Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I'm with you on that but was trying to temper my criticism [;)]

They not only put people down, they attempt to shout them down while portraying any criticism whatsoever as attempts to denegrate the designers.

One has to really wonder if they are aware how much they undermine their own credibility by attempting to portray critics as subhumans engaging in personal attacks on the game designers when personal attacks are their very own SOP.

[ezzler]

It does cause me some concern that WIF may fail because of this.
WIF is THE board gaming gold standard for WW2 Grand strategy.
But its also highly unrealistic. The production for the axis is many times historical levels. The game encourages the most dubious of plays. UK seizes Portugal. Germany declares war on Belgium but not Holland. Germany plougs through France straight into Spain. Japan invades Somalia and so on. The USA builds 10 aircraft carriers in 1940 .. Germany invents atomic bomb ..etc

The critics of HOI are going to blast it.

[diablo1]

ORIGINAL: ezz

It does cause me some concern that WIF may fail because of this.
WIF is THE board gaming gold standard for WW2 Grand strategy.
But its also highly unrealistic. The production for the axis is many times historical levels. The game encourages the most dubious of plays. UK seizes Portugal. Germany declares war on Belgium but not Holland. Germany plougs through France straight into Spain. Japan invades Somalia and so on. The USA builds 10 aircraft carriers in 1940 .. Germany invents atomic bomb ..etc

The critics of HOI are going to blast it.

It's games like that ^ is why I like "Making History" series. These games aren't titled WW2 REPLAY they are given new titles and play values of "what could have been". These are the games I will buy. I do not care for yet another board game simulation or replay of what happened. I already know what happened. I want to see what happens when different things are introduced. I'm looking forward to WIF if it's like that. It's also why I like the Strategic Command series from Battlefront. It doesn't follow a replay either or play like a simulation.

[warishere]

ORIGINAL: 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

I'm not sure what the final OOBs were througout the course of the war but I can imagine it being pretty close to even if you consider the fact that Japan and Italy's militarys weren't exactly small. However, on paper the Germans were actually favored to win every ground battle because of the Panzer tank. Although the Russian T-34 was just as good if not better than the Panzer, which really helped the Russians turn the tide on the east front. Not to mention that Germany made several strategic errors on the east front that prevented them from taking all of Asia. Take out the errors germany made and I think they would have atleast won the east front. West front was a different story though. There were just too many opposing forces for the Germans to defend. Once the battle of the atlantic was decided it was pretty much over for germany. There are a few grand strategy games out there that allow you to change the results of this conflict with fairly accurate models of the time period. However, the point I was trying to make is that there is no reason to make a wargame that has way to many advantages for one side and if you do decide to make a game where one side has a big advantage then you have to alter history to some degree to balance the game.

I don't get upset when game developers do this but the grognard seems to get really upset about it for whatever reason...

If that was so simple, then why did the Americans not simply do it?

They did. It took awhile to get it done but the ability to cut off Japan's supply routes were a major factor in winning the battle of the pacific.

. Why were they forced to resort to the dirty-bomb in the end?

Japan refused to surrender. Even though the war was basically over for them they rufused to surrender.

If only you were there I suppose, then you could have shown those blundering Americans how it should have been done without the mess

Haha... I don't know what is like in 1945, different time in history. But today we know for a fact that the A-bomb actually saved lives. The Japanese were training thousands upon thousands of people (including women and children) for a land invasion. They were willing to lose millions to prevent them from saying 2 simple words "we surrender". Its a shame it came down to nuking two cities but it didn't have too. I blame the Japanese government of 1945 way more than anyone else.

[warishere]

ORIGINAL: 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...

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.

The Japanese were more concerned about winning ship to ship battles than making a strong effort to protect supply lines and it turned out to be a military blunder.

Wargames should also be a historical tool, to show why some decisions were made -- and why other decisions turned out to be whopping mistakes.

I agree with you on this one. A game should give the user a chance to try out other strategies that "might have" worked better than what actually took place. However, you might have to sacrifice historical accuracy to do it in order to make it a more balanced game.

[Panzeh]

I think most wargamers, with respect to land and air warfare tend to have myopic knowledge of how things went, focusing on the technical details of various weapons systems, rather than operational studies(not anecdotes) of their effectiveness, which is quite often counterintuitive.  Indeed, there's a good reason for this.  You can find the specifications of a Panther tank on wikipedia, but you can't really find operational studies about tank combat in the Western Front in ww2 without a lot of digging.  (Hint:  Past a point, Mobility uber alles).

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

ORIGINAL: ezz

It does cause me some concern that WIF may fail because of this.
WIF is THE board gaming gold standard for WW2 Grand strategy.
But its also highly unrealistic. The production for the axis is many times historical levels. The game encourages the most dubious of plays. UK seizes Portugal. Germany declares war on Belgium but not Holland. Germany plougs through France straight into Spain. Japan invades Somalia and so on. The USA builds 10 aircraft carriers in 1940 .. Germany invents atomic bomb ..etc

The critics of HOI are going to blast it.

It's games like that ^ is why I like "Making History" series. These games aren't titled WW2 REPLAY they are given new titles and play values of "what could have been". These are the games I will buy. I do not care for yet another board game simulation or replay of what happened. I already know what happened. I want to see what happens when different things are introduced. I'm looking forward to WIF if it's like that. It's also why I like the Strategic Command series from Battlefront. It doesn't follow a replay either or play like a simulation.

I pretty much have to agree with Diablo on this one.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ezz

It does cause me some concern that WIF may fail because of this.
WIF is THE board gaming gold standard for WW2 Grand strategy.
But its also highly unrealistic. The production for the axis is many times historical levels. The game encourages the most dubious of plays. UK seizes Portugal. Germany declares war on Belgium but not Holland. Germany plougs through France straight into Spain. Japan invades Somalia and so on. The USA builds 10 aircraft carriers in 1940 .. Germany invents atomic bomb ..etc

The critics of HOI are going to blast it.

Warspite1

I don't think WIF will fail. The board game was a success and so will the computer game be.

However, if anyone buys it expecting a WWII simulation then they have bought the wrong game and so any criticism that it is unrealistic will be completely pointless.

WIF is one of those games where the makers have traded a degree of historical accuracy (whether that be production or counter values etc) for a game that is balanced i.e. either side or any player has a chance of winning at the outset.

What it provides is an historical framework e.g. Germany must declare war on Poland in 39, Comonwealth and France must declare war on Germany. Thereafter, with some exceptions, the game allows players to explore what-ifs and the like to their hearts content. The make-up of the armed forces also give the players the feel of WWII for each side and the problems they faced in trying to win a war - e.g. Commonwealth, large navy, but with huge oceans to cover to protect its resource income; small, but mobile army; and a good sized and effective air force.

The game is what it is - it is superbly designed and in its own way is hugely enjoyable and fun to play - yet is really challenging. It is asthetically pleasing - the world map is a work of art*, the counters are colourful (Nato symbols for the land units, the ships have their silhouettes and the aircraft are full colour).

* the Matrix WIF maps are a work of art - sadly the final version ADG maps are hideous imo - the only criticism I have of this great game.

As I say, the game is built around an historical framework, but can quickly move in all manner of directions and there are numerous "what-if" units that each side can construct, which of course further takes the game outside of historical reality.

If a player wants a highly accurate, WWII simulation where Vichy must be declared by Germany in June 1940, the US must be invaded by Japan in December 1941, the USSR and Japan cannot go to war early doors, where the USSR cannot attack Germany; if a player wants tons of micro-management of factors within each counter unit; if a player wants to order his Field Marshals to have Cornflakes for breakfast - well sorry DO NOT buy this game - you will be sorely disappointed.

[jomni]

I guess since computer games get more and more detailed.  It opens more opportunities for nitpicking.
Board games on the other hand, where everything is highly abstracted, focus on gameplay balance.
I have high hopes for WIF for a more approachabe WW2 game (especially PTO).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jomni

I guess since computer games get more and more detailed.  It opens more opportunities for nitpicking.
Board games on the other hand, where everything is highly abstracted, focus on gameplay balance.
I have high hopes for WIF for a more approachabe WW2 game (especially PTO).

Warspite1

Then you will not be dissapointed. There is a great degree of abstraction - there has to be to get such a playable game that covers the entire Second World War. One of the great things in a two player game is that you get to play with huge land forces Germany / USSR and huge navies Japan / USA/CW whichever side you are playing. If PTO is your thing then this game gives you the necessary feel for that war i.e. huge distances with fewer land units and where the aircraft carrier is of paramount importance. Despite the abstraction, one of the other many great things is that with the release of Ships In Flames back in the mid 90's and then Cruisers In Flames a few years later, every individual ship from light cruiser (CL) upwards is represented by its own counter (including the greatest battleship ever built - see left [:)]).

[Obsolete]

I'm not sure what the final OOBs were througout the course of the war but I can imagine it being pretty close to even...

Before we go any further here, let me get this right...

While Germany is struggling vs the immense numbers and manpower from Russia, while at the same time under harsh penalties due to multiple fronts & flanks vs the allies, you still argue that things were pretty even?

Does the same go for the French in their defeats a century earlier as well?

[Canoerebel]

Warspite, you make WIF sound very, very appealing.

I remember back in the 1990s, when I was playing via email the old AH boardgames Advanced Third Reich and Empire of the Rising Sun, that the only other game out there that drew massive interest was the WIF board game.

At that time, I was under the impression, apparently mistaken after reading your post, that WIF was just a massive, wordlwide version of something like Panzer Leader or Panzer Blitz - majestic in scope but rather clunky on such a massive level. I thought it just appeal to the uber grognard. But from reading your post it sounds like WIF was much more like a meshing of A3R and ERS - a game where the players have many strategic decisions to make, where the war can take any number of courses, and without micromanagement.

I'm going to pay much more attention to Matrix's development of WIF.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Small technical errors or faulty abstractions that do not disturb the illusion of belief or immersion are one thing. I'd call abstracting the speed of aircraft in a way that someone might quibble over the details that sort of "problem."

Bad UI, boring tedious game dynamics, bugs, CTDs that sort of thing, poor balance, cheesy story elements, egregious gaps in content, game dynamics that the AI simply cannot accomplish much less 'master;' these are all examples of things that warrant criticism, and where constructively expressed criticism may actually promote the game. IMO, nitpicking the details is only really worthwhile to the extent that those details, either singularly or in the aggregate take away from overall game play.

I suggest it would be helpful to always have a seperate section in each game's forum for UI problems/improvements. It wouldn't hurt to put historical issues into its own seperate section as well.

The UI is nearly always undervalued, under developed, and under prioritized by developers. Plus it's not helpful that suggestions to improve it, are buried under an avalanche of historical issue posts and so these UI suggestions are usually put on the back burner for fixing.

Another subject that could argueably use its own section is for options that were missed by the developer. A powerful example of this is the bruhaha in WitE over weather. If options for other than simulation weather (that is what is hard coded now) were provided, such as averaged historical weather, most of the objections would disappear. In this particular case, the developer is between a rock and a hard place having chosen (incorrectly, imho) simulation weather as the key play balance mechanism.

Perhaps Erik could gather feedback on the best configuration of these forums to optimise feedback for issues like UI that tend to be lost in the background noise of historical quibbles.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Warspite, you make WIF sound very, very appealing.

I remember back in the 1990s, when I was playing via email the old AH boardgames Advanced Third Reich and Empire of the Rising Sun, that the only other game out there that drew massive interest was the WIF board game.

At that time, I was under the impression, apparently mistaken after reading your post, that WIF was just a massive, wordlwide version of something like Panzer Leader or Panzer Blitz - majestic in scope but rather clunky on such a massive level. I thought it just appeal to the uber grognard. But from reading your post it sounds like WIF was much more like a meshing of A3R and ERS - a game where the players have many strategic decisions to make, where the war can take any number of courses, and without micromanagement.

I'm going to pay much more attention to Matrix's development of WIF.

Warspite1

Glad to be of service Canoerebel [;)]. I never played Advanced Third Reich although briefly tried its predecessor Rise and Decline. I may have not given the latter sufficient chance, but having got WIF shortly afterwards, it was immediately clear to me that there was only one Grand Strategy game in town - and never went near the AH game again.

All I can say is, if you liked Third Reich you will love WIF [:)], and it's definitely nothing like Panzer Leader!

[Obsolete]

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

This actually has been done, I remember now in my collection of 90's wargames, I have Semper FI.

Re-reading the back labeling though it seems to describe scenarios for South America, but IIRC the scenarios are exact replica scenarios for O-D-S (but tweaked more for balance).  Perhaps the publisher (Magic Interactive) didn't want to offend anyone so changed the descriptions?

Anyhow, I actually started to really like that wargame, but there were only a limited number of scenarios sadly, and there isn't any ladder clubs still around for it.

[Perturabo]

It depends on developers. There are devs that almost never improve their games and devs who take criticism and turn it into new/improved features.
For example criticizing Sean O'Connor's Firefight or Close Combat is pretty pointless (reading old posts on forums of Firefight is especially depressing), but on the other hand the author of Armored Brigade takes sensible criticism into consideration and constantly improves the game.

[Redmarkus5]

My two cents...

I think the question is whether a title is promoted as a "game" or as a "simulation". I know this distinction pisses some people off, but there honestly are at least two different user/player communities out here, and you can often make a judgement as to which one a product is targeted at (see what I did there?) from the price; $80 typically means it's a military simulation for the grognard, not a beer and pretzels game, although anyone can play, naturally.

So, you will never find me on the Commander, Europe at War forum complaining about accuracy (I owned, played and greatly enjoyed that 'game') but I will moan like hell if my WiTE East Front $80 'simulation' has what I think are important flaws in accuracy or modelling. In my case, I complain only in order to get things fixed, not merely for the fun of it, and I think almost everyone who posts anything 'negative' has the same motivation.

Saying that this spoils your fun, while understandable, is a bit like complaining that you were happily driving your VW Beetle down the highway thinking it was a racing car until someone pointed out the differences between it and a Formula 1 job and from that point forward all the joy of racing was lost to you [:D]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

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?

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

...on the other hand the author of Armored Brigade takes sensible criticism into consideration and constantly improves the game.

Thanks! hadn't heard of it. Downloading now from www.armouredbrigade.com!!!

[ezzler]

I think you may have misunderstood. We are talking about criticism of wargames. The most common criticism is historical accuracy.

WIf, my favourite board wargame of all time, has thousands of units. Each has a historical basis. The leaders have their historical ratings. Ships are individual units. .. so..if a WITP gamer, tempted by WIf, plays a few turns how would you feel they would post a comment? If on turn 1 of WITP the Japan A.I. invaded Australia and Russia could you imagine the posts of disgust?

All I'm suggesting is the marketing of WIF needs to be very carefully considered to help avoid the sort of negative comments that it may well, inadvertently, attract.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ezz

I think you may have misunderstood. We are talking about criticism of wargames. The most common criticism is historical accuracy.

WIf, my favourite board wargame of all time, has thousands of units. Each has a historical basis. The leaders have their historical ratings. Ships are individual units. .. so..if a WITP gamer, tempted by WIf, plays a few turns how would you feel they would post a comment? If on turn 1 of WITP the Japan A.I. invaded Australia and Russia could you imagine the posts of disgust?

All I'm suggesting is the marketing of WIF needs to be very carefully considered to help avoid the sort of negative comments that it may well, inadvertently, attract.

Warspite1

No misunderstanding - I know what we are talking about, but in answer to your question above, the simple truth is I do not care what this hypothetical WITP player thinks or posts.

Anyone wishing to purchase the game can see from a read of the MWIF Forum what this game is about and can ask whatever clarificatory questions they want before purchasing. If they still buy the game knowing its not an historical simulation then its tough. ADG have done rather well to date, and as I say, they will continue to do well (as will Matrix) when this game come out.