ORIGINAL: Wargamer Article Developers declined to improve older games using one engine because they were using the improved engine for a new game on the same topic.
This is for you Gary Grigsby & SSI! (The broken Kampfgruppe and the subsequent and fixed Battle Group!) *grin*
_____________________________
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."
The big move to Steam by some wargame publishers has generally been successful, I think. I've noticed many new posters here who seem relatively tolerant, all of which may be good news and not disaster.
Now the publishing industry, and journalism in general, is another story, pardon the pun. The internet has effectively wiped out the print side already. Bye bye Newsweek, etc.
The big move to Steam by some wargame publishers has generally been successful, I think. I've noticed many new posters here who seem relatively tolerant, all of which may be good news and not disaster.
Now the publishing industry, and journalism in general, is another story, pardon the pun. The internet has effectively wiped out the print side already. Bye bye Newsweek, etc.
Steam would have been another paragraph had I not thought the piece was going too long. I like Steam but think about all the chicken littles who fear the sky (server) will fall.
Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004 From: London Status: offline
The only change I see is that peoples expectations have increased and there is a lot more competition. This means B class games are doomed from the start. You need to be the best at what you do so choose your subject matter and genre carefully. They won't tolerate bad UI design the way they used to for a complex game any more. You need to raise the bar and get professional in look and feel as well as gameplay. The massive competition means you need to stand out or get lost. That doesn't mean simplification, as the games that sell best at least for us are big complex games. It means you have to spend more time on the details and polish so the costs of producing games go up and the team sizes grow if you want to maintain the level of complexity. One option is to look for tools to help you, such as using an engine like Archon to kick start development. Another option is to reduce scope and sell byte sized chunks of games for lower price points with an episodic model. There are many ways to deal with it, but just doing what you used to isn't one of them! :)
One maintains that accuracy trumps innovation; most things new add little to gameplay and distracts from it. Others demand innovation for its own sake; the continuing complaint about no change in the engine of John Tiller’s games is an example of this reaction. Yet another school of thought ignores innovative elements and targets their comments on the more typical aspects of the game, demanding the equivalent of the old combat results tables. Developers are caught “between the devil and the deep blue sea”, caught between wanting to be innovative and the need to dodge criticism.
Why stick with one? Why not play games from several categories? Traditional and innovative. Table top and digital. Historical and fiction. Why don't you?
quote:
Variety is the spice of battle
< Message edited by Matti Kuokkanen -- 2/5/2016 5:59:33 PM >
_____________________________
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.
This means B class games are doomed from the start. You need to be the best at what you do so choose your subject matter and genre carefully. They won't tolerate bad UI design the way they used to for a complex game any more.
I want to be wrong but Im afraid this will apply to the upcoming "Tigers on the Hunt".
I would agree with you. on first look at 'Tigers' i thought it was a beta with placeholder art and such. Only later did i release this is almost the release copy. That should have been it for me. i bought a game here on many players recommendations only to find it was a UI nightmare. Ugly graphics. Poor tutorials. its was a 1990s reskin and it showed. despite the faithful raving about it, It was a horror to play.
I said i would never again buy another wargame that hasn't 'moved on'. Why should I have to? That new {ish} Pacific Panzer corps game is just fine. so are many others.
So no more 'make an excuse because its niche'.To hell with that!! Make it right or don't make it at all! Don't tell me I have to put up with that old junk. I can buy the finest 'old' games on steam for pennies. I want to fight the opponent not the system. So ..I'm finished buying these underdeveloped games. Don't tell me how amazing the system is at calculating the number of jerrycans an Opel blitz can carry! No one uses select unit with mouse-wheel press!
[ However - this 'Tigers' game on this scale on this subject heavily influenced by THAT boardgame...may force me to reconsider for ONE LAST TIME }
I would agree with you. on first look at 'Tigers' i thought it was a beta with placeholder art and such. Only later did i release this is almost the release copy. That should have been it for me. i bought a game here on many players recommendations only to find it was a UI nightmare. Ugly graphics. Poor tutorials. its was a 1990s reskin and it showed. despite the faithful raving about it, It was a horror to play.
I said i would never again buy another wargame that hasn't 'moved on'. Why should I have to? That new {ish} Pacific Panzer corps game is just fine. so are many others.
So no more 'make an excuse because its niche'.To hell with that!! Make it right or don't make it at all! Don't tell me I have to put up with that old junk. I can buy the finest 'old' games on steam for pennies. I want to fight the opponent not the system. So ..I'm finished buying these underdeveloped games. Don't tell me how amazing the system is at calculating the number of jerrycans an Opel blitz can carry! No one uses select unit with mouse-wheel press!
[ However - this 'Tigers' game on this scale on this subject heavily influenced by THAT boardgame...may force me to reconsider for ONE LAST TIME }
This mindset is what I was talking about. SL/ASL were good board games but had trouble with stacks, errata and rule arguments. Let's see how it plays before dumping on the graphics.
I really wish we would at least wait until TOTH is released before it gets buried.
The negative comments about it are usually from two points of view.
First, is that the graphics are subpar. I have been playing wargames for 45 years+, I really do not understand this at all. We are talking about cardboard or .jpg or whatever representations of tanks and soldiers. Some people don't even like pictures of tanks etc. and want NATO symbols. So I really think this is just a personal choice issue and besides the ability to mod the game is present and has already been done. Having seen the latest computer computer and board wargames I don't see where they are that different.
Second, that it doesn't exactly match ASL in everything. The problem with this thought is that it wasn't and isn't supposed to.
I was a beta tester for a game that was based on a board wargame. The poor programmers said in the end that they would never attempt to duplicate a boardgame again. They were being driven mad by the people who hated their game because it wasn't a mirror image of the boardgame.
The thought that every new game has to be a benchmark for the industry or niche, is to me completely foreign. There are many people who buy the whole series of games where not much has changed at all. Or those of us who still play AOR and SPWAW, because of the meat in the game not the dressing.
That would be one of my points about the article. I do believe you are correct in that some people want each new game to be a redesigning of the wheel. There are plenty of people who liked a game when it was first released and want more of the same and get just as angry over the game changing. The sales of games like the Baldur's Gate remakes etc. I believe show that.
_____________________________
Windows 7 home premium 64 Intel quad core I7 16 gig AMD R9 200 series
I shudder to think what some people think of Schwerpunkts games. I like them, but even I can see they could use some sprucing up in the art department.
_____________________________
Windows 7 home premium 64 Intel quad core I7 16 gig AMD R9 200 series
This mindset is what I was talking about. SL/ASL were good board games but had trouble with stacks, errata and rule arguments. Let's see how it plays before dumping on the graphics.
I should really have added a smiley face. I know I'm going to get Tigers once its released.
I will admit though that with computer wargames you are more at the mercy of the designer than a board one.
Rules etc. that didn't work or really made no sense could always be changed or fixed to your taste.
I have opened up my share of board wargames where the rule book looked like it was written by someone who was an ESL student and also high on paint fumes.
_____________________________
Windows 7 home premium 64 Intel quad core I7 16 gig AMD R9 200 series
Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003 From: England Status: offline
I can't see why innovation means lacking in realism\historical accuracy and gameplay. Infact I reckon more innovation will mean better realism\accuracy and gameplay. I do understand there needs to be a wide range of wargames catering for all types from grognards to casual gamers. Unless a tactical wargame I'm not sure how fancy graphics can really enhance a wargame, except maybe a lovely 3d map. So for me it's innovation that's desperately needed. Look how DCB was\is a blast of fresh air combining more traditional mechanics with new innovative features that go on to enhance the game and make it better in all respects than if it had just stuck to traditional mechanics\features only. Personally I'd like to see wargames looked at through new glasses, as if there had been no board wargames before and we where now going to create a type of game on the computer..a Wargame. Then see how it would turn out. Taking your inspiration from how commanders are taught and how commanders and generals deal with War and operations. Or take only very best aspect of the boardgame wargame and then everyhting else a fresh perspective..lets just say you only took "turns" as the feature to keep, everythign else is up for grabs.
The map for instance could end up being only a small part of the game which roughly showed you where you expect or have been informed your troops and the enemies are. Other screens would be to do with incoming reports and sending out reports, sending out orders, realing with requests etc etc. With the map getting updated as info come sin. You have to collate all the info on hand to then decide on your orders as the battle proceeds. Totally different take and feel. You could really pump up the tension and uncertainty with a game like this. The actual computer will be playing a detailed sim of the fighting under the hood and your orders will influece how it goes. However the info you actually get will be from all sorts of sources. At times you'll be waiting on a sit rep after orderinng an assualt 40 game mins ago biting your nails for some news and then suddenly you could have all kinds of sit reps, reuqests for div arty, request for reinforcements, reports on enemy movements, reports on casualties all pouring in as you try and work out what's happened and happening on the battlefield and be able to update your map and issue relevant orders.
< Message edited by wodin -- 2/6/2016 1:27:01 AM >
Innovation is great but there's two problems. Innovation just for itself but not within reasonable historic parameters is no good. Secondly, as DCB has shown, some people don't like or understand the changes and don't want to do the work required to get into the groove.
This mindset is what I was talking about. SL/ASL were good board games but had trouble with stacks, errata and rule arguments. Let's see how it plays before dumping on the graphics.
Just to be clear I wasn't solely focusing on the graphics. We all want Matrixgames/Slitherine to succeed. Nor am I looking to smear "Tigers", those of you who buy it I hope you enjoy the hell out of it. Having said that there's not only the spartan "Tiller" graphics, but the lack of multiplayer, hardcoded values for units, and the GUI is the clunkiest thing Ive seen since Windows95 games.
< Message edited by Blond_Knight -- 2/6/2016 2:29:29 AM >
Tiller games have hot seat, PBEM and direct play. Is there another modality not requiring a server? I tend to agree with you about the UI. I've mentioned that in reviews.
I have been playing war games for 30 years. I really love the ability to go back in time and recreate battles. I play them all, still play Panzer Corps with all the cheats, I like the ability to carry over units to a next battle.
Good article and I hope they continue with quality games from all and for all gamers.
Realism would ideally be a way to allow "gameplay balance" to fall into one's lap as-is, and make the learning curve easier for players by letting them use actual tactics instead of having to learn the idiosyncrasies of the particular ruleset you're using, but if you have a super-detailed game that still needs "developer fiat" for the desired results to come out in the wash anyway, that detail and realism isn't really getting you anything except numbers for their own sake.
Tactics II was the first wargame I ever played Paul Koenigs dad got it for him on his 12th birthday. we couldn't understand the rules so we invented our own rules using the counters - great games there we captured each others units and put em in pow camps then tried to break em out... Now He runs PKG games and the legacy continues. He never made the switch to computer games though unless you count Atari.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> A Cautionary Tale 
A Cautionary Tale - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread