|
Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (12/30/2002 2:49:16 AM)
|
Rocky you actually make this jaded forum wanderer a bit happier eh.
I have been mucking about over at Battlefront's SC forum for the last month or so at most.
It's not currently about the game any more, its about forum members learning that most wargamers are to old to indulge teenage anti social behaviour for long.
As such I have not been overly successful in discussing the merits of new games.
I personally think, an experienced wargamer can glean a lot of expert opinion from sufficient postings, and not even have to see a wargame to sum it up reasonably reliably eh.
Take my to most bandied wargames of the last while for instance.
Strategic Command.
If a simple wargame set in WW2, using turns, limited in scope to the European portion of the conflict, and similar in realism to Axis and Allies for the computer sounds interesting, then its very low price tag is just icing on the cake.
It has a marginal AI, which doesn't matter a lot as the game is perfectly suitable to play against people. It has to many "gamey" effects that hopefully will get the boot in SC2 or whatever it's next incarnation gets called. But if goofy strategies that are possible in Axis and Allies don't bum you out, then the game is ok.
I don't currently know of any "software" troubles, and it has one of the best interfaces in gaming I have seen. I think the designer should be showing other game makers how to make games easy to run.
then there is
Hearts of Iron
I actually WANTED this game when I first heard of it. The whole war, and with detail I thought would be nice in SC but wasn't there.
Then I started to hear how it was from a company known for producing games that were often poorly made and buggy. And then I began to hear that it was yet another buggy game.
The AI is not escapable because it is an RTS game, so a crummy AI really counts here.
The game used a game style that was fine for a game that was set against decades or more of time.
But this engine was originally made popular in a colonizing game, something that is entirely worthless to depict WW2 at any level of realism.
It requires a level of suspension of disbelief I don't even allow in my roleplaying paper and pencil gaming.
But through it all, I get derided for not having been foolish enough to line up with 80-100 bucks to buy a game that any experienced wargamer can tell at a looooooong distance has no merit.
I have no respect for people that will buy a product just because they haven't bought a game recently. Yes I am not rich, I would not buy this game if I was.
There are other forms of wealth that have nothing to do with money, such as time. I can't believe that some people will spend their time on this game, even if they have more money than sense.
Final analysis, SC is not yet good enough for me, but I want a lot from my wargame. It is likely not a waste of money. I would suggest a person play the demo a dozen times. You will see if the detail level is enough, the demo is a good demo as demos go.
Hearts of Iron, no point in trying to rebutal me any who might, this game is worthless. I would rather watch paint peel. My housework is more fun.
This has nothing to do with my not being very pro RTS gaming, because I have seen RTS games that at least run.
I might not be in love with RTS, but I won't call em garbage just to say it.
Now I would never say that much on some forums, but at least here in Matrix land, wargamers stick to discussing wargames intelligently. Or at least, our community doesn't tolerate juvenile behaviour as if juvenile behaviour is not a problem.
And at this time, I want to thank Matrix, for running a tight ship, and being a very good example of how a forum should be run monitored and kept worth coming back to.
|
|
|
|
