Wargaming and "Mainstream acceptance"

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Laughable really laughable actually.

In regards to my buddy who bought the 700 dollar video card.
Hmm well he is 19, has a modest job, no girlfriend and has zero interest in wargames. I said zero eh.

He bought the sound card because he watches movies on his computer. He didn't buy it for Enter the Matrix. And remember, I said he now realises the game is shallow junk.

The graphics did NOT do the game any good at all. They FAILED.
The game is to him about graphics that deliver nothing.

Now we get to wargamers or maybe wargamers. Do this simple test. Go to any highschool, during an assembly ask to ask two simple questions, how many wargamers are in the audience. And how many people might be interested in trying one if the game was the same level of difficulty, but had nice graphics.

In a group of people, you will always have a proportion that like this and a proportion that like that. It's natural.
Suggesting prettier graphics will suddenly make a radical difference is laughable, pure and simple.

A not well accepted fact, but a fact all the same, is that through the entire course of modern wargaming ie that which began in the early 70's, there has never once, not once, been a major selling wargame title ever. Not once. That includes my favourite ASL too.
Look at the real figures guys, the truth is there will NEVER be a large mainstream wargaming crowd.

Wargames come in two varieties, successes and failures. Sucesses continue to sell, and failures, well make enough and you get to become an example to the hobby.
All the money produced by ASL ever, would not exceed this years production of shlock games like Monopoly.

So all you wing nuts ranting for a more graphically intense experience, no one is listening now, and no one will be listening tomorrow.
All you are accomplishing, is forcing the very finite wargaming audience, to play games YOU think they want to play.

You will never get anywhere dressing up your wargames. You will just increase the price tag. Look at board games, the sales dropped off when they got fancier and fancier.
Originally Squad Leader was a buy it once game. Cost me 30 some bucks. it was a complete game, and there was nothing fundementally wrong with it.
But people insisted it had to be more (I was not one of them).
The game HAS improved, no one can deny that, but hmm ever priced out a complete set before? I am suuuuuuuuure its doing real well attracting casual gamers (add a bucket of sarcasm).

The answer is not to make the game more, but to make the game better. I personally think Airborne Assault will outsell most 3d games. Because it is a better game, not a flashier game. The remake has better graphics yes, but those better graphics are basically better at what they already were. The images of counters will seem a backwards step to some. But fools and their money are often soon parted. I will not mind people wasting their money on yet another 3d game if they insist. But when the game is no longer interesting a year later, I will just be off to the side laughing.

If you can't get someone to enjoy a good old fashioned classic wargame, it's not the game, it's YOU.

[Fred98]

Les said:

“In a group of people, you will always have a proportion that like this and a proportion that like that. It's natural.

Suggesting prettier graphics will suddenly make a radical difference is laughable, pure and simple.”

Yes I agree.

And I still agree.

And I agreed in all my posts in this thread

And that why I said we need to look after the proportion that like this and the proportion that like that.

Look after all of them.

All of them.

To do this we have an option.

It would be called a Realism option

Unfortunately the first thing that came to mind was graphics so everybody has jumped on that bandwagon. But weapons systems is the other.

Realism is on or it is off.

If it is on it will satisfy a proportion. If it is off it will satisfy another proportion.

Over-all the game sales will be higher.

And some who start with realism off, will be converted. They will turn realism on – and become wargamers.

For Example: Combat Leader:

Once the game engine is complete there could be a second set of graphics. All rifles are replaced by laser guns. Tiger tanks replaced by Klingon battle cruisers etc etc and so on and so forth. But the excellent game-play remain the same.


PS: I am baffled why an improved graphic is always associated with 3D. Combat Leader graphics will be better than Steel Panther's. Show me where Combat Leader is 3D?

Les said:
“I……Airborne Assault ……. remake has better graphics yes, but those better graphics are basically better at what they already were.”

Yes Les, and if there were a third edition of Airborne Assault I could never allow the map graphics to go backwards. If they did I would ignore the game.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

What I want to know, but is outside the scope of my knowledge, is if asking for dual graphics modes will be possible within a doable expense level where software is concerned.

What would the actual cost be?

If they could make Combat Leader and Close Assault defacto the same program, what would the unified program cost end up being?

I mean if the resulting cost creates a program that retails for close to double the cost, lets say not 60 bucks but 100 bucks US, well you just lost this customer for both games. I don't have that sort of money.

Yes I would not be buying the game inspite of what I expect it to be. And most grumble about games over 45 bucks on top of that. And that would mean more lost customers not more gained customers.

Not all software can be made so easy that a button will fix everything. That button represent a lot of software design.

[Fred98]

I don't know either but it seems to me that the game engine and the game play are the most time consuming.

As for graphics, its no big deal to get a Tiger tank and add a few bits so it becomes a Klingon Battle Wagon.

Then you change the attack strenghth of the main gun and presto you have a laser.

Graphics of this type fall into the realm of assembly line work.

[Ian Packham]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

So all you wing nuts ranting for a more graphically intense experience, no one is listening now, and no one will be listening tomorrow.
All you are accomplishing, is forcing the very finite wargaming audience, to play games YOU think they want to play.

You will never get anywhere dressing up your wargames. You will just increase the price tag. Look at board games, the sales dropped off when they got fancier and fancier.
Originally Squad Leader was a buy it once game. Cost me 30 some bucks. it was a complete game, and there was nothing fundementally wrong with it.
But people insisted it had to be more (I was not one of them).
The game HAS improved, no one can deny that, but hmm ever priced out a complete set before? I am suuuuuuuuure its doing real well attracting casual gamers (add a bucket of sarcasm).

The answer is not to make the game more, but to make the game better. I personally think Airborne Assault will outsell most 3d games. Because it is a better game, not a flashier game. The remake has better graphics yes, but those better graphics are basically better at what they already were. The images of counters will seem a backwards step to some. But fools and their money are often soon parted. I will not mind people wasting their money on yet another 3d game if they insist. But when the game is no longer interesting a year later, I will just be off to the side laughing.

If you can't get someone to enjoy a good old fashioned classic wargame, it's not the game, it's YOU.

Mmmmm....and how many old fashioned, classic, silent, black & white movies have you watched recently? Is it just me who finds them boring and irrelevant in today's world?

Suggesting that developers should just concentrate on gameplay to sell their games without considering graphics is laughable. It doesn't produce the profits needed. Crap like Enter the Matrix will have sold more copies on its first day of release than the acclaimed UV. Enter the Matrix has the hype and the graphics, UV has the gameplay.

Times move on and people want and expect better production values. In a free market, people choose the better graphics. Everyone wants great gameplay, but that does not need to be sacrificed by outdated graphics. Great graphics and great gameplay can co-exist in the same game!

And the developers ARE listening to the casual gamers because thats where the bucks are. Les, you think wargamers want to play the games you are interested in but I would say your preferences are in the minority. This is a games industry working in the free market economy, not a communist state where you can "educate" people into believing that there is a true form of wargaming and that other types are somehow inferior and will corrupt the purity of wargames.

The WWII FPS games show that there is a big demand for wargames. And the trend is to make these FPS games more serious and more tactical eg Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six etc. Genres are mixing together and the resulting hybrids can satisfy both wargamers and casual gamers alike.

There may never be a mass market for strategic campaign wargames because they take too long to play and have too many details and headaches for the casual gamer. But give them a realistic squad based wargame which immerses them in WWII for 30-60 minutes, these can be major sellers.

It is fairly simple to have a 3D wargame where you have a birds eye tactical view for moving troops around a map and then jump into a first person FPS mode where you can take on the role of any soldier under your command. Then everyone is satisfied as they can choose how much tactical or action gameplay they want.

As for your friend, he did not spend $700 just to watch movies - the most basic graphics card can do that. He spent $700 to enable him to play the latest, flashy games which includes Enter the Matrix. Gameplay may indeed suck for that game but tell him to read reviews first so he buys only good games in future!

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmm well actually he plays games and he plays movies, well actually he downloads more video than plays games.

Actually he usually has watched most movies before they even enter the theatre (just need to know where to look).

He plays a few games, but I can assure you, nope he ain't into games near as much.

As for black and white, actually you should see my collection, the best war movies are like The Longest Day, and it is black and white. Sure a lot of my old films are in colour, but it is old colour too.
I rarely and I do mean veeeery rarely will watch a modern film twice.

As you say...

Great graphics and great gameplay can co-exist in the same game!

So why doesn't it?

I see lots of games with great graphics, but the games are not great, so the gamer has no incentive to still be playing it 3 months later.
Maybe THAT is the plan. Make games that have such low retention qualities, that the producers know you will be back soon to get something shiny and new yet again.

Screw that. I am not here to make graphics designers rich.

But it is indeed a free market. And I don't object to that. But I do have to laugh when a person can't see that they are being sold crud yet again and again.

I have been playing Steel Panthers for hmm a number of years now. Some think it is not enough. Well I will likely still be playing it till Combat Leader comes out.
But if Combat Leader was not on the horizon, you can just assume I would be content to watch yet another 3d game come and go in 6 months time to be played briefly and then forgotten.

The only reason I want CL is for its modern software running properties. I am not that needy of flashy new graphics. SP is a DOS era game, and that is all that's wrong with it to me.

As my mom often said, there are none so blind as those that don't want to see.
I am happy to let producers make yet another graphics before game value game. And equally happy to let the gamer buy yet another game that is graphics first and game play maybe. It's not my money being spent after all.

Sadly the quality in wargames is not job 1 much any more.
It is easier to make a great playing game look good, than make a good looking game play well after the fact.

I don't have a problem with graphics, but I do think people that think game play is being seriously considered need to wake up.

If you are not playing the game 6 months after you bought it, then there was nothing great about it at all.
In the mid 80's ASL was sold full price. It is still sold full price a decade later. That is because it it still a great game.
It has never sold massive print runs, but then it is also not hyped mainstream transient garbage.

I often wonder if the consumer even thinks when they buy these computer game titles. Maybe the consumer has more money than brains?

[BrubakerII]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I often wonder if the consumer even thinks when they buy these computer game titles. Maybe the consumer has more money than brains?

Hmm, certainly more money.

What I don;t understand is if you look at 3 fundamentals of a product: quality, priceand availability, modern wargames certainly fulfill the second two. The first is subjective.

I think also we need to lok at exactly what the demands of a modern wargamer are? We are old (jaded?) campaigners that grew up with Panzerblitz etc and probably rate our expectatins based on those experiences. A twenty year old would probably base his opionions on Sid Meieir's Decision in the Desert' or similar. Its all subjective.

Another point. After all these years of counter based wargames, I think the industry has reached 90% or more of its potential. What's the one thing then that might separate one game from another? [All those that said graphics take one step forward].

Brubaker

[Ian Packham]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

Great graphics and great gameplay can co-exist in the same game!

So why doesn't it?

I see lots of games with great graphics, but the games are not great, so the gamer has no incentive to still be playing it 3 months later.
Maybe THAT is the plan. Make games that have such low retention qualities, that the producers know you will be back soon to get something shiny and new yet again.

Screw that. I am not here to make graphics designers rich.

But it is indeed a free market. And I don't object to that. But I do have to laugh when a person can't see that they are being sold crud yet again and again.

Great gameplay and graphics do co-exist in other games (I am playing Splinter Cell at the moment which is a good example) but the only wargame example I can recall for great graphics/
gameplay was CC2 - which being released in 1997 was not yet affected by the 3D craze that followed.

Tactical games (even standard RTS games) have the longest play life for sure because developing strategies requires brain power and not fast eye/hand coordination required for most action games. Both are addictive but whereas action games gives the player an adrenalin fix, strategy games are more a passion (obsession?)

Many people like the idea that they just play a game for a few months, perfect the game system, and then move onto the next challenge. Our preference is to stick one game and dwell on the infinite strategies. One type of gameplay is no better than the other - its just a matter of choice.

But people do like to see something new and different - people want fashion. Just rehashing the same game but with different war operations is not attractive to many gamers. As Brubaker says a wargame with great graphics and gameplay will be something completely different, in fact it will be head and shoulders above the competition.

This thread is about whether wargames can be mainstream and the answer is yes but graphics are essential not optional. The vast majority of gamers are aged between 10-35 years of age - it is this group of people that developers must target and engage their preferences.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmm

as you say....

The vast majority of gamers are aged between 10-35 years of age - it is this group of people that developers must target and engage their preferences.

The vast majority of "wargamers" call people in their 30's "younguns".

That said, if you want to sell wargames to wargamers, then you have to decide, do you want to sell wargames, or action games.

If the 10 to 35 crowd tell you they won't play your wargame, then it's time to accept the reality of your situation eh.

I AM a mainstream wargamer. A mainstream wargamer happens to be on average above 30 years old is all.

A mainstream "gamer" that is below 30, is basically not always interested in being a mainstream "wargamer".

The reason we have people attempting to add RTS style and FPS style games to our term "wargame", is so they can artificially claim those players as part of the wargaming audience. Perhaps therein lies the trouble.

You can't sell an eskimo an igloo, and you might never be able to sell a wargame, to a "gamer".
When I was a kid, I was interested in models, wargames and history. As I recall though, I was only interested in those subjects in the manner most kids are.
My devotion to the hobbies mentioned, did not get to where it is today, until I was in my mid to late 20's. And I was most assuredly not a typical individual either.

Most our unaware of this interesting detail. Here in Canada, we have the Army Cadets, a youth option with strong military tones. It has but one function though, inspite of the potentially seemingly obvious look. It is designed solely to have a youth thinking of the military when they reach the age where they might join.

With that philosophy in mind, the gaming companies don't need to do more than they are doing now. we merely need to make military like games fun like until they are older and decide they would like to play the more serious stuff.

[riverbravo]

Do you not want to see the advancement of wargames?Or do you want to consider yourself an elitest because no one in there right mind knows a wargame and good graphics can go hand in hand?

Anyone who considers themself a wargamer should be overjoyed with the fact that companies are giving wargames a good shot and not holding back on anything.

Lets just stay in the stoneage and carve our own dice and miniatures and handraw all the chits,been there done it.

I like a good game of ASL or Battleground WW2 but when computers are concerned,push it far as you can go.

Whats the point of making a hex game on the PC anyway in todays world of realtime,ok I can see hex MP games.But basically youre just repeating youreself,"lets add some new units"How many of you suckers have fallen for that one......lol.

I say the target wargame age .......25 and up.

[Ian Packham]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
The vast majority of "wargamers" call people in their 30's "younguns".

That said, if you want to sell wargames to wargamers, then you have to decide, do you want to sell wargames, or action games.

If the 10 to 35 crowd tell you they won't play your wargame, then it's time to accept the reality of your situation eh.

I AM a mainstream wargamer. A mainstream wargamer happens to be on average above 30 years old is all.

A mainstream "gamer" that is below 30, is basically not always interested in being a mainstream "wargamer".

The reason we have people attempting to add RTS style and FPS style games to our term "wargame", is so they can artificially claim those players as part of the wargaming audience. Perhaps therein lies the trouble.

Which just makes you an "old fashioned hex" wargamer not a mainstream wargamer. Your definition of a wargame is that which you grow up with as child/young man. Ask today's youngsters to define a wargame and they would mention MOHAA, Battlefield 1942, C&C Generals, Total War and if you are lucky CC or CM if they happen to have come across these games. Would any even mention ASL?

RTS and FPS games may lack the tactical subtleties of hex games but slowly but surely they are becoming more realistic and incorporate more tactical gameplay. If EYSA has overcome the problems inherent in GIC then it will be a game that can be enjoyed by a mainstream audience. However since the game will not be hyped its exposure will be limited to the wargaming community so sales will likely remain modest.

We need a game which will leap into the mainstream gaming community so that people will take notice of full blown tactical games....and that takes eye candy and promotion.