Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games?

[pmelheck1]

I tend to ignore such whining.  Their are those who believe that their beloved favorites are massively under represented.  If the Yamato/Bismarck cant whip the navies of the rest of the world combined than obviously the game is flawed to the point of being unplayable.  Historical performance of a weapon system is ignored because of poor usage of the weapon system real or imagined.  This plane or that plane should rule the skys based on some ones reading of performance data.  What's funny to me is that some weapon systems sound really good on paper but turn out to be absolutely abysmal is use. 

[wodin]

Funny this should be mentioned. I've decided in the future if I really enjoy a game I going to stay away from the said game forum...unless it keeps crashing or has some king of bug...for precisely the reason you stated...

[jomni]

I just thought of somehting...

Most games not based on WWII do not have problems of this magnitude because these conflicts are lesser known or has less documentation, and far fewer "experts".

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: jomni

I just thought of somehting...

Most games not based on WWII do not have problems of this magnitude because these conflicts are lesser known or has less documentation, and far fewer "experts".

I don't notice these problems in the TES forums _at all_[:D]

[KG Erwin]

Gary, perhaps you are giving too much weight to the self-proclaimed "experts". If you are enjoying the game, and if it seems "real" to YOU, then be happy and simply ignore the criticisms. Forums like this one, as I have found, tend to attract folks of questionable "historical authority". It's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it takes a lot of patience. After being a member here for over 6 years, I can usually tell the difference.

[ilovestrategy]

If you want to enjoy a game stay away from the forums! [:D]

[V22 Osprey]

There seems to be the wrong people reviewing the wrong game. Because of this it can be hard to tell if it's a truly bad or broken game, or if it's just a matter of taste. For example, someone who reviews WitP:AE might HATE micromanagement and think that too much makes for a bad game. Well of course he's going to give it a low score. Big gaming review notorious for this, they may not nock a game for a certain feature but it may be something allot of players would think is the funnest thing in the world. Wargaming sites are better on this, because on most wargaming review sites don't even give a score, they more or less give a 'run-down' of the game and features, bugs, etc and let the player decide.

Criticisms improve games overall, but sites like IGN and Gamespot are really ruining the mainstream market.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jomni

I just thought of somehting...

Most games not based on WWII do not have problems of this magnitude because these conflicts are lesser known or has less documentation, and far fewer "experts".

Warspite1

That's a good point you raise.

1. I am really interested in the Napoleonic era and have read quite a lot about it.
2. I am vaguely interested in Roman times but have not read much and do not really know one emperor from another...

Take the Total War series.

1. I love Rome Total War
2. I like Empire Total War, but there are unrealistic aspects that take the shine off the game.

I guess the point is - Rome Total War could have just as many "faults" as Empire, but because I do not know much about the period, I am not aware of them and am therefore able to simply enjoy the game at face value.

Moral: a little knowledge can seriously damage your gaming experience [;)]

[warishere]

There is no such thing as a "perfect" game. You either enjoy playing it or you don't. Developers can only do so much with a game and sometimes they have to sacrifice historical accuracy for fun gameplay. I mean honestly, would anyone enjoy playing a game based on Operation Desert Storm? I wouldn't because it was a total massacre for one side. So you see, there are times when you have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of having a playable game.

Recently I've been play a few games one of them being WWII: General Commander which is an RTS game. It plays very solid for an RTS game but I know for a fact that there are some historical inaccuracies in the game. However, the problem is, the game would be way to easy to play as the allies if they made it exactly according to historical truths. So, as a result, they changed it up to make it a more balanced game.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warishere

There is no such thing as a "perfect" game. You either enjoy playing it or you don't. Developers can only do so much with a game and sometimes they have to sacrifice historical accuracy for fun gameplay. I mean honestly, would anyone enjoy playing a game based on Operation Desert Storm? I wouldn't because it was a total massacre for one side. So you see, there are times when you have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of having a playable game.

Recently I've been play a few games one of them being WWII: General Commander which is an RTS game. It plays very solid for an RTS game but I know for a fact that there are some historical inaccuracies in the game. However, the problem is, the game would be way to easy to play as the allies if they made it exactly according to historical truths. So, as a result, they changed it up to make it a more balanced game.

Warspite1

Doesn't that depend upon the game? I think that most games are designed to be balanced and for each player to have the (same) chance of victory - however I do not think that applies to all games e.g. WITE or WITPAE. Unless I am mistaken, in those latter games, the focus is on historical accuracy and not game balance.

[warishere]

however I do not think that applies to all games e.g. WITE or WITPAE. Unless I am mistaken, in those latter games, the focus is on historical accuracy and not game balance.

Not sure, I haven't played WITE or WITP yet. I hear they are great games but the fact is, they have to change historical accuracy some for any naval combat wargame set in the pacific campaign during WWII. The fact is, the Japanese were horrible at defending their supply lines in the pacific. The Japanese were getting supplies from areas located throughout the pacific and they were almost undefended for the most part. The Japaense chose to play battlefield chess with the United States Navy instead of making sure they had secured supply lines. I'm sure they made some changes in WITP so that you can defend supply lines but according to "history" not only were the Japanese awful at this phase of the war but they didn't even have large sea vessels transporting the raw materials they were getting from different regions of asia during WWII. They were the kind of vessels that could be sunk with one hit from any sized torpedo. All the US navy had to do was cut off supplies and game over...

[Obsolete]

would anyone enjoy playing a game based on Operation Desert Storm? I wouldn't because it was a total massacre for one side.

I don't quite see it that way. The axis had a tremendous disadvantage in overwhelming numbers, but you will never have trouble finding those willing to play with German hardware. The same can be said for any war in history, as long as game-play is designed well enough.

If I were to design a ODS game for the side using Russian hardware, I'd make it challenging enough, though despite your side my historically lose the war, the objectives of certain scenarios in themselves could STILL be won.

All the US navy had to do was cut off supplies and game over...

If that was so simple, then why did the Americans not simply do it? In fact, why did they go through so much expense, time, and lost lives. Why were they forced to resort to the dirty-bomb in the end? If only you were there I suppose, then you could have shown those blundering Americans how it should have been done without the mess

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do you think?

I can't tell you how many times I have enjoyed a game and then come to find out from one of the local forum experts on military history and technology that the designers messed up on something. It really takes the fun out of a game once I've been told that it's "defective". Why bother with the game anymore. The beguiling shroud of enchantment has been broken or something.

The trouble is, I'm not a stickler for details. I just play the game and usually enjoy it in my blissful ignorance ...

... but is ignorance bliss?

[Alfred]

Even in WITP:AE a nod towards playability and away from historical realism exists. Japan can alter its historical industrial production and undertake widespread pilot training.

Alfred

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: Obsolete


If that was so simple, then why did the Americans not simply do it? In fact, why did they go through so much expense, time, and lost lives. Why were they forced to resort to the dirty-bomb in the end? If only you were there I suppose, then you could have shown those blundering Americans how it should have been done without the mess

I was thinking this too.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

On the other extreme are the fan boys. No matter how bad their favorite developer's / publisher's game is, it is perfect in their eyes and anyone who says different is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Depending on who takes them seriously, they can be as much to blame for a bad game as those who constantly complain.

Thank you for this honest assessment.

Some people just need to wake up the simple fact of reality that the dogmatic vociferous fan boys are just as big a detriment to the game community as the dogmatic vociferous critics.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

Truth be told, the hobby has always been plagued with people with to much time on their hands

+1 Most truthful statement of all.

It would seem that both of you have overlooked the obvious...........that too much time on our hands is a prerequisite for becoming a wargamer in the first place.

I find it rather comical to attempt to condemn folks for it!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: diablo1

Truth be told, the hobby has always been plagued with people with to much time on their hands

+1 Most truthful statement of all.

It would seem that both of you have overlooked the obvious...........that too much time on our hands is a prerequisite for becoming a wargamer in the first place.

I find it rahter comical to attempt to condemn folks for it!

Warspite1

+ 1 [:D]

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

On the other extreme are the fan boys. No matter how bad their favorite developer's / publisher's game is, it is perfect in their eyes and anyone who says different is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Depending on who takes them seriously, they can be as much to blame for a bad game as those who constantly complain.

Thank you for this honest assessment.

Some people just need to wake up the simple fact of reality that the dogmatic vociferous fan boys are just as big a detriment to the game community as the dogmatic vociferous critics.

I tend to believe they are actually worse than critics. I feel I can honestly judge a critic/critique on his/it's own merits. Usually the critic isn't always trying to put someone else down, as much as they are trying to point out what they don't like about the game. DVF's are usually trying to put people down who they disagree with.

[Capt. Harlock]

The Japanese were getting supplies from areas located throughout the pacific and they were almost undefended for the most part. The Japaense chose to play battlefield chess with the United States Navy instead of making sure they had secured supply lines. I'm sure they made some changes in WITP so that you can defend supply lines but according to "history" not only were the Japanese awful at this phase of the war but they didn't even have large sea vessels transporting the raw materials they were getting from different regions of asia during WWII. They were the kind of vessels that could be sunk with one hit from any sized torpedo. All the US navy had to do was cut off supplies and game over...

Surprisingly, this is a great endorsement for the idea of historical accuracy. The notorious unreliability of American torpedoes (in the early stages of the war) meant that the Japanese did not have to work all that hard at defending their supply lines. This was also a reason why the Japanese expanded so far: the further a submarine has to travel to its patrol area, the less time it can patrol effectively.

If players just want a fun , abstract game, let them play Chess, Go, or Risk. Wargames should also be a historical tool, to show why some decisions were made -- and why other decisions turned out to be whopping mistakes.