CGW reviews WITP (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Zorfwaddle -> CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 5:59:20 AM)

Gave it a 3.5, apparently because it is too complex and requires total commitment from those playing it [:D]



Tankerace -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 6:02:23 AM)

Wooo go Witp! It deserves better, but oh well.

Glad to see another Dr. Strangelove fan on the boards.

"C'mon Mandrake, for the sake of the COntinental COngress get over here, the Redocats are coming!"



Zorfwaddle -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 6:04:24 AM)

Definetley. The first movie I bought on DVD.

..."Shoot! I guy could have a pretty good time in Vegas (Dallas) with all this stuff!"



Tankerace -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 6:07:13 AM)

"Am I to understand...that the Russian Ambassador is coming in here.... but, but (Falls) he'll see the big board!"



Zorfwaddle -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 6:15:54 AM)

I actually use that a lot IRL :-)

"Listen, Colonel Batguano, if that really is your name...."



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 7:05:37 AM)

"You can't fight in here! This is the War Room."[:D]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 7:06:58 AM)

All I know is they (Hollywood) had better leave Dr. Strangelove alone. No crappy friggin' remakes are welcome.



Tankerace -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 7:29:31 AM)

Amen to that. There can be only one:

"Mein Furher, I can walk!"



pad152 -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 8:24:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorfwaddle

Gave it a 3.5, apparently because it is too complex and requires total commitment from those playing it [:D]


I think they are saying this game is way over their heads[;)]

It's sad but true, if someone sent them a new chess game they would likly say the same thing[:(]



scout1 -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (9/30/2004 2:28:58 PM)

quote:

I think they are saying this game is way over their heads

It's sad but true, if someone sent them a new chess game they would likly say the same thing


Though I rarely agree with CGW for reviews/articles there is something that you miss here. Wargames in general are not mainstream in the industry. Never really were. So that makes them something of a niche. Grigsby wargames have always tended to be heavily detail oriented (intentionally) which basically made them a niche market within
a niche market. Given CGW covers mainstream stuff, I think that a 3.5 (from them) is a compliment. Give me a game to review that I may not have either the interest/background to review and then tell me that it literally will take years to play to completion and that's a reciepe for a less than stellar rating.

Don't get me wrong, WitP is a tremendous piece of work and getting better. Just we're
far, far away from any mainstream stuff in the industry.



fbastos -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 9:24:21 AM)

quote:

Gave it a 3.5, apparently because it is too complex


I was impressed it got a 3.5. This is the kind of game that would get 99.9% of the kids around confused as: (a) they think that Mt. Fuji is the pile of photographic films at the nearby Target; (b) think we invaded Iwo Jima looking for Osama Bin Laden there; and (c) don't get the differences between an APCBC shot and an APDS...

/sigh... kids...

F.



von Murrin -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 10:42:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

I think they are saying this game is way over their heads

It's sad but true, if someone sent them a new chess game they would likly say the same thing


Though I rarely agree with CGW for reviews/articles there is something that you miss here. Wargames in general are not mainstream in the industry. Never really were. So that makes them something of a niche. Grigsby wargames have always tended to be heavily detail oriented (intentionally) which basically made them a niche market within
a niche market. Given CGW covers mainstream stuff, I think that a 3.5 (from them) is a compliment. Give me a game to review that I may not have either the interest/background to review and then tell me that it literally will take years to play to completion and that's a reciepe for a less than stellar rating.

Don't get me wrong, WitP is a tremendous piece of work and getting better. Just we're
far, far away from any mainstream stuff in the industry.


The counterpoint would be those reviewers for certain online resources such as Gamespot. There are several out there who understand that glitter and reflexes do not a good wargame make, though they don't have to be detrimental to the design.[;)]

Heck, I've seen some of them pop into wargame forums on occasion to defend their reviews.



dr. smith -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 4:39:54 PM)

Give the guy credit, in a box in the lower right, CGW referred readers to Spooky's web site as a source of more info.



dereck -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 4:45:30 PM)

I talked to one teenager and she didn't even know what Pearl Harbor was or who won World War II. What do they teach kids in high school these days?



Xargun -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 4:51:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

I talked to one teenager and she didn't even know what Pearl Harbor was or who won World War II. What do they teach kids in high school these days?


That reminds me of one of my favorite qoutes... "Did we stop when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor".... I love Animal House.... But I think the problem with history is they start way back in history back with England and go all through the colonial period and call it US HIstory... Then they run out of time around the 1900s - maybe WW 1 if they are lucky.. I remember my history classes in school and we never got past WW 1.... Should have 2 classes then in my opinion....

Xargun



Taiyo -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 4:59:59 PM)

well, most of the ppl playing/working on computers like games with instant action! like FPS or RTS or something like that! they don't want to spend their time playing 1 turn for 2 and a half hours, looking at some hexes, not understanding what the heck is going on on the screen ("I wanna kill somebody!" -"I just killed 200 people! Planes bombed that base and killed 200 people!" -"What? Naw! You're kidding, right!?" -"No, really!" -"But there were only a small screen with little pictures of aircraft and some weird sounds." -"Well, that was an air raid!" -"And where is the blood, ha?"). [8|]



dereck -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 5:00:13 PM)

I've ALWAYS loved history - especially World War II and the American Civil War. I know reading all the WWII history books with all the battle maps has really made geography second nature to me. Even without having to guess I could always point out places like Kohima, Espirtu Santo, etc just from reading history.

I'm also lucky enough to have a father who is a World War II vet (served with 13th Air Force in the Phillippines) and plenty of older cousins and uncles who were also WWII vets and who were more than happy to talk to someone about their experiences.

It's a shame but pretty soon these men won't be around any longer and I'm afraid subsequent generations will forget just what they did and just what happened. There's enough people trying to re-write history as it is saying things didn't happen (like the one group trying to say the Holocaust didn't happen - which is EXACTLY why Eisenhower had the press and anybody available take so many pictures of the concentration camps ... so 50 years later nobody could say it didn't happen).

*gets off soapbox*



bostonrpgmania -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 6:23:42 PM)

The review was done by Bruce Gywark who has a very deep interest in war games
(He is the one who gave KP perfect five ('bestwar game ever')and then very poorly for AtD add on)
He also value small developers. He wrote a online tutorial for Dominion II (Shrapnel games)
I was surprised by reading his review that it may take 1500 turns[8|]! (I have still yet to play UV[;)])



Chris21wen -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 6:26:28 PM)

Who are CGW?



KPAX -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 7:21:13 PM)

yes, and the kids were excited about Fable (which my teenage son bought and finished in a day) and Halo.

What else needs to be said.

This game was not intended for the weak minded or shoot-em-up crowd.



dr. smith -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 7:30:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Who are CGW?

Computer Gaming World magazine



Damien Thorn -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/13/2004 8:03:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos
This is the kind of game that would get 99.9% of the kids around confused as: ...(c) don't get the differences between an APCBC shot and an APDS...

F.


OK, I have to admit I have no idea either. Armore piercing something something something and Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot.
(I just remembered the second one as I was typing. Not bad for a naval guy).



Bandkanon -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/14/2004 3:26:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KPAX

yes, and the kids were excited about Fable (which my teenage son bought and finished in a day) and Halo.

What else needs to be said.

This game was not intended for the weak minded or shoot-em-up crowd.


Oi! Don't be making fun of Halo. Its the BEST game ever in the history of electronic games!!!



fbastos -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/14/2004 4:03:36 AM)

quote:

OK, I have to admit I have no idea either. Armore piercing something something something and Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot.
(I just remembered the second one as I was typing. Not bad for a naval guy).


[:)] This was a joke.. I don't know the difference either... :)



Belce -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (10/14/2004 4:19:26 AM)

the difference in rounds

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-art-atp-e.htm

armour piercing capped balistic capped, it was done to improve the accuracy since the plain apc rounds were unstable in flight.

apds or armour piercing discarding sabot a tungsten carbide core in a plain steel jacket that discarded, it improved the muzzle velocity of the round and made it less expensive to produce.



Brooski -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (11/1/2004 2:04:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorfwaddle

Gave it a 3.5, apparently because it is too complex and requires total commitment from those playing it [:D]


I think they are saying this game is way over their heads[;)]

It's sad but true, if someone sent them a new chess game they would likly say the same thing[:(]


Quite untrue. Their wargame reviewer has been playing wargames for 25 years. The guy who reviews their chess games is in his mid-forties and used to play competitive chess.



Zorfwaddle -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (11/1/2004 2:22:02 AM)

Im going to restrain myself here...



Cmdrcain -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (11/1/2004 4:08:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bandkanon

quote:

ORIGINAL: KPAX

yes, and the kids were excited about Fable (which my teenage son bought and finished in a day) and Halo.

What else needs to be said.

This game was not intended for the weak minded or shoot-em-up crowd.


Oi! Don't be making fun of Halo. Its the BEST game ever in the history of electronic games!!!




Halo? huh? never heard of it [:D][:D][:D]



Jim D Burns -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (11/2/2004 1:24:33 AM)

I think my brother explained the difference to me pretty concisely when I tried to get him involved in WitP. I even offered to buy the game for him, his answer told the story, he said:

"I don't want to have to work when I play a game, I simply want to have fun".

Most people view wargames as work since they know little or nothing about history. My brother isn't a stupid man, but he has never been into history as I have, and lacks the necessary passion for history that allows me to enjoy these kinds of games so much. He simply looks to have fun with a game and unless you understand the war in the Pacific, this game isn't very exciting. The most exciting parts would be the battle resolutions and they are pretty basic.

If GG had wanted to hook gamers like my brother, battle resolutions would have to be a big part of the game. Perhaps something in 3D where a player could jump in and fly a plane or captain a ship. Then gamers like my brother would love WitP, he'd see a purpose to the strategic portion of the game and put in the time to learn how to play. He loves the Total War series and has gotten quite good, but it is the battle engine that drew him in, not history or the chess like strategic overlay.

I mean how many here actually know nothing "historical" about the Pacific War? Most of us bring a ravenous interest in history to our gaming experience. We are indeed a small minority in the gaming world.

Jim



UncleBuck -> RE: CGW reviews WITP (11/2/2004 1:40:12 AM)

I just want to know when I can research and deploy the Artemis Net.

UB



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.277344