|
Maladominus -> Hi all, sorry I'm a latecomer :( (6/15/2008 8:22:31 AM)
|
Hi all,
First of all, this will be my very first post to these forums. Please realize that I'm not new to Matrix strategy games. Heck, I'm an old school gamer... all the way back to Avalon Hill games (Third Reich!), and other quasi-miniatures games such as StarFleet Battles. So I count myself as a veteran wargamer, boardgamer (Milton Bradley wargames anyone?), RPG gamer (Traveller and D&D), and in modern years online MMORPG games. I've tried a little of everything, and I've done it all.
So why is my first post on these (forums) on this topic of the Empires and Arms UI? Well, as some of you can sorta guess.... it's because my heart was set on this game when I found out the old Avalon Hill EiA was going to become a beautiful PC wargame. Yes, I played the old Avalon Hill Empires in Arms. I'm not saying I played it extensively. I played a couple of campaign games at most, which was back around the early 1990s. I wasn't even a very competent player. My Austro-Hungarian Empire was always the first one crushed and steamrolled by any competent French player. Despite all that, the old boardgame was a thing of beauty!
When Matrix Games finally released this game (I never came here for the Beta, I don't enjoy doing Guinea Pig Work for buggy half-finished beta games), my heart sank when I realized that the UI is well.... I was at a loss for words.
To this day, I have not purchased this game. I've played many many games, and bought many in the past. And I know that the few games that have really "won me over".... those games are not just fun to play, not only do they have solid game mechanics, but those games also have GORGEOUS and stunningly beautiful production values. In other words, those are the kind of games with gorgeous miniatures pieces, or heavy-weight and artful game counters. Or maybe it was a game with a stunningly well-designed mounted playing board. The same thing goes with PC wargames that I've played in the past. The ones that I have completely enjoyed and cherished were the ones where everything about the game simply looked "polished".
Right, that's the word I think that we are looking for. Polish. It's not good enough that the game has good innards, and a solid playable set of mechanics and game design. It also has to look professionally designed, and pleasing to look at from an aesthetic standpoint. You see, part of enjoying wargames is the appeal of immersion. You want to be looking at the game components and the game board, and "feel" as if you were indeed a Marshall of France. Or that you were the powerful Czar of All the Russias, marshalling your forces to defend against the invaders. It's kinda hard to be immersed in any game when the "looks" and interface of the game is.... uhh.... well... not that stunning?
So, rather than continue to ramble on, I'd like to make at least one constructive suggestion. I suggest perhaps looking at the User Interface and production values of comparable contemporary PC wargames in recent past. My suggestion to look at is to look at the interface and maybe the "aesthetic design" of another Matrix wargame such as Gary Grigsby's World at War. Or perhaps learn and pick up something from the interface of similar "grand strategy games" such as the world-class appeal of the Europa Universalis games from Paradox Entertainment. The interface and look of the recently released Gary Grigsby's War Between the States looks reasonably nice too!
Maybe one of these days I'll pick this game up. But another hope is that one day, a future version of this game (Empires in Arms) will release with a stunningly appealing interface, looks, and aesthetics.
|
|
|
|
