Moderator: maddog986
).
Ya me to, first month I played it solid and then it was just old. It doesnt really offer a whole depth of things to do. It is a pure FPS battle simuolator. I cant blame him for picking the RPG EQ over that.Watched a buddy play it a solid week when it was new. But the game needed work like all games seem to need work, and he wandered off back to EQ (kinda hard to stay away from a game where you have several 65th level characters I guess).
I dont know, considering board games, PC games, literature, films, et al... when the WWII generation dies off in the next decade or so I think there will be a sudden explosion of popular demands for all of the modes I listed above and then like a supernova it will crumbel into dust. I definatley think were already seeing some malaise of interest for that generation. I know the Band of Brothers and Greatest Generation phenomonan will keep gamers and the general public interrested its all gonna start to fade away until they all dissappear, then the big bang then gone again.Perhaps there just wasn't much "modern" stuff out there for Matrix to pick up ? WW2 has always been the big seller anyway, which explains the bias in that direction. I'd like more modern stuff too though, particularly something with real "construction kit" potential.
I agree that there is not much you can create in this current time period that would be very exciting as a game.Les the Sarge 9-1 wrote:The biggest problem I have with modern, is it seems to either be worthless conflicts to boring to game out, ie Russians vs Mujahedeen oh yippee, or it is another war where the US beat the snot out of a target that would never have had a chance under any scenario (I have zero interest in a game of Desert Storm 1 or 2).
Wargames seem to have lost their gaming desirability after Korea Vietnam and the Arab Israeli conflicts prior to the 80s (where either side could have won).
I never got any thrill out of Nato vs Warsaw Pact conflicts (probably because I was to stressed out over being likely in one of the Nato units at the time).
. Flashpoint Germany or even (modern) Combat Leader appears to do the land element well. But, no one has tried to put forth a combined game at the operational level. 
True that would be scarry. Still, I liked the Fulda Gap scenerio the best for TOAoW I. Dont get me wrong I love WWII sims! I have to agree I couldnt stand any of the American campaigns for Steel Panthers II when it came out, it left me thinking: hmmmmm who will I mercislesly crush this time? The Israeli campaigns were fun and playing random battles between the Soviets vs US any time 60's - 80's was fun. Im also gonna have to add Titans of Steel to my Xmas list.The biggest problem I have with modern, is it seems to either be worthless conflicts to boring to game out, ie Russians vs Mujahedeen oh yippee, or it is another war where the US beat the snot out of a target that would never have had a chance under any scenario (I have zero interest in a game of Desert Storm 1 or 2).
Wargames seem to have lost their gaming desirability after Korea Vietnam and the Arab Israeli conflicts prior to the 80s (where either side could have won).
I never got any thrill out of Nato vs Warsaw Pact conflicts (probably because I was to stressed out over being likely in one of the Nato units at the time).
Thanks, I'll have to check that one out. I have not played SP or SPWaW in months.Part of the reason why Matrix is not doing a modern SP game is that the game engine has gone as far as they can take it. So they are working on a whole new game; Combat Leader. This game will be made in modules. The first is on the Eastern Front, and the second should be the Cold War. For a modern game now, check out Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank at the Steel Panthers Camo site. Its a redone SPII. Good new stuff.
).That reminds me of an article I read some time ago about scenario creation and making it playable (TOAW Article I think). In it the author wrote about making victory conditions such that the Iraqis would have a chance to win. This would include things like the Iraqis holding out for a certain number of turns or inflicting enough US casualties, etc...Les the Sarge 9-1 wrote:
The biggest problem I have with modern, is it seems to either be worthless conflicts to boring to game out, ie Russians vs Mujahedeen oh yippee, or it is another war where the US beat the snot out of a target that would never have had a chance under any scenario (I have zero interest in a game of Desert Storm 1 or 2).
I used to play the New Conglomorate on the Johari server mostly. The biggest thing I couldnt stand about it, was the "Base Voleyball." Do you get any points for defending a base yet? Or do you just keep taking base after base meanwhile losing the one you just took while on you way to the next one? That was the biggest turn off to me. Otherwise I thought graphics, weapons, soundtrack, multiplay in squads, was all awsome and very well done game!The game itself has come along way from its initial release and I would both recomend trying it or coming back to it if you tried it in the past and found it lacking.
).