Well I think your actually partially agreeing with me. What I have always proposed that computer wargames need is better tutorials. In effect, a "teacher" for the first few scenarios.. So that basic tactics in the game are understood by anyone, even someone without another player to play against.. I seem to remember one of the close combats having something like that... To teach how "suppressing fire" worked and so on.. RTS's are generally awesome at this.
If anything your giving the one good argument for traditional boardgaming.. That of having a "dedicated" tutor of sorts to show you the ropes.. But it is one EASILY replaced by computers.. At least enough to get someone really interested and moving along... Just doesn't seem like its being done much..
Recruiting methods
Moderator: maddog986
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
I don't know how Joe can conclude that more board games on sale, means they "can't be made into computer versions" hence that is a bad thing.
Maybe the lesson is, if you want to make a sale, and you can't do it as a computer game, then get over it, and stop trying to.
Why has ASL not been made for computer? Maybe no one wants it to be a computer wargame. Maybe enough ASL fans know that Steel Panthers so clearly looks like ASL, and that Matrix is making Combat Leader, realise that they can have their cake and eat it too.
I would not be interested in Combat Leader if it was not a better Steel Panthers. I would not be here, if Matrix had not taken Steel Panthers and made it Windows friendly. I would not have cared if it was Windows friendly, if it wasn't a good enough stand in for ASL.
That they were able to take ASL, completely re issue the whole damned series, reprint the original manual as ASL Rulebook 2, all over again, completely re written is a striking detail.
That someone has said, I am going to play actual ASL on my computer, because I won't trust a computer programmer to get it right as just a game for PC, and thus create it as VASL is also a strong statement.
That it is a program that is being freely offered, indicates, the game is not even being wished to be a money maker. They just want it to be available. That says something too.
I find it odd you found trouble with me mentioning Sudden Strike II though? Sure some don't think it is the cat's meow. But then maybe that is exactly it. Maybe some would rather play a better game, and that better game might not be found on the computer in the first place.
Hey it's taking I all have to offer, to stop bugging Paul to hurry on with Combat Leader eh:) It's not like I am totally uninterested in computer wargames ya know.
d6 dice work eh, a larger sum of variables is just a larger sum of variables though, they are not always useful though.
Take rolegaming. I have played blindingly simple designs, and horrendously complicated ones. I have seen simple ones that sucked, and complicated ones that sucked.
I have not been a very large advocate lately of Strategic Command, but my original assessment still stands the test of all my mood swings. Hubert Cater (I think I got his name correct) the designer could certainly get my vote on showing how to properly design game interfaces.
His game is good in my opinion, mainly because it has not gone the route of flash and excessive glitz. You either like the game, and have fun playing it or you don't. It's a small size program, and it clearly has no problem getting people to play it incesently for hours even days.
Whether I like it or not, it also has the fastest moving Forum I have located in my own personal wanderings (that's game specific forum, not General or Art of Wargamingish forums).
This game's current performance refutes all the arguments in favour of making computer wargames more flashier to attract attention.
The game is almost sold out as we speak. And the fans are asking for more. And it has a totally 1970's look too by the way (accept you don't need a table, and you don't roll the dice personally). SC is also a 21st century game. I don't know what qualifies as a "good seller" but needing to make more, most be a good thing.
Everyone is coming to the same conclusion except Les. Hmmm well then just who the heck are all those people paying all those NEW board games. And why are people making board games available for the VASL program.
Why do I feel I am not alone?
If a computer wargame can be enhanced visually, it will be done. It will be done simply because someone could do it. That it is being done to entice other gamers into the field is obvious. What is not obvious, is that as a technique, there is no reason to assume it will be worth enough to ensure that computer wargamng has a distinctly safe future.
I would not be the first person to buy a book with a neat cover, only to get disgusted, that the neat cover was all that was neat in the end.
I would rather get a person interested in wargaming with an old dull tedious looking board game. Then when it's obvious the person truely wants to be a wargamer, and has not merely been fooled into thinking wargaming might be neat by a pretty graphic, I can then mention that some computer wargames might be able to fill some needs.
Needs such as what to do when your wargamer buddy moves suddenly. Or what to do with yourself between board games.
If a person will play a board game, then they are definitely interested in wargaming. otherwise, I might as well move on to the next candidate. Why spend forever trying to get a possible wargamer, when you can get involved with a definite wargamer.
I have definitely noticed wargames are not good sellers. Why do you think they have to be? There are a lot of businesses out there a great deal older than wargaming, and they are isolated small businesses simply due to supply and demand.
There is only one hobby shop in town for a reason. There is only so much business.
There is only one book store in town, same reason.
There is a frigging donut shop on almost every block though. Want to make a lot more money, sell donuts!
Want to quit your day job, well figure it out. Don't pick a business that is a fringe interest.
Maybe the lesson is, if you want to make a sale, and you can't do it as a computer game, then get over it, and stop trying to.
Why has ASL not been made for computer? Maybe no one wants it to be a computer wargame. Maybe enough ASL fans know that Steel Panthers so clearly looks like ASL, and that Matrix is making Combat Leader, realise that they can have their cake and eat it too.
I would not be interested in Combat Leader if it was not a better Steel Panthers. I would not be here, if Matrix had not taken Steel Panthers and made it Windows friendly. I would not have cared if it was Windows friendly, if it wasn't a good enough stand in for ASL.
That they were able to take ASL, completely re issue the whole damned series, reprint the original manual as ASL Rulebook 2, all over again, completely re written is a striking detail.
That someone has said, I am going to play actual ASL on my computer, because I won't trust a computer programmer to get it right as just a game for PC, and thus create it as VASL is also a strong statement.
That it is a program that is being freely offered, indicates, the game is not even being wished to be a money maker. They just want it to be available. That says something too.
I find it odd you found trouble with me mentioning Sudden Strike II though? Sure some don't think it is the cat's meow. But then maybe that is exactly it. Maybe some would rather play a better game, and that better game might not be found on the computer in the first place.
Hey it's taking I all have to offer, to stop bugging Paul to hurry on with Combat Leader eh:) It's not like I am totally uninterested in computer wargames ya know.
d6 dice work eh, a larger sum of variables is just a larger sum of variables though, they are not always useful though.
Take rolegaming. I have played blindingly simple designs, and horrendously complicated ones. I have seen simple ones that sucked, and complicated ones that sucked.
I have not been a very large advocate lately of Strategic Command, but my original assessment still stands the test of all my mood swings. Hubert Cater (I think I got his name correct) the designer could certainly get my vote on showing how to properly design game interfaces.
His game is good in my opinion, mainly because it has not gone the route of flash and excessive glitz. You either like the game, and have fun playing it or you don't. It's a small size program, and it clearly has no problem getting people to play it incesently for hours even days.
Whether I like it or not, it also has the fastest moving Forum I have located in my own personal wanderings (that's game specific forum, not General or Art of Wargamingish forums).
This game's current performance refutes all the arguments in favour of making computer wargames more flashier to attract attention.
The game is almost sold out as we speak. And the fans are asking for more. And it has a totally 1970's look too by the way (accept you don't need a table, and you don't roll the dice personally). SC is also a 21st century game. I don't know what qualifies as a "good seller" but needing to make more, most be a good thing.
Everyone is coming to the same conclusion except Les. Hmmm well then just who the heck are all those people paying all those NEW board games. And why are people making board games available for the VASL program.
Why do I feel I am not alone?
If a computer wargame can be enhanced visually, it will be done. It will be done simply because someone could do it. That it is being done to entice other gamers into the field is obvious. What is not obvious, is that as a technique, there is no reason to assume it will be worth enough to ensure that computer wargamng has a distinctly safe future.
I would not be the first person to buy a book with a neat cover, only to get disgusted, that the neat cover was all that was neat in the end.
I would rather get a person interested in wargaming with an old dull tedious looking board game. Then when it's obvious the person truely wants to be a wargamer, and has not merely been fooled into thinking wargaming might be neat by a pretty graphic, I can then mention that some computer wargames might be able to fill some needs.
Needs such as what to do when your wargamer buddy moves suddenly. Or what to do with yourself between board games.
If a person will play a board game, then they are definitely interested in wargaming. otherwise, I might as well move on to the next candidate. Why spend forever trying to get a possible wargamer, when you can get involved with a definite wargamer.
I have definitely noticed wargames are not good sellers. Why do you think they have to be? There are a lot of businesses out there a great deal older than wargaming, and they are isolated small businesses simply due to supply and demand.
There is only one hobby shop in town for a reason. There is only so much business.
There is only one book store in town, same reason.
There is a frigging donut shop on almost every block though. Want to make a lot more money, sell donuts!
Want to quit your day job, well figure it out. Don't pick a business that is a fringe interest.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Some times a product will also seem to be more than it is
Take milk for instance. I am not sure about outside of Canada or even outside of Ontario, but milk is sold in convenience stores as a means to an end.
I know, 4 years of working in one makes me aware of this fact.
They sell milk at a loss. But they sell it knowing you need it. They hope you will buy something else as well. Cigarettes coffee whatever. They are called "loss leaders".
I remember the sports card slump when the players were on strike. A lot of card comic stores stayed alive only thanks to that insanely popular card game Magic the Gathering.
But the truth of the matter is (and I know because I played it, and worked in a store selling that manner of product line), was that Magic sales whatever they were, were never enough to pay your bills with.
Your store had to have other solid products, or you were not in business.
I think most of the success Matrix is having, must be from the owners realising, they have to branch out.
Some want they to pull back. Some are wanting a specific game to be finished. And all the many activities are diluting the efforts.
But it is possible, that what they are doing, is what is needed to remain viable.
Steel Panthers might well be their "loss leader". I am a big fan, but I won't be annoyed if the game does not turn out to be the golden child of wargaming.
I hope it sells well. I hope it makes a return on investment.
But I won't be angry if Matrix turns to money making forms of computer gaming.
I certainly won't see it as Matrix betraying their roots.
Every time I see the term Matrix, I see a business name first, and the place ai found Steel Panthers second.
I for one think it takes a lot of guts to get into the computer gaming industry.
Take milk for instance. I am not sure about outside of Canada or even outside of Ontario, but milk is sold in convenience stores as a means to an end.
I know, 4 years of working in one makes me aware of this fact.
They sell milk at a loss. But they sell it knowing you need it. They hope you will buy something else as well. Cigarettes coffee whatever. They are called "loss leaders".
I remember the sports card slump when the players were on strike. A lot of card comic stores stayed alive only thanks to that insanely popular card game Magic the Gathering.
But the truth of the matter is (and I know because I played it, and worked in a store selling that manner of product line), was that Magic sales whatever they were, were never enough to pay your bills with.
Your store had to have other solid products, or you were not in business.
I think most of the success Matrix is having, must be from the owners realising, they have to branch out.
Some want they to pull back. Some are wanting a specific game to be finished. And all the many activities are diluting the efforts.
But it is possible, that what they are doing, is what is needed to remain viable.
Steel Panthers might well be their "loss leader". I am a big fan, but I won't be annoyed if the game does not turn out to be the golden child of wargaming.
I hope it sells well. I hope it makes a return on investment.
But I won't be angry if Matrix turns to money making forms of computer gaming.
I certainly won't see it as Matrix betraying their roots.
Every time I see the term Matrix, I see a business name first, and the place ai found Steel Panthers second.
I for one think it takes a lot of guts to get into the computer gaming industry.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
rockymtndoc
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 9:59 am
I identify a problem with your proposal, Les - rather, I should say I identify a problem with the intended targets of your proposal. One of the problems with wargaming, particularly board style play, is that it is too slow and thought-intensive for the MTV-bred kids of today.
Perhaps you have noticed the massive difference in editing and pacing for movies, TV programs and almost everything audio-visual over the past years? It is directly attributable to the MTV-generated shortened attention spans of audiences in general, and young audiences in particular.
Board games are a lot like chess, still the ultimate board game to me: very time consuming and thought-intensive - say "slow" - and therefore of little interest to kids who can't stay focused on J Lo's belly button long enough to have a rational thought. What games do the younger set love? FPS's, which are a larger-than-life version of arcade games, with rapid pacing and mile-a-minute action. And thus is brought to you your own government's US ARMY, the FPS desinged by the military to recruit the young.
Not only is Big Brother watching you, but he's doing it on-line.
BTW: at what point did the individual "signatures" and quotes grow to be larger than the entire content of the authors' posts, and the posted avatar larger than both combined? Do we need an entirely seperate forum where we can display our personal erudition like peacocks for the admiration and edification of the masses?
Stay tuned. Film at 11:00...
Perhaps you have noticed the massive difference in editing and pacing for movies, TV programs and almost everything audio-visual over the past years? It is directly attributable to the MTV-generated shortened attention spans of audiences in general, and young audiences in particular.
Board games are a lot like chess, still the ultimate board game to me: very time consuming and thought-intensive - say "slow" - and therefore of little interest to kids who can't stay focused on J Lo's belly button long enough to have a rational thought. What games do the younger set love? FPS's, which are a larger-than-life version of arcade games, with rapid pacing and mile-a-minute action. And thus is brought to you your own government's US ARMY, the FPS desinged by the military to recruit the young.
Not only is Big Brother watching you, but he's doing it on-line.
BTW: at what point did the individual "signatures" and quotes grow to be larger than the entire content of the authors' posts, and the posted avatar larger than both combined? Do we need an entirely seperate forum where we can display our personal erudition like peacocks for the admiration and edification of the masses?
Stay tuned. Film at 11:00...
rockymtndoc
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
I saw something interesting while trolling over at Battlefront on the General forum.
Found a link to WW2 RTS
http://www.il2center.com/article.php?sid=98
The text describes the game in the usual manner, but the screen shots are alarmingly detailed.
It's not going to make me suddenly like RTS games, and I doubt I am about to invest in the likely needed hardware upgrades to run this program (I get winded trying to run Battlefield 1942 right now), but this link shows that the games of 2004 might be massively more detailed than they are right now.
If this is the state of the wargaming industry for 2004, then I can only advise people to drop whatever notions of buying anything that is 2002ish from their shopping list if you haven't already bought it.
You are going to need to save the cash for your new computer, so it will be ready for what looks like the next wave in massive graphically intensive designed wargames.
I am not saying that WW2 RTS is a game that will be well made or that it will run satisfyingly, but it does look like the first game that will sneer at your potentially currently hopeless hardware (and possibly your hold out OS).
The first thing that went through my mind was "Win 98?, oh don't make me laugh, and your computer is a joke man".
If you aren't running a new high end looking machine, it doesn't appear like you will be riding the wave of new graphics intensive wargaming (I could be wrong, but hey I can't run BF 42 eh, and I was only recently able to even run the CMBB demo).
Not sure what this means for the future of wargames. Not sure what this means for wargames current crowd either. Certainly don't know how this will appeal to gamers not yet into wargaming.
But it does look like it will be the end of wargamers playing a mixture of board gamish looking software and the new stage in graphics specific visual based wargaming.
If you check out the link, and look at the screen shots, I think you will see what I mean.
No I am not wanting to suggest I will be making the move.
And 5 years from now, I don't expect to have the money for a new computer (one better than this one now), so buying one then, and deciding to give the new games a peek doesn't look tangible to me.
I expect in 5 years, to be as distinct a wargamer, as wargaming is distinct from rolegaming actually.
I think WW2 RTS is possibly the beginning of the end, of the point in arguing over whether a board game liking wargamer even cares what the term RTS means.
Just like wargaming no longer has any interest in being concerned over the original meaning of the TSR logo.
Found a link to WW2 RTS
http://www.il2center.com/article.php?sid=98
The text describes the game in the usual manner, but the screen shots are alarmingly detailed.
It's not going to make me suddenly like RTS games, and I doubt I am about to invest in the likely needed hardware upgrades to run this program (I get winded trying to run Battlefield 1942 right now), but this link shows that the games of 2004 might be massively more detailed than they are right now.
If this is the state of the wargaming industry for 2004, then I can only advise people to drop whatever notions of buying anything that is 2002ish from their shopping list if you haven't already bought it.
You are going to need to save the cash for your new computer, so it will be ready for what looks like the next wave in massive graphically intensive designed wargames.
I am not saying that WW2 RTS is a game that will be well made or that it will run satisfyingly, but it does look like the first game that will sneer at your potentially currently hopeless hardware (and possibly your hold out OS).
The first thing that went through my mind was "Win 98?, oh don't make me laugh, and your computer is a joke man".
If you aren't running a new high end looking machine, it doesn't appear like you will be riding the wave of new graphics intensive wargaming (I could be wrong, but hey I can't run BF 42 eh, and I was only recently able to even run the CMBB demo).
Not sure what this means for the future of wargames. Not sure what this means for wargames current crowd either. Certainly don't know how this will appeal to gamers not yet into wargaming.
But it does look like it will be the end of wargamers playing a mixture of board gamish looking software and the new stage in graphics specific visual based wargaming.
If you check out the link, and look at the screen shots, I think you will see what I mean.
No I am not wanting to suggest I will be making the move.
And 5 years from now, I don't expect to have the money for a new computer (one better than this one now), so buying one then, and deciding to give the new games a peek doesn't look tangible to me.
I expect in 5 years, to be as distinct a wargamer, as wargaming is distinct from rolegaming actually.
I think WW2 RTS is possibly the beginning of the end, of the point in arguing over whether a board game liking wargamer even cares what the term RTS means.
Just like wargaming no longer has any interest in being concerned over the original meaning of the TSR logo.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
rockymtndoc
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 9:59 am
I think veldor just introduced us to one of those eternal truths you hear about but seldom encounter, when he says "people like games that they are GOOD at". I think that says it all, about any contest man involves himself in, except, of course, for the sad-masochistic amongst us.
Know the difference between a masochist and a sadist? Masochist says "whip me! Whip me!"
Sadist says "No..."
I have no idea where this leaves wargames. As one of the older guys I like games that make the rules clear. It's one thing to have to learn the game play and strategy empirically, but there is no concievable reason to have to figure out the operating rules by chance.
Know the difference between a masochist and a sadist? Masochist says "whip me! Whip me!"
Sadist says "No..."
I have no idea where this leaves wargames. As one of the older guys I like games that make the rules clear. It's one thing to have to learn the game play and strategy empirically, but there is no concievable reason to have to figure out the operating rules by chance.
rockymtndoc
-
SLAAKATTAK
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:14 am
- Location: EARTH
DONT WORRY ABOUT THIS WAY OF LIFE DYING OUT. AS LONG AS THERE ARE SLAAKERS, THERE WILL BE WARGAMERS! I AM LIVING PROOF OF THIS SINCE I HAVE BEEN WARGAMING SINCE THE LATE SIXTIES. AND THAT WAS A TIME WHEN MILITARISM WAS FROWNED UPON! SO JUST KICK BACK, CHARGE INTO MY GUNS AND LET IT RIP!! YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
SLAAKATTAK:D
:p :p
SLAAKATTAK:D
:p :pThis is a very interesting topic. There's a lot of room here to argue about little issues and have your own personal opinions get in the way of things.
"What is a wargame?" is a good starting question. I like to think of wargames as some interactive experience that present the player with challenges that stimulate strategic or tactical thinking using warfare as its subject matter. It's a broad genre if considered such. However, typically the wargame genre is defined by hexes and turns. It's a direct growth from the old board-game tradition. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of these games. Something worth noting is that a lot of issues surrounding tactics and strategy are a little tough for the very young. It's taken me years for my tactical and strategical sense to really mature. The concepts are very simple, but the way in which it is practised is really pretty sophisticated and subtle. I think a lot of games nowadays aren't really deep enough to get people engaged enough that they feel its worth it to invest the time and effort to get into wargames. Not only is it inadequate incentive for them, but they hardly know what they're looking for. What do they really get out of it? Do they even have any idea that there's anything they want from wargames? Naturally, these concepts aren't the kind of thing you put in an advertisment.
To get a player started on wargames you really do need to make an accessible game that is fun and EASY that reveals some deeper truth about the genre. Unfortunately this is WAY WAY WAY easier said than done. First of all, controlling difficulty is historically difficult for a developer to get right. More often than not a game is made easier by removing the activities that create challenge. The ideal system is easy to understand and operate in, but maintains a depth that can be mastered over time. Not an easy task. The result is games that are deep and too hard for most people play (these games are fading as the consumer pool increases cause it stops being worth it.), and games that are easy and have no elements that open a players mind to anything more interesting. This doesn't even broach the issue of making a fun game. This is much harder than most people really understand or ever will. Making a tool for experts is a walk in the park compared to making a tool for inexperienced idiots. For most skills, those that are serious about it get the requisite experience and have the motivation to learn and practice. Those people (aside from the very talented) don't necessarily have the most fun during this phase. Learning to play an instrument as a young'n is probably a good example for many of us. Games are different. The popularity of games in our time is strongly tied to it as a leisure activity not to be taken seriously. There's also a general lack of understanding regarding human useability issues and interface in the game industry. There are tons of games out there who have real problems communicating even the simplest pieces of information to the player.
Whoah, that's alot of typing. I guess my point is that the game designed to scoop in new players is nearly the hardest game to make. It puts you on a narrow path. You need to balance representing the genre accurately with packaging it so that anyone can play. You need a master ace and a master educator. Those two abilities don't often exist in the same person. There is no easy answer. Certainly an excellent game that reveals the beauty of wargames would help increase the wargame user base, but what that means qualitatively is very far from straighforward.
Tomo
"What is a wargame?" is a good starting question. I like to think of wargames as some interactive experience that present the player with challenges that stimulate strategic or tactical thinking using warfare as its subject matter. It's a broad genre if considered such. However, typically the wargame genre is defined by hexes and turns. It's a direct growth from the old board-game tradition. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of these games. Something worth noting is that a lot of issues surrounding tactics and strategy are a little tough for the very young. It's taken me years for my tactical and strategical sense to really mature. The concepts are very simple, but the way in which it is practised is really pretty sophisticated and subtle. I think a lot of games nowadays aren't really deep enough to get people engaged enough that they feel its worth it to invest the time and effort to get into wargames. Not only is it inadequate incentive for them, but they hardly know what they're looking for. What do they really get out of it? Do they even have any idea that there's anything they want from wargames? Naturally, these concepts aren't the kind of thing you put in an advertisment.
To get a player started on wargames you really do need to make an accessible game that is fun and EASY that reveals some deeper truth about the genre. Unfortunately this is WAY WAY WAY easier said than done. First of all, controlling difficulty is historically difficult for a developer to get right. More often than not a game is made easier by removing the activities that create challenge. The ideal system is easy to understand and operate in, but maintains a depth that can be mastered over time. Not an easy task. The result is games that are deep and too hard for most people play (these games are fading as the consumer pool increases cause it stops being worth it.), and games that are easy and have no elements that open a players mind to anything more interesting. This doesn't even broach the issue of making a fun game. This is much harder than most people really understand or ever will. Making a tool for experts is a walk in the park compared to making a tool for inexperienced idiots. For most skills, those that are serious about it get the requisite experience and have the motivation to learn and practice. Those people (aside from the very talented) don't necessarily have the most fun during this phase. Learning to play an instrument as a young'n is probably a good example for many of us. Games are different. The popularity of games in our time is strongly tied to it as a leisure activity not to be taken seriously. There's also a general lack of understanding regarding human useability issues and interface in the game industry. There are tons of games out there who have real problems communicating even the simplest pieces of information to the player.
Whoah, that's alot of typing. I guess my point is that the game designed to scoop in new players is nearly the hardest game to make. It puts you on a narrow path. You need to balance representing the genre accurately with packaging it so that anyone can play. You need a master ace and a master educator. Those two abilities don't often exist in the same person. There is no easy answer. Certainly an excellent game that reveals the beauty of wargames would help increase the wargame user base, but what that means qualitatively is very far from straighforward.
Tomo