger operational picture. I think TOAW or, from what I hear, Decisive Action would be a good model.
The final part would be a fleet action game that would cover the actions in space that lead to the ground battles.

My goal for all three parts is to allow the players to build an entire ficticious war, literally from the ground up. This, I believe, will help build interest in the wargame as it would provide all the tools to create what I guess could be called mega-campaigns, sort of like how GW's Warhammer 40K, along with Battlefleet Gothic, work together.

Now that is a wargame I would *love* to see! :D

[Scott Tortorice]

Discuss the article from the main Warfare HQ webpage here.

http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=articles/wargame_articles/gaming%20trends.shtml

What have your recent game experiences been like? Do you play many games or just a few?



I think the quality of games have been declining for the last four or five years. I hate to say it, but I believe the reason why this is happing is because the PC game business has started to generate big revenues. Just like Hollywood, you are having companies pump out games as fast as they can just to rake in the money. It's not like the old days where many games were created by people who actually had an interest in the game topic itself. Today, big studios are just cashing in on the latest fad, hoping that they hit on something good along the way.
Also, I think part of the problem is that many game companies are catering to the low-brow end of the market; the games that teens / casual gamers will find fun. Again, this is similar to the movies where mindless action is preferred to intellectual depth. You cannot really blame the companies for doing this, after all, one of the biggest sellers of all time was The Sims. In fact, if you look at the top money makers, almost all the titles could be classified as "casual gaming."

In short, PC gaming has gone mainstream, and whenever something goes mainstream, the quality will suffer as money-chasing hacks get in on the act.

Of course, this does not bode well for wargamers in particular. As Jim Dunnigan once remarked, "wargaming is the hobby for the over-educated." As such, our passion will continue to get the cold shoulder from game companies that don't want to invest the time and money making a serious wargame that will not appeal to a large crowd anyway.

But there is also good news.

And that is the internet. Now that it is increasingly easy to develop and sell a niche product via the internet, I think we will begin to see some very good quality wargames from independent publishers. Battlefront is a great example of this.

And I think there might even been a light at the end of the RTS tunnel too. RTS games are really wargames with training wheels. I think that many of these kids who are growing up playing RTS games, especially the more intense games like the Total War series, will eventually migrate to the hardcore (turn-based?) wargame world. That could, ultimately, swell our ranks once again, and make our dollars attractive to the bigger development houses---for better or worse. Ultimately, it will be up to us wargamers to help these kids make the transition from C&C kiddie wargaming to Combat Mission, etc...

Another factor: the state of the world. It is not secret that Cold War was a big boost for wargaming in the 1980s. Now that, unfortunately, the post-Cold War giddiness has faded and lines in the sand are being drawn around the world once again, I think renewed interest in the art and science of warfare will drive more people into our ranks (the success of America's Army is an example of this, I believe). Speaking of AA, I also think that now that civilian and military wargames seem to be cross-fertilizing, if you will, this cooperation will help generate ultra-realistic wargames that will attract attention from people who might just blow wargames off as idle amusement for warmongers. It's hard to casually dismiss a game as a waste of time when it is also being used by the military---such as TACOPS. Wargaming might be come to be seen as a form of edu-tainment. Which, of course, could kill the hobby as well. :laugh:

Another factor: the power of PCs. Games, even wargames, are truly becoming visual spectacles. CM is gorgeous, and Rome: Total War is simply amazing. When we all make the leap to 64-bit PCs, I think the sky will be the limit. Imagine how wargames will look then! When wargames shed their austere interfaces, and the CM / RTW look become standard, I think less people will be intimidated and more will take the plunge.

Finally, I think the growing interest in professional computer gaming will help as well. Right now, these leagues are doing it wrong from the point of view of a spectator. It isn't much fun watching someone play a chaotic FPS. But what if a spiffy wargame was to become the method of competition? Now you would have the audience's intellectual participation of a chess match, combined with the action of a football game (I always wanted to arrange a public wargame between two well-known generals just to see how much interest it would generate. I bet a lot.)

So, I guess you could say that in the short term, I am pessimistic about wargaming. But in the long term, I am optimistic.

In terms of future titles I am awaiting, it is a short list:

1)Supreme Commander 2010: Every time I dismiss this title as a RTS, I read something else that suggests it is something more: a serious and potentially groundbreaking wargame.

2)Dangerous Waters

3)That Civil War game another poster mentioned---its been too long since we've had a good CW game. There is also another CW title, in early development, that looks like Combat Mission.


That's about it! :nervous:

And, finally, the last game to "wow" me was: Rome: Total War. It might be a RTS, but I believe it to be a quality product on many levels. And I think the wargame portion points the way to the future of wargaming. Its only major flaws: a)it's not turn-based, b)it's not PBEM capable. :mad:

---Scott

[Prester John]

One thing I would be asking about is just what is a wargame as opposed to a game. I liked Warcraft 3 as a very pretty game, and Doom3 as a nice shooter but they are not wargames. The last three computer wargames I bought were Battles in Normandy, Korsun Pocket (with Across the Dnepr) and the World at War (Campaign Series), and progressively they were the games that I spent most time on (an hour or so most nights). And until another game comes along to replace BiN I will still be playing that as my only computer wargame. The thing is I don't treat wargames like other games which have such limited lifespans. I'm not going to pick up War in the Pacific or Alexander the Great because I don't play wargames just for the sake of it and they don't appeal more than BiN. I have investigated other games as well and decided that I will probably keep playing BiN for another six months at least, because nothing else on the horizon is going to have the same amount of serious wargaming for me.

And that is pretty much how it was for me when ASL was my only game. I didn't buy anything else just for the sake of it or to support the industry or whatever, I only bought what I wanted to play.

[Marines]

One thing I would be asking about is just what is a wargame as opposed to a game. I liked Warcraft 3 as a very pretty game, and Doom3 as a nice shooter but they are not wargames. The last three computer wargames I bought were Battles in Normandy, Korsun Pocket (with Across the Dnepr) and the World at War (Campaign Series), and progressively they were the games that I spent most time on (an hour or so most nights). And until another game comes along to replace BiN I will still be playing that as my only computer wargame. The thing is I don't treat wargames like other games which have such limited lifespans. I'm not going to pick up War in the Pacific or Alexander the Great because I don't play wargames just for the sake of it and they don't appeal more than BiN. I have investigated other games as well and decided that I will probably keep playing BiN for another six months at least, because nothing else on the horizon is going to have the same amount of serious wargaming for me.

And that is pretty much how it was for me when ASL was my only game. I didn't buy anything else just for the sake of it or to support the industry or whatever, I only bought what I wanted to play.

You just as I play a variety of games. I'll pick up an FPS or RTS game if it interests me regardless of the genre.

A true war game does hold a different interest though.

[Veldor]

As Jim Dunnigan once remarked, "wargaming is the hobby for the over-educated."

it will be up to us wargamers to help these kids make the transition from C&C kiddie wargaming to Combat Mission, etc...



Due to my day job, I spend a lot of time amongst a wide and ever changing variety of "over-educated" people. Many of them are also gamers. Though few are wargamers. As I am now part of an independant game development company developing our own wargames it has been a topic of severe interest to me and I have conversed with many of those "over-educated" gamers at great length to try to determine why they are not also wargamers. At its simplest this is what I've come up with.

1) Most Importantly and Quite Simply Put. PEOPLE PLAY GAMES THAT THEY ARE GOOD AT. No one likes losing all of the time. No one likes not knowing how to play a game or what they are suppose to do next. An over-educated person that is newer to wargaming may not necessarily know all the otherwise "obvious" tactics that you or I might. Wargames generally do a poor job in the tutorial area, especially as it relates to teaching some of the basic tactics of the game. This makes it much harder to get into wargaming. The people that are saying "It's too hard to play wargames" are in many cases very smart people. What is really meant is that the interfaces are poor and/or overly complex. The manuals poorly written. The tutorials near to non-existant and so forth. Comand & Conquer doesn't have concepts like Suppressing Fire, and if they did they wouldn't have much effect on the game (see #3 below).

2) Community Attitude has to change. Not every "over-educated" person or person otherwise interested in wargaming consider themselves as such (ie. they may possess more humility than some here). Yet it is increasingly the "attitude" of wargamers that they are better and smarter than everyone else. Perhaps its poor word choice in the forums or maybe its actually a fact. But the attitude puts off a lot of people. Calling the games they do play "kiddie games" doesn't help, regardless of the intent. This is even true AMONGST wargamers as many diehard WITP fans (not to pick on just them) have this attitude towards players of "less worthy" wargames. I guess ego comes with intelligence. We all know how immature some online players of C&C games and the like can be. But the attitudes that many wargamers take are really no better.

3) Too many wargamers and wargame designers think that more detail (ie. more unit statistics etc) = more realism = a better wargame. When in reality nothing could be further from the truth. No game is reality and all games by definition are a combination of abstractions of reality. What this essentially comes down to is the "fun-factor" and a slight difference in what different groups find fun. Many non-wargamers like micro-management as well as most wargamers probably. Sometimes "fun" can still be had that way. But wherein a strick grognard only finds a game "fun" only if it accounts for every conceivable trait of a unit, including such probably has little relevance to the game itself and just serves to make the game... less fun for others... boring... etc.
Now by no means am I advocating simpler games. Not at all. But the power of computers can hide that complexity through better user interfaces for one example. And by NOT including needless details that are completely balanced out anyway due to other abstraction already present elsewhere in the game system. Such detail is really only an illusion to greater realism that doesn't really exist. If you consider the extreme example of including individual soldier traits in a strategic WWII game you'll get the point. While all that detail would be of interest to history buffs in the same way that an online enclyclopedia might accomplish better, it would only needlessly complicate the game and serve no actual purpose as at that scale it would all balance out to having no effect how good or bad some individual soldier was. Sure you could include it. Factor it in to all the battles and the computer would do just fine. But why? It would just be an illusion of having a game with greater depth and realism. This is where so many computer wargames fail... It should be quality not quantity. But we the players are still the first to scream MORE detail, MORE statistics. I want every last tank in the entire battle of stalingrad represented, etc. Then we sit there pretending that that inclusion somehow matters to how the battle is going to turn out. If we are all so "over-educated" how can we be so naive as that?

BTW thanks for your positive comments on COLD WAR FLEET and as so far as a SCI-FI game goes MATRIX recently signed SUPREMACY I think its called by BLACK HAMMER GAMES. It has turn-based gaming at at least two of the levels you mentioned. Space-Based and Tactical-Ground Based. Do not believe it has an operational level but could be wrong. If I were to do a SCI-FI wargame, it would be less inspired by Warhammer 40K and more along the lines of AH's Starship Troopers or something like that at the tactical level and inspired by Star Fleet Battles or similiar on the ship level, etc. Too many space "wargames" are more like space simulators than they are like the more old school sci-fi wargames.

End Chapter One.

[Wodin]

Veldor,

My god.........Ive never heard of you or your little company but thankgod for it. My gaming future looks a lot brighter.

Ambush Sniper looks like it will answer one of my prayers. I just hope you will sell overseas or by download.

[Marines]

Veldor,

My god.........Ive never heard of you or your little company but thankgod for it. My gaming future looks a lot brighter.

Ambush Sniper looks like it will answer one of my prayers. I just hope you will sell overseas or by download.

I second that! Cold War Fleet caught my eye immediately.

Got a release date?

[Aries]

Veldor's been around at least as long as me :) (not as mouthy as me maybe :) ).

He has a good head for what makes sense in my experience.

Most of my intuitive computer wargaming skill is really just me transferring over a great many years worth of playing the same experience on a board and having to have done it all in my head.

Enter joe newcomer wargamer with no board gaming experience.
I am not "smarter" than that guy, but until he feels "comfortable" with wargaming I will likely enjoy a healthy edge on him. Most computer wargames automate or perform a lot of the tedium of board games.
I was never given a shaded region where my unit could or could not move to on a board game. As such, I am intimately familiar with the guts of old style wargame mechanics. The stuff that computers automate.
Being able to do that though, doesn't make me smart per se, just capable.

I guess that sums up wargame designers too eh, they might sometimes be "capable" of using the software to make a game, but is the game any good?

Detail is like Veldor said, just detail. It doesn't make the game more "real". In most cases, the greater the sum of detail, the greater the chance you will end up being able to argue over it too.

Has anyone seen the debates over OOB details for Steel Panthers as it wandered along to version 8.3 for SPWaW at Matrix Games?
I didn't contribute one iota of effort to that insanity, and insanity it was.

And the end result, it created a rift in the community there.
And I know some of those same people might see that remark, and I care not if they wish to deny that their was or is a rift.
I was on the inside looking out. It's there.
And all for over arguing that an armour facing should be a 3 instead of a 4, or other similar minutae gone haywire.

One example where a game with less detail will give a designer less grief. In SC, the combat formula itself is important, but a tank unit is a tank unit is a tank unit. They are all the same, just a tank unit. It's how "tank" units behave in combat that is worked on.

If tomorrow I was handed $50k and told to make a wargame, it would not be tactical, and likely not operational. Probably be similar to SC in concept.
That way, I could avoid the nitpicking minutae dance of the OOBs.

All ANY gamer, wargamer or just casual gamer wants, is a game that is fun.
Veldor nailed that one. It has to be fun.
The second playing the game is a chore, you've got a coaster.
That is assuming you PREFER your games to be fun experiences.
It doesn't matter what you are playing, if the playing is not fun, then the rest is a loss.

So if you want lots of management, better make sure your interface rocks.
The more detail that has to be managed, the more kickin your interface needs to be.
That interface has to actually be ready there AHEAD of your request.

The interface for SC is its greatest feature (my opinion).
Right click and the entire game's secondary controls appear to the side. And they disappear when not needed.
It has to be the EASIEST game I have ever not had to learn.
The strategy guide is really only needed to outfox other human opponents.

As much as I like a lot of games, the interfaces are often all but condemning them to just a handful of fanatics.
A row of intense intimidating pull down menus on a sterile map is a near death sentence.
Some of the most liked games seem to possess some of the most uninspiring control functions.
The controls they use seem like a tribute to Windows. About as appealing too.

Scope of action vs scope of detail.
I like man to man combat games just like the rest.
I like games where I run entire nations too.
I consider any game that combines the two though, to be the ultimate bad idea.

Close Combat is my thresshold for real time. I want to see all the forces all the time if it's real time. Thus grand strategy in real time is idiotic.

Strategic Command is my thresshold for detail load in grand strategy. I don't want to know what vehicles the tank unit has. I just want to know if it is a tank unit or not.

The best games are ones where 5 turns is like about 5 minutes effort.
The worst games are where you don't even assume you will finish a particular turn that session in the first place.

Those large massive games can be well made, incredibly realistic, immersive, but in the end, they will never compete with the ones you can actually play and finish the same day.
They will always be just oddities only a smattering of fanatics fiddle with.

Veldor was also right about playing games you get good at.
And you get best at games you play 10 and 20 games per week with too.

Fire in the East vs Russian Front vs Panzerblitz.

The first you might play 4 times in a life.
The second you could likely play more games than you have fingers in a year's time.
The last though, you likely could never count that many games.

I have no idea how many games I played of Advanced Third Reich.
Nor of Squad Leader.
But I do know Up Front could have equalled both put together if I had bought it several years earlier. Just didn't have it at the time.

Detail is not a magic pill to success.

[Golf33]

Much of what Don said is true regarding "good games" if you look at it now b/c there are so many being made, much is crap while only a few rise to the top. I can't STAND real-time strategy games b/c they are simply not strategic, they are click fests and silly. Turn-based engines are the only way to truly have a stategy game; i.e. one can ponder a situation without a clock being a consideration. The dominance of realtime strategy is partly to blame- EVERY publishing house wants one and puts one out, rather hastily.

I disagree that turn-based engines are the only way to provide a decent strategic game experience. We have had excellent success using a pausable continuous time system - the player can speed up or slow down the pace of the game and can also pause it. Orders can be given while the game runs or while it is paused so the level of time pressure is solely up to the gamer. A proper chain of command system that relieves the player from having to issue orders to every unit also helps to take the load off and make it all about controlling the battle instead of controlling your units.

I personally prefer this system to turn-based games since I have a problem with abstracting the continuous flow of battle into discrete turns. I also don't particularly enjoy telling every company in a Division exactly what to do - much more enjoyable to issue commands at Brigade or Battalion level and watch them sort the companies and platoons out. Also a much better simulation of the real issues of command - including synchronisation, which turn-based systems can sometimes reduce to a tedious problem of basic addition instead of the vital tool of operational art that it really is.

Regards
33

[Aries]

Golf, you gotta realise, that Command and Conquer is an RTS thus real time, thus click fest for purposes of slagging "real time".

But only recently have designs like HTTR blurred the "real time" distinction.

I don't think most of us are even willing to call HTTR an RTS in the same vein as a standard RTS click game.

Yes it doesn't use turns in the same sense as a game like SC is definitely a game with turns. And that it can be paused means not much to a hard audience.

But, HTTR is no click fest disaster either.
I have deliberately played the game issuing orders, counteracting them repeatedly, and issuing new orders every few seconds the way you can in a typical click fest RTS game.
You end up dead and losing immediately as you should.

HTTR's strength lies not in it being real time, but in the time being used realistically if you ask me.

[Veldor]

I disagree that turn-based engines are the only way to provide a decent strategic game experience. We have had excellent success using a pausable continuous time system - the player can speed up or slow down the pace of the game and can also pause it.
That is better than strict Real-Time yes. It allows for more units to be controlled in a finer way than true RTS where you are always in a rush

I personally prefer this system to turn-based games since I have a problem with abstracting the continuous flow of battle into discrete turns.

An abstraction is an abstraction is an abstraction. A second in real-time still represents some other scale of time. Be it 10 hours, 10 Days, or 10 Weeks. A turn or a phase likewise abstracts time in the same exact way. You are just creating a variable process where the length of time represented by one turn can change. Say from the point in time you pause to issue orders to the next time you pause to do so. Not altogether unlike just ending a turn in Uncommon Valor because you know there is nothing new to be done.
Arguments can be made for realism either way. At the strategic level in real life (WWII lets assume) orders were issued and you might only have seen results come in on a daily basis, if even. Turn-Based mechanics could be said to model that better.
RTS and the Hybrid versions employed give more of an illusion of providing greater realism in some cases than they do actually providing it. Surely HTTR has done a great job in implementing this but I don't think its clear cut that either is a better system or that one is anymore realistic than the other.
It all depends on what your simulating and what aspects of that simulation you are stressing in your game. There is also a certain inherant "simplicity" to a game that uses turns since the abstractions don't change. Turns are always the same length with the same amount of potential results, units can always move the same amount, etc.

I disagree that turn-based engines are the only way to provide a decent strategic game experience.
To quote you again and sum up... I do completely agree with your statement. I just personally think its going to be more of the exception than the rule.

[Scott Tortorice]

>>>1) Most Importantly and Quite Simply Put. PEOPLE PLAY GAMES THAT THEY ARE GOOD AT. No one likes losing all of the time. No one likes not knowing how to play a game or what they are suppose to do next. An over-educated person that is newer to wargaming may not necessarily know all the otherwise "obvious" tactics that you or I might. Wargames generally do a poor job in the tutorial area, especially as it relates to teaching some of the basic tactics of the game. This makes it much harder to get into wargaming. The people that are saying "It's too hard to play wargames" are in many cases very smart people. What is really meant is that the interfaces are poor and/or overly complex. The manuals poorly written. The tutorials near to non-existant and so forth. Comand & Conquer doesn't have concepts like Suppressing Fire, and if they did they wouldn't have much effect on the game (see #3 below).<<<

I agree with these sentiments. I think many wargame designers seem to enjoy keeping people at arms length. Perhaps this is because many wargame designers have experience with the more austere professional variety of games? Or perhaps it is a stylistic left-over from the early days of PC wargaming which often just consisted of a simple map and unit symbology navigated via the keyboard---not a friendly interface by any standard?
As for people only playing games that they are good at, why do they seem to feel that they will never get good at wargaming? After all, every game has a learning curve. What is unusually intimidating about learning to play a wargame? Getting good at a game is about practice, like anything else. Personally, I think people don't practice at wargaming because it requires greater effort on the part of the player. In this regard, wargaming is far different from casual gaming in that it requires true effort on the part of the player to get better. It is more akin to getting good at chess, than, say, Sorry.

>>>2) Community Attitude has to change. Not every "over-educated" person or person otherwise interested in wargaming consider themselves as such (ie. they may possess more humility than some here). Yet it is increasingly the "attitude" of wargamers that they are better and smarter than everyone else. Perhaps its poor word choice in the forums or maybe its actually a fact. But the attitude puts off a lot of people. Calling the games they do play "kiddie games" doesn't help, regardless of the intent. This is even true AMONGST wargamers as many diehard WITP fans (not to pick on just them) have this attitude towards players of "less worthy" wargames. I guess ego comes with intelligence. We all know how immature some online players of C&C games and the like can be. But the attitudes that many wargamers take are really no better.<<<

There definitely is an esprit de corps in the wargaming world, but that comes from the fact that wargaming is a very unique community, usually comprised of well-educated people as Mr. Dunnigan was alluding to. This is nothing to be ashamed of unless you are actively trying to discourage outsiders from participating. But lets face it, wargaming is in a completely different class than casual gaming (as I indicated above). Like chess, another game with an intelligence stigmata, it requires real effort to play well. Practice, historical research, AARS, etc., these are all the tools that wargamers use to improve the quality of their games. Very few casual games demand such dedication on the part of the player. So if outsiders feel intimidated by this attitude that is part and parcel of the wargaming world, that is something they will just have to suffer until earn their own stripes, so to speak. It was that way with me when I started wargaming, and it is still this way for me when it comes to the chess world.
Having said that, I reiterate that wargamers need to make the acclimation process as friendly as possible. So when we meet a C&C player, we shouldn't look down at him, but invite him to try something with a bit more realism than he might be use to getting for C&C games. I have found that if you ask non-wargamers to "step up" to wargaming, and help them do so, they are more inclined to give it a try.
But, let's be clear, wargaming is definitely a step-up from the majority of mass market RTS games out there.



3) Too many wargamers and wargame designers think that more detail (ie. more unit statistics etc) = more realism = a better wargame. When in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Complete agreement here. I have never been the type of wargamer to demand detail to the nth degree. Look at chess: it is a complete abstraction of warfare; no unit details whatsoever. Yet you will find, and be able to apply, all the core concepts of warfare that are contained within its elegant rules. It is never about the detail, it is always about the game play itself.


>>>BTW thanks for your positive comments on COLD WAR FLEET and as so far as a SCI-FI game goes MATRIX recently signed SUPREMACY I think its called by BLACK HAMMER GAMES. It has turn-based gaming at at least two of the levels you mentioned. Space-Based and Tactical-Ground Based. Do not believe it has an operational level but could be wrong. If I were to do a SCI-FI wargame, it would be less inspired by Warhammer 40K and more along the lines of AH's Starship Troopers or something like that at the tactical level and inspired by Star Fleet Battles or similiar on the ship level, etc. Too many space "wargames" are more like space simulators than they are like the more old school sci-fi wargames.<<<


Thanks for the heads-up! I checked it out---looks interesting.
And I fully agree about most space wargames being simulators and not wargames. Yet another reason why I think a serious sci-fi wargame could make a big splash.

---Scott :salute:

[Reepicheep]

I only feel like I get value for money from the couple of PC titles I buy each year because I wait till they hit the bargain bins... ie. pay $AU 9.95 instead of $99.95 on release. As Don says, the quality isn't the same as the games of old that hooked me for weeks on end, but when I pay only so little it's still value for money. Still, I'd prefer games with a high "can't put down factor" to justify jumping in when the game is new rather than waiting for it to drop in price.

[Aries]

Whether it be waiting for price to fall, or waiting for in my case savings to rise :) I guess one reality of games with a high price tag, is a lot of us are not there during the key sales period to tell the creators whether the game was well liked or not.

I generally buy just about every computer game I play, on the basis of 6 months or more worth of accumulated opinion.

It tends to cut down on the garbage level in my case, but I always seem to be a johnny come lately.

[chrisvalla]

True, but then you know you're likley getting a 'good' game.

There's only a few titles I run out and get an 'expect' to be good (whether they are or not is another story altogether), but I've found after waiting 90 days or so, you can find out the good, the bad, and the WTF? about a game and can decide if the pros outweigh the cons. Granted, that doesn't help publishers as much given they rely on first movers, but I'm more than willing to let someone with more financial resources find a stinker rather than waste the money myself. Given that I'm also a 'casual' gamer, fun factor is more important than detailed table after table after table of 'realism'

[Aries]

You know, I always wonder what it actually IS that motivates buyers day one to rush out and buy things.

We all know the day one stuff will not be as good as 6 months later.

So what convinces people really?

Take cars, my fav example.
a 2004 is NOT going to cost as much in 2005.
So what exactly do dealers do to move them in spring 2004?

I wonder if game sales would benefit if the companies sold them at 10-15% off for first month only?
Yes I know, they might only be making 10 - 15% profit in the first place.
Ain't life grand.

[KG_Norad]

To touch on what Scott said. I agree that community and attitude have a lot to do with things, but in a slightly different way. I think first of all most 14 year olds are not interested in the highly intellectual conversations ;) that most 30 and above wargamers have. (Damnit Jim! They screwed up the serial #'s on the PanzerIII's! There was never a 00546654116 series of tanks from the factories in Frankfurt!!@@#@$%#$ Damn crappy game publishers!) :laugh: When I look on the official forums for most wargames, I see A LOT of *****ing going on and very little raw unabashed enthusiasm.

For example I am amazed at the sheer ambition that went into the making of WITP, and frankly I EXPECT them to patch it several times before the balance is worked out and the game mechanics are running smoothly. That is not to say I condone releasing buggy games, but to say a game of that scope is obviously going to require tweaking. On the other hand when the next Panzer Campaign comes out I will expect that to run without a hitch because it is an addition to an established and stable game engine. For this reason I would buy the next PzC the first day of release, but WITP I would give some time to.

There really is a generation gap here, and while you will ocasionally find young people who like to play games that appeal to more mature people, often they don't. Whenever I go into GameStop and I notice they have Combat Mission on the shelf I always make it a point to espouse the games merits to the 17yo manning the registers. They usually look at me like "oh really?" :surprise: (thinking to themselves "is this guy nuts?")

All wargames move at a much slower pace. Whether it is the set up phase, or movement to contact, they require more patience. There really is very little twitch factor to most wargames and most kids want to drop into instant action like an arcade game. The true appreciation for strategy and or historical interest seems to come later. I know it came to me later in life despite my love of military "stuff."

I also agree that wargamers should not bash other types of games across the board and should not adopt an elitest attitude. There are after all some very good games of all genres out there. I will also say that most of the players I have run across in the community have been very nice guys, helpful, always ready to give tips and hints, etc. I think you will find nice guys and jerks in any community though.

[freightshaker]

Speaking of good games... I got an early Christmas present of Sid Mier's Pirates. Remember playing it 10 yrs ago when it first came out. Boy, now my wife is really gonna be a widow since it's just as addictive as the original. Wonder how many divorces Sid is responsible for??

[Golf33]

That is better than strict Real-Time yes. It allows for more units to be controlled in a finer way than true RTS where you are always in a rush

An abstraction is an abstraction is an abstraction. A second in real-time still represents some other scale of time. Be it 10 hours, 10 Days, or 10 Weeks. A turn or a phase likewise abstracts time in the same exact way. You are just creating a variable process where the length of time represented by one turn can change. Say from the point in time you pause to issue orders to the next time you pause to do so. Not altogether unlike just ending a turn in Uncommon Valor because you know there is nothing new to be done.
Arguments can be made for realism either way. At the strategic level in real life (WWII lets assume) orders were issued and you might only have seen results come in on a daily basis, if even. Turn-Based mechanics could be said to model that better.
RTS and the Hybrid versions employed give more of an illusion of providing greater realism in some cases than they do actually providing it. Surely HTTR has done a great job in implementing this but I don't think its clear cut that either is a better system or that one is anymore realistic than the other.
It all depends on what your simulating and what aspects of that simulation you are stressing in your game. There is also a certain inherant "simplicity" to a game that uses turns since the abstractions don't change. Turns are always the same length with the same amount of potential results, units can always move the same amount, etc.
Good points. My comment above is primarily a personal observation, as in I personally have trouble with the abstraction of time into turns - I find it hard to motivate myself to do the abacus-work to calculate synchronisation and much prefer to gauge rates of movement etc. shown in continuously-unfolding action. This isn't necessarily more realistic, as you quite rightly point out a senior WWII commander usually received periodic updates rather than a constant flow of information.

The 'turns' in HTTR are not really of 'variable length'. The time between player interactions with the game is variable, as you say like ending a turn early because you've done everything you need to. However, even when you're not interacting with the game, activity is still taking place every minute. I guess you could compare it to the CM or TacOps WEGO systems where game execution is realtime between pauses. You can in fact play HTTR like this if you want, by disciplining yourself not to issue orders except at a specific arbitrary time interval. Doing this disrupts the flow of events and IMO spoils the game but that's my personal preference and there are people who play HTTR by pausing before issuing any order, no matter how small, and I think at least one person actually does play the game by pausing at set intervals to issue orders. What you can do in HTTR that you can't do in CM or TacOps (haven't tried UV) is interact with the game without pausing at all (which is how I normally play) - think of Rommel at the Meuse crossing, unconstrained by staff conferences or situation reports! It's this continuous flow of activity that I find particularly enjoyable. This can be linked to a continuous-space map (so you can't just click on a unit to find out exactly where it can move between now and the next turn) to provide a further set of realistic challenges and effects but that's another discussion entirely.

There is much more of a difference between a PCT game like HTTR (or for that matter the real-time WEGO games like CM or TacOps) and the traditional IGOUGO games like Steel Panthers, since the latter applies a much more abstract approach to unfolding time. Events that happen simultaneously in real life and in the WEGO/PCT games happen sequentially in IGOUGO games and have to be abstracted by things like reaction fire. For some people that's an acceptable abstraction and an enjoyable way to play; for me personally, I can't get my head around it so don't enjoy it much.

FWIW my personal wargaming background started with TacOps and later Steel Panthers, I discovered RDOA by chance a few months after its release and it's all been downhill from there ;)

Regards
33

[Full Monty]

I keep trying to reply and it won't let me. Everytime I post something bigger than this I get that horrible white screen :mad:

[Don Maddox]

My problem with full RTS vs. simultaneous resolution or turns is not one of realism, it's one of playability. Like it or not, PBEM has been and will continue to be a staple of the hobby for a long time to come. Without a viable PBEM mode I personally don't see any wargame -- even one with a decent programmed opponent -- building up a really large fan base. Wargamers want to play each other, and even though TCP/IP is neat, it's not very practical on a regular basis for most people. Also, many wargamers seem to prefer the more relaxed pace of PBEM vs. RTS. I think this is one reason the BCT and ATF series haven't seen as many players as they otherwise might have.

The decline in wargames seems to stem from a combination of several things.

Refusal to pay higher prices, which helps to make the games an unprofitable venture for developers. Wargamers want something for nothing.
Developers who fail to market to what the wargame community really wants.
An almost total lack of serious marketing efforts compared to other PC games (i.e., people won't buy it if they don't know about it).
The pathetic presentation of most wargames. Most wargames look extremely dated, thus most potential players -- who may not be veteran wargamers -- assume that they are dated. Developers would do well to remember that first impressions are lasting ones.
The infusion of huge numbers of younger gamers into PC gaming as a whole. Developers tend to concentrate their efforts where there is the most interest.
But the decline seems to go beyond just wargames, it extends to all PC games. There just don't seem to be as many good ones out there any more despite the fact that larger numbers of games are being released.

[freightshaker]

But the decline seems to go beyond just wargames, it extends to all PC games. There just don't seem to be as many good ones out there any more despite the fact that larger numbers of games are being released.

What ever happened to games like Ultima III & IV, The Baldur's Gate series, Civilization, Aces of the Deep, among other "oldies but goodies". Now days you're lucky to get 30 hrs of game play before either your done with the game or it's gotten old. I think when I purchase a game I look at replayability and duration more than anything else. This is one area where I think wargaming has the upper hand since most games now come with an editor so that scenarios/maps can be created. A dynamic campaign mode is also a great game life extender.

[Aries]

An almost total lack of serious marketing efforts compared to other PC games (i.e., people won't buy it if they don't know about it).

That one point always seems to get missed in a lot of discussions.

You can't sell the invisible.

I have encountered no small number of people that have never heard of Matrix Games, Battlefront, Wargamer, Warfare HQ and a host of other sites I myself see as the center of the wargaming universe.

While on the other hand, you DO see a reasonable presence of "video games" type offerings out there in mainstream media.

By mainstream I mean TV, major publications.

Yes advertising costs money. But you get nothing if you invest nothing.

There ARE options. It falls to the makers of our wargames to accept they need to seek them out. Or remain small pathetic operations starved of market awareness and limited to puny sized production runs.

Wargame manufacturers seem to think a run of 5000 units amounts to something.
Heck, Hasbro measures success in hundreds of thousands of units as a bare minimum acceptable level of out put.
The console game makers expect to sell millions of units.

Currently wargaming thinks it can sit on the internet and put up a forum and all is peachy.
It isn't.

The only people that know we are here, are the moldy old diehards that were wargamers decades ago.

Many stores sell software on the shelf reasonably successfully. But a lot of that stuff is getting exposure on TV too.

Wargames have begun to move off the shelf. But they don't have any market awareness worth mention.
If they don't counteract this cloaking shield condition, they can kiss the hobby good bye in time.
Just a matter of time before the market forgets we are here in numbers to matter eh.

The internet is a handy means to buying when you are ready to buy. But the internet is a big place. And people need to actually know you are there from external means.

[JeremyScott]

:D I agree. I used to play the ACES trilogy like crazy. I could never get tired of it. My favorite was Aces Over Europe. I would go psyco fighter pilot and have the thing on unlimited ammo and fuel and just shoot the bejesus out of everything that stood or flew. Friendly and Enemy.

[Veldor]

Currently wargaming thinks it can sit on the internet and put up a forum and all is peachy.
It isn't.

Many stores sell software on the shelf reasonably successfully. But a lot of that stuff is getting exposure on TV too.

Wargames have begun to move off the shelf. But they don't have any market awareness worth mention.


Advertising wargames WOULD NOT and does not work for the same reasons putting them in stores didn't work for Matrix Games.

Can you actually imagine a commercial coming on TV for something like Uncommon Valor? What the heck would they show? It would look like still video. I can see the grey-haired old fart now, screaming "You sank my battleship!" at the screen.

You have 30 seconds tops to get your point across. That works for games with flashy graphics but for the most part even REGULAR PC games dont get commericals these days unless there are also console versions of them. PC gaming in general is on the decline (at least from a marketshare point of view), and not just wargaming.

And having your wargame at Best Buy IS one form of advertising but again how much can you really say on a box? A Shooter just needs one or two good screenshots and a kicka$$ box cover. Likely for those who actually might WANT to buy a wargame those would be the least important. And if someone did find graphics importantly, likely the screenshots wouldn't be up to par anyway. End result is it gets put back on the shelf and stays there.

The best way to advertise wargames is to make games that are more along the lines of what main-stream gamers might want to play. Then use those titles to Lure them into trying out the more hardcore variety. This is where games more along the lines of Hearts of Iron 2 and GGWAW will help out a lot.

The Progression hopefully goes something like this:
1. Command & Conquer Generals
2. Axis & Allies RTS
3. Hearts of Iron
4. GGWAW
5. Uncommon Valor
6. War in the Pacific

That's it. Takes too long and too much information to advertise wargaming any other way..

[Scott Tortorice]

I agree. Wargame companies definitely need to start marketing their wares much better. Like Aries said, "The only people that know we are here, are the moldy old diehards that were wargamers decades ago." Spot on. I truly believe there is no reason in the world why wargaming cannot be promoted as successfully as Metroid Prime, et alia.
Well, on second thought there is one reason as Mr. Maddox indicated: "The pathetic presentation of most wargames. Most wargames look extremely dated, thus most potential players -- who may not be veteran wargamers -- assume that they are dated." Also well said. Even though the grognards amongst us are quite comfortable with 2-D hex maps, after all, we grew up on them, the future of (war)gaming is with realistic, immersive graphics. Combat Mission is an excellent example of how wargaming should look in the 21st Century. So is Rome: Total War. Like it or not, if you are not willing to put in the effort to make a wargame with visual polish, you simply are not going to attract anyone but we diehards who grew up with the simple grpahics of the old 8-bit machines.
So the solution to having big wargame sales is:
1)a rich graphics & audio presentation
2)easy point and click gameplay
3)and, of course, great gameplay

Only once you have a wargame with these three elements should you even start thinking about marketing it in an aggressive fashion. But if you do have all these elements, do not hesitate to market the game via TV, etc. Isn't this what Activision did with Rome:TW? They were so (rightfully) confident in the quality of their game, they even made two TV shows around it! Now THAT is the way to market a wargame, albeit a RTS wargame.

[Aries]

Advertising is advertising.

Want to advertise Sonic the Hedgehog, you show off action sequences.

Want to advertise War in the Pacific you make it a totally different slant.

Voice on Commercial "Ever wonder what would have happened on Dec 7 1941 if the Japanese attack had been done right?"
"Ever wonder what the course of the war in Europe would have been like, if you had not had an understanding with Russia?".
Now you can make those fateful decisions.
Command historically accurate forces of the time.
Make the fateful decisions that shaped future history.
Be the decisive factor in War in the Pacific.

There, no need to fret over the fact your game is run on a hex grid turn using design.
No need to fret over the fact your game isn't in 3d and real time.
No need to fret over how the game isn't this or isn't that.
Because you spent your time highlighting what your game actually WAS.

Mention Matrix Games three times if possible. Sneak in a quote of minimum computer power required. Presto shitloads of potential customers just saw both the game's name and the company name/logo. All maybe while watching some atypical TV show.

Is advertising free? Of Course not.
Is making a game and only selling a few hundred copies pointless, well yes if you ask me.
Because making the game wasn't free either.

Chances of Les ever helping you make a wargame for several tens of thousands of dollars if your best return on investment is 5000 units worth of sales.
Zero.
Got better things to do with my time let alone money.

I will be there to buy the occasional wargame if they actually exist. I like wargames.

But I probably won't care whos name is in the credits, if you don't care if you sink or swim either.

Matrix Games is here today, if it's gone tomoorrow, my life will go on.
And odds are we won't suffer greatly, we wargamers.
After all, look at how many titles are out there now.
The risk, the real risk, is to the vitality of wargaming remaining a viable "business notion" mainly, not so much a viable hobby option for me.

Heck, I expect to enjoy wargames till I take my last breath eh.
The only thing that will happen if wargaming companies go under, is I will have to settle for something else when events like christmas birthdays and fathers days come around eh.

And of course, people like Gary Grigsby, David Heath, John Tiller might need to refocus on something else to get their personal bills paid.

Wargaming doesn't pay any of my bills though, so I am in no danger regardless of where the hobby wanders to.

[MajorH]

Some of you sound like you think that wargame developers and publishers have never tried large market, high expense advertising and have never tried brick store sales. Well we did and the "never give up" survivors are now selling their product on the Internet. :argh:

Below is a note that I wrote last year on another forum that is germane to this discussion. One can pick at the numbers a bit but the basic logic of Internet only sales given a highly niche product is sound.

= = = = =

Re: Does wargaming have a future?

While waiting for my morning coffee to kick in I did a quick spreadsheet from a developer's perspective on old style brick store sales vs internet only sales. The return ratio for the developer (not the publisher) was around ten to one. One Internet sale produced the same income for the developer as ten brick store sales. Based on the following assumptions -if one changes the assumptions then obviously the rate of return to the developer would change.

Brick store. Developer gets a percentage of a wholesale price. Wholesale price is 50% or a bit more or a bit less of retail price - I used 50% in my sheet. During the days of old style brick store sales a developer's percentage was low - 5 to 15 percent of wholesale. - I used 15% in my sheet.

Internet store. Developer gets a percentage of the retail price. Unless he is getting screwed the developer's percentage of an Internet only sales operation ought to be 65 to 85 percent. I used 85% in my sheet.

Whatever numbers are used, the key concepts are that developers get a higher percentage of Internet only sales and the percentage is applied to retail price instead of wholesale price.

So at least in some cases, a developer could get by nicely by selling to 10,000 highly interested customers and passing on 90,000 less interested customers.

= = = = =

[Redwolf]

Another new aspect here is that mass-market games also move away from retail.

Valve with Half-Life2 has the "Steam" Internet distribution (in addition to retail) which cuts out retail and replaces it with a high-bandwidth distributor who can operate without much staff and with no shop theft etc.

Valve also started legal battles with their publishers over various rights related to this.

It seems to be the developer here is showing some claws. Given the position Valve is in this might have a high impact.

On a related note, the Boston Best Buys reduced their area for PC games considerably over this year. The writing is on the wall. PC games will probably move away from boxed retail. Suggestion wargames should move there is probably very ba advice.

[Aries]

You missed the key point.

I bought Battles in Normandy via digital download. I thought it was cool.

I already knew about Matrix Games though, I don't count.

What about joe gamer that thinks all the usual crap on the shelf is not challenging enough?

What if he has never heard of Matrix Games?

He sure isn't going to hear about Battles in Normandy unless extreme good fortune lands him at their internet door.

Contrary to popular opinion, it isn't easy to find things on the internet.
I have used search engines for too many years, only to get the most unusual results to my search parameters.

You can sell a game electronically off the net once you have the sale. But if no one knows you are there, you ain't getting the sale. And the customer, thanks to his not knowing you are there, won't buy your next game either.

Military Book Club mails to consider numbers of locations through several methods. They sell to SERIOUS minded military enthusiasts too. You won't find many guys that plop down 50 bucks for a good book complaining if a bit of their bulletin's space is used to promote wargames.

Finescale modeller, another good venue for serious guys into military themed hobbies.

I could likely suggest dozens of magazines akin to ArmChair General as well.
They will want something for the ad of course.

But I am not suggesting trying to compete with console games on the shelves.
I am suggesting though, that advertising breeds awareness.
No advertising only means you will be gone when you get bored of lame sales.

Any business unwilling to advertise aggressively is living on borrowed time and should not be taken seriously and seriously expecting to be around long.

[KG_Norad]

Matrix does advertise in at least one WWII magazine. Not sure which one. I even saw an add from shrapnel games in the same magazine.

[chrisvalla]

Matrix does advertise in at least one WWII magazine. Not sure which one. I even saw an add from shrapnel games in the same magazine.

World War II History (looking at my Sep issue that needs to be read). Military Heritage has Rome on it's October issues (I've got lot's of reading to do and less game playing... yeah right!).

[Siberian HEAT]

Matrix is an advertiser with us at Armchair General Magazine. :D

[Veldor]

Whatever numbers are used, the key concepts are that developers get a higher percentage of Internet only sales and the percentage is applied to retail price instead of wholesale price.

So at least in some cases, a developer could get by nicely by selling to 10,000 highly interested customers and passing on 90,000 less interested customers.

= = = = =
I completely agree. When talking wargames the math almost always supports that. Neither choice changes advertising though. I would think beyond the obvious of WWII and Armchair General Magazines the next best place to advertise would be PC GAMER and the like. The right add might draw some of the truly fresh crowd in.

Not every computer wargamer has to be either a strict military history buff or a board wargamer. I do think something should be done to draw in some of the others.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My problem with full RTS vs. simultaneous resolution or turns is not one of realism, it's one of playability. Like it or not, PBEM has been and will continue to be a staple of the hobby for a long time to come. Without a viable PBEM mode I personally don't see any wargame -- even one with a decent programmed opponent -- building up a really large fan base. Wargamers want to play each other, and even though TCP/IP is neat, it's not very practical on a regular basis for most people. Also, many wargamers seem to prefer the more relaxed pace of PBEM vs. RTS.

I fully agree. While HTTR has the most advanced game engine, I just wish Panther Games could somehow miracuously program a PBEM-option for it (I know I'm just dreaming here :cry: ).

[vyshka]

Discuss the article from the main Warfare HQ webpage here.

http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=articles/wargame_articles/gaming%20trends.shtml

What have your recent game experiences been like? Do you play many games or just a few?

I think part of the problem with PC games anyways is the cost to
develop them anymore drives the big shops to stick to tried and true formulas. The focus has gone away from gameplay and game design innovation to add all the bells and whistles. Heck Will Wright had to fight to get 'The Sims' published and he is arguably one of the best designers of all time. That has gone on to be one of the most popular games ever (I personally dont care for it). So what we end up with is variations of the same few games with ever better graphics and sound requiring ever better hardware. Chris Crawford, who made his name developing games in the 80s has written a lot about this current state of the industry. His book about game design goes into detail on the subject. Will Wright also took some shots at it at this years GDC, when he talked about the cost of art in games, and possibly moving towards procedural content instead. Then proceeding to wow the crowd with a demo/prototype of his latest creation Spore.

Wargames havent really hit the problem of art costs driving things out of control. The problem for our community is hardly anyone wants to risk money on a wargame title because they are fairly certain they wont make much if any profit.

Hopefully with more people developing and selling directly over the internet, more innovative designs will see the light of day.


As for my current gaming experiences, I am buying and playing games all the time. I have been gaming on computers since the mid 80s. Recently, especially the last couple of years, it has been real hard to stay focused on a game title for a decent period of time. I will keep playing my wargames, but each RTS is pretty much the same as the others, same goes with FPS and so on. All they do is getter better graphics, and better sound. While sometimes a new wrinkle gets thrown into the gameplay, for the most part there is no innovation. I can have as much or more fun playing, Space Horse (an update of M.U.L.E) as I do most modern day games.

[vyshka]

:D I agree. I used to play the ACES trilogy like crazy. I could never get tired of it. My favorite was Aces Over Europe. I would go psyco fighter pilot and have the thing on unlimited ammo and fuel and just shoot the bejesus out of everything that stood or flew. Friendly and Enemy.

I loved the Aces games too, but I think my fav WWII flight sim was Microprose's European Air War.

Fav WWI flight sim was the original Red Baron. I used to love
that game.

[Jon@lbc]

I have to say I don't agree with you look at all the awesome games that have come out recently, I'll give one for each genere (that I own)

Racing: Burnout 3 awesome graphics amazing crashes great multi-player
shooting: mercenaries open gameplay non-linear
Stealth: Splinter cell chaos theory, hands down the best video game I have ever played. If all games were 100$ and I could only buy one this game would be it Even though I generally hate stealth games.
wargames: I don't know of recently released wargames but I'm still playing Combat mission beyond overlord
The sequel to IL 2 sturmovik, pacific fighters i think
Silent hunter

[Top Alchemist]

The Creative Industries aren't. Too many play it safe and just copy the latest hit. In games this was MMORPG over the last five years and then the WWII first person shooters of the last couple. The Total War series has been good for strategy, but not for multi-player turn based strategy. For that my money goes to Fall of Rome. www.fallofromegame.com If you have one you of that category you prefer, let me know.