|
pasternakski -> But... (12/22/2002 5:12:29 AM)
|
This is where computer wargaming went so far wrong in the early 90s. The games Grigsby and Koger and others did for SSI in the early days were directly focused on being historical simulations. Within the limitations of the technology of the times, information was presented clearly and crisply without distractions. The game mechanics were designed around giving the player (or players) an opportunity to change (or model) the historical battle, campaign, or war that was being simulated.
Sales were not good. Graphics and other visual enhancements became de rigeuer. Computer wargame design began to drift toward real-time non-simulations that were designed to appeal to those who preferred pretty to practical. Of course, these games could not compete with the emerging "plug it into your TV and whack away at your joystick" mania (Nintendo, Sony, et al.). The kids took over. Us old timers sat with our few, flawed, low-tech late 80s and early 90s wargames and grumbled away.
Finally, the past has begun to re-emerge, Phoenix-like. The core of this renaissance is Matrix/2by3. Those old games we few loved are being replaced with new, competent designs that have the same focus - on the game, not on the glitter.
I don't want to see this hobby make the same mistake again. There are enough of us who understand what UV is, where it came from, and its value to keep the flame burning by spending the dough necessary to sustain the companies who produce the games. Let's do it right this time. Please don't cave in to crass commercialism and chasing consumer audiences that demand games designed to be something other than what they are. For an example of a great product gone far wrong due to this kind of influence, just trace the history of Sid Meier's Civilization from its origin as a nifty, addictive little gem to the various messes it has become in its latest incarnations (and be sure to note the dire financial straits of Firaxis, its latest b*stardizer).
Of course, visual presentation is important. The emphasis, however, should be on utility, not appearances. UV, in my opinion, is an example of doing it mostly right (although, to be honest, there are some visual features that I just abhor - the primary example is the pilot kills thing, which does absolutely nothing for me at all).
Furthermore, it's just not as easy as "hey, we've got a game here, let's layer on some cool visuals." The entire fabric of a turn-based game is altered when it has to pause for a movie of a tank rumbling across the screen, or a Zero out-turning a P-39 to get on its tail, or ...
Another thing. WITP will end up taking two years or more in development. Matrix/2by3 have limited resources to assign and a limited amount of time to play around with graphics. I am sure that they will, as happened in UV, mate their approach to visual presentation to the game engine design process. I am confident that what will emerge is another tremendous success like UV in which what you see on the screen is pleasing to the eye, utilitarian, conducive to ease of game play, and not overdone.
Gimme the game. Save the cuteness.
|
|
|
|
