|
*Lava* -> RE: 7 Reasons Why I Hate Matrix Games! (10/27/2005 2:59:39 PM)
|
Hi!
Interesting thread.
One of the lures of wargames is the chance to replay history. This is especially appealling to those of us who love history. Unfortunately, "history" is a double edged sword.
If you look at other genres (strategy games or FPS types with a historical theme, for example) you will find that these games basically use "history" as a setting, an enviornment in which the "real" game is played. Here the emphasis is on gameplay, and because of that, most players realize that certain abstractions or "playing loose" with historical fact is necessary for the game to be fun. While admitedly producers seek to put more "history" into their games, successful studios never take their eye off the ball: providing great gameplay which the player finds is "fun." Thus, a person who complains about the lack of realism, especially if it means changing gameplay is given short shift and basically ignored (by pretty much everybody). That occurs because everyone understands that the purpose of the game is not to "recreate" history.
Wargames on the other hand do attempt to recreate history. Because of this desire, historical accuracy is seen as the environment in which the game is set. For many, the more detailed the environment, the more "immersive" is the setting. So, for example, where a blue colored catapult is totally acceptable in setting the stage in a strategy game, in a wargame it is absolute heresy. What many wargamers forget is that the "environment" is really just the setting in which the actual game is played. The developer creates his environment and then seeks to provide "a game" which he hopes players will find enjoyable.
Now if we go to a strategy site and ask them to change the "enviornment" we run the risk of being totally ignored. This is because certain factors of that environment, if changed, will completely alter gameplay, and they are just not prepared to do that. Like I say, they keep their eye on the ball: gameplay, and will not be influenced to screw with gameplay just to satisfy a couple folks who are willing to provide endless arguments and links proving that catapults were not painted blue.
Wargaming, on the other hand, is a totally different kettle of fish. There is nothing that scares a developer more than to have his game labeled "unrealistic." Because of this, a handfull of knowledgeable people can influence the developer into changing the "enviornment", even if the developer knows that that will change gameplay. Indeed, it seems to me that it has now become generally accepted practise that if a wargamer developer has to change his environment, he is also expected to jump through hoops making sure that gameplay not only doesn't suffer, but is somehow enhanced.
The wargame developer (like all other genres) is thus shackled to not one ball and chain (gameplay), but to two (his environment and the concomminent effects on gameplay) unlike other genres. Thus, the wargame developer is doubly burdened, and this could be one of the major reasons we see ever fewer wargame titles being published. The developers just either do not want to expend the resources completely redesigning their games, or just do not have the resources to do so.
It is perhaps because of this double burden that we see wargame developers seek to make their environment ever more detailed in an attempt to thwart individuals from playing havoc on their "game" by finding historical inaccuracies. (Personally I think it is all for nought, as finding such inaccuracies has become a "hobby" of its own by certain gamers.) With the developers forced to focus so much time just creating their enviornment, its no wonder we get games with poor gameplay or are so complicated that even an encyclopedia sized manual would still leave us confused.
I personally think that wargaming has charged off in the wrong direction. The price of admission is just too high for developers to make such games. And even if they do.. is it really all that profitable? I would suggest, the return on investment is just not there.
So where does that leave us?
Well, for me, what it means is that, like all other games developers, wargames developers need to change their emphasis and put their eye on the same ball as everyone else: good, fun gameplay. To support that, we as wargamers must also change our emphasis and challenge whether "changing the environment" is really worth the havoc and cost that the developer must pay.
Having said all that (given that you have had the patience to read this looong post..apologies), I must admit that I long for lots more "beer and pretzels" type wargames, where yes lots of abstractions are used, and no, no weapon database can be found, but which is a kick in the butt to play. A perfect example of such a game lies quietly buried in the "games under development" section of Matrix Games: Frank Hunters World War I game. To tell you quite honestly, I am not a big fan of WWI, as most people out there are not either. But, having had the chance to test the pre-beta of that game, I can tell you that it was a hoot to play.
All in all, I think we as wargamers need to set back and reassess our position and to try to understand how difficult we have made it for developers to "please" folks who are all too ready to jump up and down and bash games as "unrealistic" or "broken." We need to get back to basics, and that means making compromises so that we can have more "fun" games to play. I believe not only will that be of benefit to us all, but also result in the expansion of our dwindling community.
Ray (alias Lava)
|
|
|
|
