Release Date ?

[Mr_Clock]

When will exit the game? Indicative date? A year? 6 months?

[Neilster]

Welcome to the forum Mr_Clock. If I can be excused for speaking on behalf of the developers, Matrix is finishing off another game at the moment and then will begin full scale development of World in Flames.

Lots of MWiF (Matrix WiF) has already been written by a guy called Chris Marinacci (there's a good Italian name for you [8D]) but his code will have to be revised and greatly extended, as well a hundred other things being done, before the game is released.

Don't expect MWiF for at least a year, and probably longer. If you check this forum regularly, there should be updates of progress. Some of us have been waiting about seven years for this game so I guess we'll enjoy it when it finally arrives.

Cheers, Neilster.

[DavidFaust]

My bet is this game will be ready by 2010

[vonpaul]

lets just hope the WIF is programmed by humans and not by an AI (release date this decade) [:D]

[BumMcFluff]

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

My bet is this game will be ready by 2010

That soon? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[>:]

[macgregor]

Anything I write now will be for the same purpose: to somehow motivate you guys to release this game faster(mission: impossible).I suppose I'm free to mantain the paranoid idea that somehow matrix bought this in order to either control it's release date(as not to compete with their other releases) or to squelch the game entirely.(for now anyway -perhaps to 'save for a it rainy day' so to speak) My better judgement leads me to believe this is not true. We who post messages here seem to be unable to agree on the most important criteria. I hope the staff is faring better. Of course any info on the game would help(but you know that). The demo appeared to suit my basic needs -provided the bugs can be worked out. No one will be able to judge the playability until they've had a chance to playtest it. Most of the game criteria are subjective. What works for me may not work for say, Greyshaft. Though, until we've actually playtested the thing, it'll be difficult to offer any real constructive ideas. A screenshot would be real nice.

[Steely Glint]

Is computer WIF dead yet?

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

CWiF is not dead. As stated the developer has been putting the final touches on another game over the past few months. I know he has started a review of Chris's code base though. It will be a while before WiF comes out though.

[JanetReno]

I think it all comes down to the same 'ol same 'ol... MONEY. How many people are working on it? One? Can we say hire?..... Oh but THAT leads to the other word MORE expensive....And the beat goes on.

[ETF]

One thing is for sure I would pay for this game just like Witp! These games come out once every few years!!! $100 sounds about right for a quality product.

I guess the only consolation is Hearts of Iron 2 which is coming in January. Its the ONLY strategic computer game on the planet. AI is a little weak but multiplayer is very realistic and very enjoyable.
At first I didn't like the real time aspect but you can slow it down so much I often take washroom breaks when my nation isn't doing much [X(]

The day of the boardgame I think has long past for the majority of people. I even believe Turn based games days are numbered .................but I love WitP!!

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: ETF


The day of the boardgame I think has long past for the majority of people. I even believe Turn based games days are numbered .................but I love WitP!!

I am shocked. While I try understand the implications of technology on our changing lives culturally and recreationally, I simply cannot agree with this statement. How many people in the world today do you think will play a board game again before they die? My guess would be over 90 %. I love computers as tools and audiovisual aids, and I use a computer every day. Computer games are fantastic, there's no doubt, but playing over a physical board will always be compelling in a way that internet play can't achieve. Additionally, turn-based games are here to stay, since they let the pace of play fit the life of the people playing them.

I believe that, beginning with IBM's "Deep Blue" victory over Kasparov in 1997, we will come to remember a turning point in game history, when the controversy of computer games vs. board games will be seen as a chimera that never truly came to pass. I see lingering success with board gaming, given the success of chess and go (partially due to computers, rather than in spite of them), and of course family classics. It may take a few years, but I also look forward to a boom of integrated gaming, where the market for board games, table-top roleplaying, card games, etc... is seen as integral when producing games intended for computer format as well. This synergy is inevitable in my opinion. Computers are not meant to supplant physicality and intimacy, but rather, enhance and extend them.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

lets just hope the WIF is programmed by humans and not by an AI (release date this decade) [:D]

"Machines building machines? How perverse!" : C3PO from Star Wars Episode II

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: JanetReno

I think it all comes down to the same 'ol same 'ol... MONEY. How many people are working on it? One? Can we say hire?..... Oh but THAT leads to the other word MORE expensive....And the beat goes on.

On the other hand, adding more painters to the Sistine Chapel may have had the work completed sooner but the creative cost would have been incalculable. More hands make sense to accelerate process work but artists work alone. That doesn't mean that when CWiF is a bit further along it couldn't use extra munchkins writing subroutines but at this point I think we need a single point of creative control.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: ETF


The day of the boardgame I think has long past for the majority of people. I even believe Turn based games days are numbered .................but I love WitP!!

I am shocked......How many people in the world today do you think will play a board game again before they die? My guess would be over 90 %.

I am shocked that you are shocked and your number of over 90% is way off. First, just surveying my own extended family and friends, I cannot find nearly anyone... Whose played anything in the last ten years other than Yahtzee, Tripoley, Poker or similar. Heck even the trivia games these days have to have the DVD component to be successful and I just realized even where I've gotten relatives to play those its always been "Scene-It" or similiar games. And I do think they are far more fun that way. I'd say less than 5% of my friends, work associates or extended family have played anything resembling a true boardgame in the last ten years. Monopoly, Risk, Life, etc.

Computer games are fantastic, there's no doubt, but playing over a physical board will always be compelling in a way that internet play can't achieve.

Thats perhaps true today but changing very quickly. We already have headset communication in most games or externally for those that dont directly support it. That adds alot. Perhaps one day soon FPS shooters will have your own faces on each of the guys. Maybe even videos of the players in a wargame who play one another. It can get pretty darn close. And however inconvienient TCP/IP play is its still a heck of a lot more convienient than getting together a bunch of guys at your house.

Additionally, turn-based games are here to stay, since they let the pace of play fit the life of the people playing them..

Thats the easiest point to make when arguing this but I think the true "gem" of turn-based games are the strategy choices they present vs more real-time formats. Thats always been the fun in board wargaming to me. Sitting back and really fealing like you are making decisions. Outwitting your opponent. Not some silly notion that your game is somehow more realistic because of a differnet time to turn ratio errantly called "real-time".

This synergy is inevitable in my opinion. Computers are not meant to supplant physicality and intimacy, but rather, enhance and extend them.

My opinion is no better than anyone elses. But what computers have and will continue to do is make any sort of complex or even moderately complex boardgame impractical. A computer can do that just far too better. The focus can be on more fun elements than adding up factors, calculating bonuses, testing line of site, etc. We all like some of those things primarily for nostalgic reasons. But no one else will ever like them.

So non-computer games are forced, by current nature, to be very very simplistic highly social games. Most of those style can be played just as easily around a TV screen pretty much proven by games like Scene-It. So even some of those will move towards less boardgame like versions.

Don't necessarily like it myself either but reality is reality. There are reasons we no longer use carbon paper, typewriters, or hell even file cabinets in many companies and homes. Some things computers really can do better.

And gaming is one of them. Like it or not.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Veldor

...But what computers have and will continue to do is make any sort of complex or even moderately complex boardgame impractical. A computer can do that just far too better. The focus can be on more fun elements than adding up factors, calculating bonuses, testing line of site, etc. We all like some of those things primarily for nostalgic reasons. But no one else will ever like them.

So non-computer games are forced, by current nature, to be very very simplistic highly social games. Most of those style can be played just as easily around a TV screen pretty much proven by games like Scene-It. So even some of those will move towards less boardgame like versions.

Don't necessarily like it myself either but reality is reality. There are reasons we no longer use carbon paper, typewriters, or hell even file cabinets in many companies and homes. Some things computers really can do better.

And gaming is one of them. Like it or not

The point you are making seems to be fueled by your misconception that computers will eventually dominate every aspect of our lives, just by virtue of their utility. I don't believe this to be true. You mention typewriters and filing cabinets, but you fail to mention fine art and sketch books, or accoustic instruments and songbooks. Digital art is a great field, but it will never replace oil painting or sculpture.

I realize the power of computers, and their utility in gaming. The synergy I refer to in my original statement includes the use of computers in utilitarian support of a wider variety of gaming than they are now. A good example of this is "traditional" tabletop roleplaying, where the game mechanics can afford to be more complex if needed, if a computer handles any crunching or complex sorting of information. Big complex games like WiF or EiA can be enhanced by computers, using boards and counters or miniatures to provide personal over-the-table physical interaction along with depth and detail enhanced via computer support.

I realize there is no going back in the use of gaming technology. I just feel that overly computer-centric views such as yours sell gaming short by limiting it. Non-computer gaming is still huge; perhaps your extended family and friends are not as representative as you suppose. I realize that most people aren't going to play monster simulations. Still, my experience is that many people play such games as chess, go, checkers, chinese checkers, and/or monopoly fairly often, and that many others do play such games occasionally. Yahtzee and poker are not board games, but Scrabble is.

Don't just take my word for it. From about.com in August '03:
http://boardgames.about.com/b/a/017474.htm

or more recently ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Toys/story?id=216254&page=2

or, also recently on indystar.com:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/1/200202-6481-062.html

These are just samples of news that consistently supports the trend of dramatic growth in board gaming, despite the perception that computers are taking over.

Finally, after looking at Mnemonic I believe some of those games could really benefit from the synergy to which I refer. Just one man's opinion on that one though.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: coregames
The point you are missing is fueled by your misconception that computers will eventually dominate every aspect of our lives, just by virtue of their utility.

Misconception that computers will eventually dominate every aspect of our lives? Don't they for many of us already? Many do all their banking and finances totally online, all their shopping including groceries even online, their entire 40hr a week+ job online, interaction with relatives email, video etc predominately online.. TV through a TV card, Digital Photography. etc. etc. For the younger generation and even some of the baby-boomers that describes many lives already.

I don't believe this to be true. You mention typewriters and filing cabinets, but you fail to mention fine art and sketch books, or accoustic instruments and songbooks. Digital art is a great field, but it will never replace oil painting or sculpture.

I wouldn't presume to say that ANYTHING would ever go away entirely. Of course we will always have people doing oil paintings and sculptures. No doubt some will continue playing accoustic instruments. People still play the harpsicord. But there is an unmistakable shift away from such things. More time is spent in art school with digital elements than ever before. More artists are even doing their "concept art" on the computer now. Even the so-called "deviant art kids". We will always have boardgames and will likely see a huge increase in the cross-over titles along the lines of "Scene-It" but I don't see much beyond that. The lack of start-up and small companies in the boardgaming sector should be sign enough of that. Compare that to the number of companies entering the computer gaming sector. What is it 1 new boardgame company this year vs hundreds of computergame companies this year as it stands today?

I realize the power of computers, and their utility in gaming. The synergy I refer to in my original statement includes the use of computers in utilitarian support of a wider variety of gaming than they are now. A good example of this is "tradional" tabletop roleplaying, where the game mechanics can afford to be more complex if needed, if a computer handles any crunching or complex sorting of information. Big complex games like WiF or EiA can be enhanced by computers, using boards and counters or miniatures to provide personal over-the-table physical interaction along with depth and detail enhanced via computer support.

Why? Why? Why? If you go that far why not just put it all on the computer then? The other "limits" that you think about are all to be overcome not far into the future. Think of a monitor that IS YOUR TABLE or desk. Star Trek console style to an extent. It is the playing surface, a touch-screen monitor if you will. There are monitors that are nothing more than mist. Keyboards that are created by a laser projection (You can even buy such keyboards today for a measely $200.00). Technology has already overcome all obstacles to total erradication of everything else.

I can't argue such thoughts aren't a bit disturbing, and the world certainly isn't all that enriched feeling for all this stuff we supposedly have available to us at present. But a bright future is ahead and well within anyones lifetime who would be reading this.

I realize there is no going back in the use of gaming technology. I just feel that overly computer-centric views such as yours sell gaming short by limiting it.

Software, by definition, really has no limits. A boxed product certainly does. Computer Hardware & Software can potentially achieve anything. You can only do so much with cardboard.

I once played board wargames when there was not much alternative. And I owned damn near every one of them at one point. Even designed some. And I have fond nastolgic memories of playing them. And still do play some myself. But todays kids have far too many other choices and the prime reason for most adults to pickup or play a boardgame is, at its most fundamental level, often still mostly nastolgic in nature.

Now if your point is about lack of social interaction in current computer games... Then of course how can one really disagree with that? But like I said earlier.. Those issues will soon be solved even more-so than what is available now. And likely at that point in time computers will have the upper hand on every issue and not just most of them..

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Veldor

... Software, by definition, really has no limits.

This statement seems indicative of your argument. What definition of software do you refer to? Am I to conclude that sports are on their way out too? Even if you play on a computer monitor table, if you are moving pieces or counters it's still a board game albeit with computer assistance. "Board" does not refer to cardboard in all cases, but rather, to games that are played on a flat surface (or board) of some kind. I am not championing boxed games or cardboard. Packaging and distribution are affected by technology too.

Even as we embrace computer gaming, those of us who love board gaming (not all of us for purely nostalgic reasons) attempt to encourage and sustain boardgames as well. I think this keeps us in balance so that we don't give too much of ourselves up to the computer. I feel reassured when I read of how trends in the world seem to agree with me.

Computers offer a platform for a wide variety of games, and of course they are getting so cheap now and portable. They are prolific I agree, and integral to how the world works these days. I prefer to think of them at their best as friendly assistance in all of our endeavors, and not elevate them too far beyond really cool tools, which is what they are. Still, a travel chess set will always be cheaper than a laptop, or even a state-of-the-art Game Boy Advanced.

I look forward to a day when computers are so well-adapted and ergonomically advanced that they integrate much more seemlessly into our physical lives, enhancing rather than replacing our physical experience. One thing you cannot engineer away is the fact that we are people, and we are physical, not digital, beings.

soft·ware ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sôftwâr, sft-)
n. Computer Science
The programs, routines, and symbolic languages that control the functioning of the hardware and direct its operation.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

board game

n : a game played on a specially designed board


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: Veldor

... Software, by definition, really has no limits.

This statement seems indicative of your argument. What definition of software do you refer to? Am I to conclude that sports are on their way out too? Even if you play on a computer monitor table, if you are moving pieces or counters it's still a board game albeit with computer assistance. "Board" does not refer to cardboard in all cases, but rather, to games that are played on a flat surface map of some kind. Please don't let Star Trek make you think that computers can do anything.

Well if a computer monitor layed flat with a touchscreen qualifies as a boardgame then why does having it vertical and using a mouse instead change the definition? There are hot-seat modes in many games where multiple people can still socialize around a gamescreen. There are also the so-called "LAN parties" where each person brings a pc or laptop. etc.

I'm not even a Star Trek fan. It's merely a point of reference for what some newer interfaces will look more like.

Why argue over rule interpretation when the computer can end all such disputes? why find space to store the setups between sessions or worry about the cat knocking it all over?

The only real main benfit of say a large complex board wargame is the ability to see everything all at once. Mapwize. Usually counter stack inspection is still easier on a computer. As larger and newer types of monitors become more common place the "map" advantage will go away.

I like boardgames and board wargames. But there are so few pluses to them vs the computer varieties. And any REAL statistics or interviews, surveys etc I've ever seen or conducted myself (my website has one such survey on it now) concur with those viewpoints.

Most wargamers don't even like to socialize while playing. They prefer AI to an extreme and then PBEM over Network Play. They like to concentrate and sit back and think about strategy and tactics.

Socializing these days is really for the more beer & pretzel variety of games.

[coregames]

Well if a computer monitor layed flat with a touchscreen qualifies as a boardgame then why does having it vertical and using a mouse instead change the definition?

If you can stick some pieces or counters to a vertical surface, I guess you could board game there. It's only gravity that seems to make board gaming easier on top of a flat surface. The mouse could even be used to control stuff (magnets or something) if the pieces were still physical. I would still prefer to move them myself though.

I like boardgames and board wargames. But there are so few pluses to them vs the computer varieties. And any REAL statistics or interviews, surveys etc I've ever seen or conducted myself (my website has one such survey on it now) concur with those viewpoints.

Most wargamers don't even like to socialize while playing. They prefer AI to an extreme and then PBEM over Network Play. They like to concentrate and sit back and think about strategy and tactics.

First, if you like them, then please support and believe in them. Every link I posted was real, not unreal, but news. Other outlets agree; perhaps the surveys you took were not representative. I'm not asking you to toss your computers into the river, but we are physical beings and that cannot be digitalized. Moving pieces and counters around on a board is important.

Your statement about wargamers differs from my experience. Those who like multiplayer wargames also like to be witty and socially interact with the other players with the game providing a subtext. WiF is a pretty sophisticated game, and that's how we've always played it.

[Veldor]

perhaps the surveys you took were not representative.

Venture around the other forums here and you will see. Most bash anything without a great AI and PBEM. Many state they only play against the AI and most of the others state they only play PBEM. The respondents to my survey came from Matrix, War-Forums, and Consimworld and a few from other places so its a pretty diverse "wargaming" crowd.

Moving pieces and counters around on a board is important.

You've still not given any reason why.

Your statement about wargamers differs from my experience. Those who like multiplayer wargames also like to be witty and socially interact with the other players with the game providing a subtext. WiF is a pretty sophisticated game, and that's how we've always played it.

Were we talking strickly about multiplayer wargames? And what better way to socially interact then by playing with a guy from Germany, a chap from Australia, a Canadian, and so forth? Instead of the same 'ole bunch with the same old tricks?

I'm going to guess that your proabably not too youthful in age. Nothing wrong with that. But most of what you "prefer" is really rooted in nostalgia as I said before. And nothing wrong with that either. Just that the majority if not all of the younger crowds are not going to share in that. And no amount of effort is going to convert the "masses" into sharing in that nostalgia vs. advancement into the future. Hard enough to find/get younger people interested in any kind of wargaming.. even the computer variety... So even its future is uncertain. But board wargaming is dead in the eyes of all but those few who still partake in it.