sterckxe -> RE: Thinking of buying (10/3/2008 11:00:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Adam Parker Let me put it this way Erik. My local war game store, the best in Australia has every Matrix title (and HPS title for that matter) on its shelves. Every couple of months I visit, I don't see the stock being depleted. But I look at their GMT, MMP, Avalanche, DoW etc., board games and they're walking out the door. Huge piles of Twilight Struggle and C&C Ancients gone! Big full shelves of Euro board games too. People are wargming but the PC side of the hobby isn't filling the demand. You guys have got to start asking why? You've got a point - up to a point. What originally made computer wargames popular was that they provided the boardgame player with an AI opponent. Ok, most of the time this AI was just a dumb beginner, but still ... Today most AI's have become a little bit more clever and some even manage to give you a good game, but they're not a match, nor a substitute for playing a human. So why, in this day and age of massive multi-player games do the overwhelming majority of wargamers *still* play that AI instead of another human being ? And pc wargaming companies need to find an answer to that question because playing a boardgame over Vassal et al is becoming more easy and more popular every day. They can compete because a dedicated program is great at enforcing the game-rules, things like fog of war and handling mundane bookkeeping tasks which would overwhelm the boardgame player. So, again, why don't pc wargamers play MP games ? I'll do a copy & paste of a previous post which tried to give an answer to this question as I'm too lazy to reformulate the idea [;)] ... Last night I got Victory in the Pacific out and started a solitaire game and one thing immediately struck me : it's called a turn-based game, but it isn't. There's a constant interaction between both players so that it almost feels like a real-time game. Then I had one of these "duh" moments when I realized why multi-player FPS games are so much fun while TCP/ IP pc wargaming is so tedious : in FPS games there's a constant interaction between players while multi-player TCP/IP wargaming is you waiting for your opponent to finish his turn. So, it's the constant interaction that makes multi-player games a true joy (re-duh) - whether that game is a boardgame or a computer game is immaterial there. Almost all computer wargames have multi-player build into them, but as has been discussed here a couple of times before, there are strong clues that only a tiny minority of wargamers ever play it multi-player online. Up to now I had this attributed to causes specific to the gamer (character, time-zones, no match-making service, ...) , but now I started to look at the game itself as being the big factor here. How many computer wargames are designed from the ground up to be truly multi-player experiences, with constant gamer interaction ? Very, very few, bordering on none. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx
|
|
|
|