Another Review of KP appears

Crimguy · Post by **Crimguy** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:43 pm

http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r20346.htm

I'm amazed at his astonishment at the idea of a turn-based game on a hex map. Like it was something completely new and novel. Apparently it was to him.
"While this game is not your typical RTS title, everything that you can think of that could be done is included in possible actions each turn. Forces can move, group together, separate, send reinforcements or supplies, blow bridges, send out detachments, and any number of other things that you won’t find in typical board games." Wow. Guess he wasn't exposed to Advanced Squad Leader. My guess is this is a fairly young reviewer, and this is what us old-timers (never thought I describe myself as one - I'm only 33!) have in store in future reviews

I also haven't figured out how he was able to create "ambushes, or even luring an unsuspecting enemy into a volley of artillery fire."

Normally I'd say they should use a reviewer who's more familiar with the genre, but despite his middling scores I think he gave a positive review. He should have just cut down on the RTS comparisons, as if they were what this type of game is a derivation of. Sheesh.

Jeff Lackey · Post by **Jeff Lackey** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:48 pm

Heh, well, I'm doing a review of KP, so they won't all be done by "young 'uns" (I'm significantly older than you.

)

snailtrail · Post by **snailtrail** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:36 pm

I was also amazed by the ignorance of this reviewer..

He thinks the game is an RTS?! Bizarre..

von Schmidt · Post by **von Schmidt** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:17 pm

Looks like the reviewer puts 'RTS' where one would expect 'Strategy game'.
WHich is fair enough considering the nature of the review site.

My favorite quote:

"Taking a board game style of play and incorporating all of the elements of a WWII strategy game into it was a great idea and it worked well."

Fantastic idea! Truly amazing that nobody else has stumbled upon that specific concept!

von Schmidt

elmo3 · Post by **elmo3** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:40 pm

That has to be one of the strangest reviews I've ever read. But the bottom line is, he liked it!

Mac_MatrixForum · Post by **Mac_MatrixForum** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:46 pm

It was a bit strange because he seemed to like the game and found nothing important to complain about but still gave a bit of a mediocre grade. He didn't know what to give because he didn't know any comparative games? He still recommends it to wargamers but who's the grade for?

Well perhaps someone nice could inform this reviewer of the wonderful world of turn based strategy and maybe we'd have a convert

. Guess there can be a lot of people like him who don't know what is available or where to find it so they just play the next Dune 2 clone. Not ignorance but just the underground nature of hard-core games (strategy, sims ...).

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:48 pm

Heheh yep, the review was a bit on the strange side.

However, considering the site, 'most' of the readers will be reading any strategy game review out of a RTS perspective. So it's not that weird a comparison to make considering the target audience. Who knows, it might even attract a few converts.

dpstafford · Post by **dpstafford** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 pm

Originally posted by snailtrail
I was also amazed by the ignorance of this reviewer..

He thinks the game is an RTS?! Bizarre..

Ditto. And he seemed to think that PBEM was a brand new concept. Seems "The Wiz" is no wiz.

bagpuss · Post by **bagpuss** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 10:37 pm

I totally agree with you guys on this as I have been swayed by game reviews in the past ....
but I think most of these reviews are playtested by FPS junkie/monkeys ,an they look down their noses at any other type of game.

Rob Gjessing · Post by **Rob Gjessing** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:51 pm

Clearly he is throwing 'RTS' around and he doesnt even know what it stands for. He probably thinks it refers to any 'top down' style of game.

Crimguy · Post by **Crimguy** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:36 pm

Originally posted by Belisarius
However, considering the site, 'most' of the readers will be reading any strategy game review out of a RTS perspective. So it's not that weird a comparison to make considering the target audience. Who knows, it might even attract a few converts.

I think what I found weird was that it sounded almost like revisionist history. Anyone who's been around for 10-15 years knows that RTS was an [important] innovation over turn based games, and this kid makes it sound like the opposite is true.

"I go, You go. Imagine that!" Battlefront.com must be giggling right now . . .

dpstafford · Post by **dpstafford** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:57 pm

Originally posted by Crimguy
I think what I found weird was that it sounded almost like revisionist history. Anyone who's been around for 10-15 years knows that RTS was an [important] innovation over turn based games, and this kid makes it sound like the opposite is true.

Important innovation? You've got to be kidding! RTS games are a joke! There is no "strategy" in real-time-strategy.........

RTS drove all wargames and all but a handful of (turn-based) strategy games out the the mainstream. RTS games are glorified "shooters", nothing more.

Spaceman · Post by **Spaceman** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:11 am

Originally posted by Crimguy
http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r20346.htm
My guess is this is a fairly young reviewer, and this is what us old-timers (never thought I describe myself as one - I'm only 33!) have in store in future reviews

Hail fellow wrinkly - it is a toguh age!

Space§man, more like John Glenn

Crimguy · Post by **Crimguy** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:18 am

I have to disagree with you. Right now I'm not too fond of RTS games save one (AoE put me to sleep). IMHO, RTS is very important for a couple of reasons.

1) It can make an entertaining game. I'm not just talking about strategy games like KP, but in general. Before RTS, there existed a bit of a void between pure shoot-em-ups like Doom (Marathon on the Mac was my favorite!) and turn-based war games like V for Victory. This includes games like Wizardry, which was essentially a turn based game.

Real-time Strategy has and is changing that. Now we have a sort of "wargaming-lite" with games like Close Combat and AoE/Cossaks/Warcraft III/etc. While I liked Close Combat, it suffered from lousy ai that could only defend. I never was a big fan of the real time Civ games, and I thought Cossaks was horrible.

2) RTS has the potential to change wargaming for the better, in a way that would please even the most die-hard grogs out there. I think the Close Combat series is wargaming RTS in its' infancy. Imagine it with a 3d battlefield and quality AI. As we get more powerful systems, I think it's quite inevitable that true RTS war simulations at the battalion level and higher will appear, with high-quality ai and good graphics that depict a more detailed view of the landscape we're fighting on - not just abstracted hexes representing 10 or so terrain types. It might be zoomable from the division level all the way into the platoon level- who knows? What's important is that the CPU power exist to make the game a challenge without a cheating ai.

I'm not a programmer, but I imagine the consensus is that were not quite at that computational threshhold yet.

On the fantasy front, Games like Neverwinter Nights in some ways owe a bit to the RTS genre.

In short, some big-brained developer will come out with a true battlefield environment with no abstractions, with events occurring in real time (perhaps with time compression?), all at the resolution you want. Wouldn't that kick ***? I think so, and I think we have RTS to thank for it.

BTW, we have evidence of this right now, and right here at Matrix. It's the Airborne Assault series and it is IMHO a very nice gaming system. Game speed can be varied, or paused if you wish to take more time to give orders, or if things start happening too fast. For some reason this is like the 3rd time I've brought this game up in a week, and I didn't really like the game as much as KP - not because of the real-time element mind you

dpstafford · Post by **dpstafford** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:27 am

Originally posted by Crimguy
In short, some big-brained developer will come out with a true battlefield environment with no abstractions, with events occurring in real time (perhaps with time compression?), all at the resolution you want. Wouldn't that kick ***? I think so, and I think we have RTS to thank for it.

No. Any game system or genre that does not lend itself to a PBEM format - has two strikes against it right from the start. And Randy Johnson is on the mound.

Crimguy · Post by **Crimguy** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:24 am

Originally posted by dpstafford
No. Any game system or genre that does not lend itself to a PBEM format - has two strikes against it right from the start. And Randy Johnson is on the mound.

I'm a Phillies fan

All of us Arizonans are displaced from everywhere else, mostly Chicago, New York and Minneapolis.

No pbem is a good point, and I'll definitely grant you that. So, there will always be a market for some kind of turn based game. Doesn't mean a different type of game would lack value to the hard-core wargamer.

Besides, there could be ways around it to allow the breakdown of the game into more manageable parts, like specified "pause times" for online play, e.g. every half hour. Being the lunatic I am, I'd love to spend 6+ hours online at a stretch trying to outwit my opponent in a war game.

Jeff Lackey · Post by **Jeff Lackey** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:25 am

The problem with most RTS games is that they turn into hectic click-fests, with little time for planning and strategy. Don't get me wrong - I like Rise of Nations, e.g. But it would take a lot to make an RTS feel like a true simulation of battle simply because of the micromanagement that is normally a part and parcel of RTS.

That said, Sid Meier's Gettysburg and Antietam were not bad at what they did. But it would be totally out of place with something of the scale of Korsun Pocket. I do think, however, that a "we-go" system would be a move in the right direction.

FWIW

Jeff

Another Review of KP appears

Another Review of KP appears

Re: Another Review of KP appears