Review @ Out of Eight

[JaguarUSF]

A review of Guns of August has been posted at Out of Eight PC Game Reviews:
http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/08/g ... eview.html
Let the fun begin!

[Hanal]

While I think he brought up some good positive points,  my overall thought was that this reviewer is one lazy gamer...all of the negative management issues he brought up, I think make for a facinating and immersive experience. And this is not a knock on HoI, but that game should never be brought into a comparison with GoA....not a bad review (and his manual criticism is spot on) but he seems to want his gameplay spoon fed to him...

[SMK-at-work]

He gives it more than I give FPS's...[:D]

Clearly he's not a wargamer - and yet he still manages to give it 5/8....I'm impressed that he recognises some good points, and curious what as to what he thinks should be the sound effects for a grand strategy game.....

[hjaco]

Well taken as a whole the reviewer is fairly accurate, although it would seem that he cut some corners at some points in the testing.

One essential component missing is the simultaneous movement of single units on both sides though. That is not seen so often these days.

He should although have stated in the beginning of the review, that he is in to grand strategy games on a grand strategy scale [;)]

[06 Maestro]

""Guns of August demands too much of the player.''   I find that a rather odd assesment.  One of the things I like about this game is that it is simple, with little micromanagement required.

[Moltke71]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

""Guns of August demands too much of the player.'' I find that a rather odd assesment. One of the things I like about this game is that it is simple, with little micromanagement required.

Demands too much? Maybe for the RTS crowd. Also, with a patch coming any hour now, he could have waited.

[*Lava*]

Well...

Personally I also disagree that the game requires too much management. Once you have played a couple times, you can pretty much zoom through the administrative stuff and get right down to the important stuff of figuring out where to spend your resources and how you are going to implement your strategy.

The fact that he didn't mention this is a WEGO game is a major omission and IMO a major selling point of the game.

Overall, I have come to the conclusion that game complexity, to whatever extent, is seen today as a major drawback to game sales and reviews. The reviews reflect, I do believe, the general audiences desire for games with simple mechanics. I think we just have to understand that that is just the way things are.

This trend towards very simple mechanics is now pretty mainstream. I believe for wargames to cater to a large audience, they must be able provide, not only simple mechanics, but several games in one, ranging from a very simplistic, very intuitive start (default of the game) to ever increasing complexity for the more ardent wargamers out there. Options.. options.. and more options is the way forward if wargaming wants to bring in new blood. But that... is a subject for a different and General Discussion thread...

Ray (alias Lava)

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

He gives it more than I give FPS's...[:D]

Clearly he's not a wargamer - and yet he still manages to give it 5/8....I'm impressed that he recognises some good points, and curious what as to what he thinks should be the sound effects for a grand strategy game.....

Untrue - he has played and reviewed all major and minor wargames out there since 2 years at OutOf8, and had played wargames since very long ago.
It looks like he doesn't like much micromanaging hundreds of units, but neither do I and I'm also a wargamer...

[captskillet]

If he think thats micro-managing he aint seen WITP has he [;)] ?!?!?!?!

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

It looks like he doesn't like much micromanaging hundreds of units,

Actually... hundreds widely misses the mark.

I believe Germany starts with something like 54 units in the 1914 campaign.

And yes, indeed, they are "scattered around the map", but they tend to be concentrated in theaters of operations making them easy to find... at least for me. Juggling three major nations and a couple minor ones isn't so very difficult... at least for me.

But I don't think this review was meant for folks like me.

Ray (alias Lava)

[SteveD64]

There's almost no micro-managing in this game.  The decisions you are making are appropropriate to the level this game portrays (with some fudging of course).  Also, the computer keeps track of everything- you just have to make the decisions.  This isn't a board game where you're moving chits along a national moral track.

Anyway, the review is right about the manual.  I could see this game getting a 6/8 but 5/8 is too low.  For me it's 7/8.

[themattcurtis]

nope, sorry. this is the 2nd consecutive piece by this site that in my opinion just missed the mark. I just don't trust the effort he's putting into analyzing the games. Taste is one thing. Simply not bothering to look at a title in depth before publishing your thoughts as a "reviewer" is another. I used to refer to 8 out of 8. I'm learning not to.

[TheBlackhorse]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

He gives it more than I give FPS's...[:D]

Clearly he's not a wargamer - and yet he still manages to give it 5/8....I'm impressed that he recognises some good points, and curious what as to what he thinks should be the sound effects for a grand strategy game.....

Untrue - he has played and reviewed all major and minor wargames out there since 2 years at OutOf8, and had played wargames since very long ago.
It looks like he doesn't like much micromanaging hundreds of units, but neither do I and I'm also a wargamer...

I wonder how he views Forge of Freedom or ACW or Tiller's Campaign series, or heck almost 90% of all the Matrix Games catalog.

Isn't wargamiing about managing hundreds of units? How does one not do so? Even the Airborne Assault series has managing of hundreds of units as an option...

I suppose the Close Combat Series comes closest to not managing hundreds of units. but it's not strategic.

[Erik Rutins]

In his defense, he is not at all anti-wargame and he has liked other wargames that I felt were as complex or more so than GOA. It looks like GOA just didn't quite hit his wargaming sweet spot and that certainly varies even among wargamers.

FYI, the final version of the first update is being tested over the weekend and if everything looks good I expect a Tuesday release.

[JaguarUSF]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06
I wonder how he views Forge of Freedom or ACW or Tiller's Campaign series

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2006/12/f ... l-war.html

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/05/a ... eview.html

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/07/j ... eview.html

[JaguarUSF]

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis

nope, sorry. this is the 2nd consecutive piece by this site that in my opinion just missed the mark. I just don't trust the effort he's putting into analyzing the games. Taste is one thing. Simply not bothering to look at a title in depth before publishing your thoughts as a "reviewer" is another. I used to refer to 8 out of 8. I'm learning not to.

Would you care to elaborate on the specific areas of the game I didn't bother to look at?

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

There's almost no micro-managing in this game. 

Well, that may be a personal preference. As you might notice if you read my reviews with any regular consistency, I like games with fewer units rather than games where you have to control a bunch of units at once. You can see this in the Campaign Series review I linked to up above. However, if a game gives a good variety in size (like The Operational Art of War III review here http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2006/06/n ... r-iii.html ) I'm willing to downgrade the importance of "overwhelming-ness."

Some people will agree with my reviews and some won't, but just because my views differ from yours doesn't make me lazy. Opinions are allowed to be different; however, if I missed a feature of the game, then that's something that is my fault, but I am pretty sure I did not.

[Panzeh]

I actually agree that the game is wayyy too fiddly with the refit sysem.

I am also of the opinion that fewer units is better, especially when fronts like France end up looking like huge messes of stacks.  I do like the option to move corps wherever but I'd like to see a strategic game quick enough for TCP/IP or hotseat play.  I dislike how every strategic game ends up being a PBEM game.

[EUBanana]

He seems like a bit of a prat.

From another review he did :-

Resource management in Commander: Europe at War is a far cry from the 57 resources in Hearts of Iron 2 (this is hyperbole, or exaggeration for comedic effect; there are actually 72 resources)

HoI2?  isnt it power, oil, rare materials and steel?  Even an RTS gamer can keep track of that.  Specially as the only one that tends to matter is oil...

He doesn't seem very consistent either, reading a few reviews.

[SteveD64]

The refit system may be fiddly and could be done better (although I have no ideas to offer), but the actual refits themselves force you to make a decision, whether to feed an offensive by concentrating refits or distribute evenly along the line and go back on the defensive.  It's good stuff.

I'm glad the reviewer popped in and appreciate his review.  I don't necessarily disagree with his views but we may disagree on definitions (micromanaging vs overwhelmingness).

Hopefully more sites will review this game and get the word out.

[JaguarUSF]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND
Hopefully more sites will review this game and get the word out.

True that. It's sad the more "mainstream" sites completely ignore wargames.