ravinhood
Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003 Status: offline
|
quote:
At some point, the rules and game mechanics must be used to seperate them. Heh, what about all those sequels that only got a "graphics facelift" and hardly a mechanical change? I think Sid Meiers "Pirates" recently re-released is a good example of that. There were some basic mechanical changes, but, hardly enough to render this game much different from the origional, except for the graphics facelift. Was it worth another $40 to be able to "dance" with the govenors daughter? haha What' I'm trying to illustrate is that HOI 2 has the same basic setup as HOI 1, it has the same goals, it pretty much has the same map with a few extra provinces added. The overall picture of the game remains the same, even if the mechanics have changed somewhat and are more streamlined. It's more of a "fix" than it is a brand new game to me. What makes HOI more popular than Axis & Allies? Complexity? But, what makes it different from Axis & Allies as far as the overall scope of the game? Same question would go for "Strategic Command" vs those two. The same question will popup when Gary Grisgbys World at War comes out. The significant difference is in the preference and style of play gamers have and what challenge level they are looking for. I like short and quick games of challenge, you might like those that take days, weeks, and months. Others will like an inbetween the two. Then there is the complexity level, some like all levels of complexity, some only like very hard, some only like very easy. This is what separates them all from one another. Some will buy all (4), some will only buy one style, some will mix and match. Axis & Allies has a weak AI, HOI 1 has no less and really HOI 2 has not much more than the previous two. Does a 10% improvement in the AI warrant a repeat purchase of the same overall type of game upon "release"? Does being able to attack when move warrant a repeat purchase of the same overall type of game upon "release"? Are those really significant differences? If I can still swarm the map as Germany or Japan or Russia or the Allies, what significant difference is there to this game? That I can do it with a new interface? That I can do it on the move instead of waiting on the move? lol Hardly a reasonable effort to cause me to want to purchase this one until many months later. The most fundamental aspect of any new game should be the "challenge" level of it, will it challenge me, or just waste my time again as games of the past? Is the challenge level significantly higher (and I do mean significantly higher)? or is it just a UI and graphics facelift and a more streamlined effort? I grow bored of a game very quickly when I see I am going to be able to over-run the AI with ease, RTW left me feeling this way, but, MTW did not. Some say just the opposite of the two. But, my preferences are for the features and way of play of MTW vs RTW. There are so many features that are broken in RTW it's not even funny. People say "well don't use the features", lol, didn't I pay for those features? So, shouldn't I find challenge with or without those features? Why must I stifle my gameplay at the expense of not using the "features" of the game? How many features will be exploitable in HOI 2, I don't know I haven't found them all yet. But, I warrant to say there will be features that are exploitable by merely "using them as intended" and thus reduce the challenge level of it. And btw, where's LES/HEXED GAMER? ;) I would really enjoy reading his comments about the new release of HOI 2 as well. I'm sure he has some insightful information to share with us. :)
|