Sales figures - are these accurate?

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

LOL! Why, it might do wonders for your fertility... [X(]

But not yours. [:'(]

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: geozero

Yeah, I think that article is old and likely only had sales on TOAW 1 as of the date of the article. I'm sure it must be wrong, but just wonder how large the community for it really is, considering all the latest news and anticipation. I'd bet that we could expect considerable work on the series if there is a large following. Let's hope so. [:D][:D]

Hi!

I think we might all be rather surprised just how small the wargaming "community" is.

My general opinion is that wargamers have become a very exclusive (as opposed to inclusive) group of people. I have noted on several occassions that when I told individuals that I was testing a "wargame" I basically got a "wow are you weird" kind of response. Seems wargaming has not only got a "niche" reputation, but also a public relations problem with players. That does not surprise me when I see some of the wargaming "gods" around here, the remarks they make and their general approach to wargaming as being an "exercise" in historical recreation.

My visits about various forums have lead me to believe that their are basically two sets of wargamers out their. You got the old farts like me who eat up stuff like TOAW and you have a younger crowd out there that just isn't into complexity. They don't want history, they want fun.

When you start taking the fun out of games, whether that be through patches and design changes which change games completely into some orgasmic historical recreation, or just come to places like this and hit people over the head because they are "stupid", I believe you all just don't understand how well we as a "community" have managed to alienate the young people out there who have outrageous gaming rigs and lots of money to spend.

If this trend continues, I would advise Matrix to make more sports games....

Ray (alias Lava)

[geozero]

My visits about various forums have lead me to believe that their are basically two sets of wargamers out their. You got the old farts like me who eat up stuff like TOAW and you have a younger crowd out there that just isn't into complexity. They don't want history, they want fun.

When you start taking the fun out of games, whether that be through patches and design changes which change games completely into some orgasmic historical recreation, or just come to places like this and hit people over the head because they are "stupid", I believe you all just don't understand how well we as a "community" have managed to alienate the young people out there who have outrageous gaming rigs and lots of money to spend.

If this trend continues, I would advise Matrix to make more sports games....

Amen.

You have hit the issue squarely on the head.

I still wonder just how big the community really is. It may explain the lack of games in the wargame genre over tha last years that are more "historical" than "fun".

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

You got the old farts like me who eat up stuff like TOAW and you have a younger crowd out there that just isn't into complexity. They don't want history, they want fun.

Mm... lessee, Matt Tyler, Daniel Michelson, myself. All 21 or less, all very much into complexity.

Two points here;
a) I don't appreciate being stereotyped because of my age (Though I guess you didn't know my own personal age)
b) Do we really want to attract more players at the cost of historical rigour?

When you start taking the fun out of games, whether that be through patches and design changes which change games completely into some orgasmic historical recreation,

Well, the game is already flexible enough to cover a huge range of conflicts. I don't see why it can't be flexible enough to cover them both as simulation and as games. In fact, it already is that flexible. Both models could be improved- and I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Two points here;
a) I don't appreciate being stereotyped because of my age (Though I guess you didn't know my own personal age)

Re-read the post please, I stated "basically"... as in generally. You want to take that as an insult...

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
b) Do we really want to attract more players at the cost of historical rigour?

Ah, the old "we" again. I have been a wargamer for a loooong time (30+ years). The answer to your question is, if it attracts more young people and players in general... a resounding YES.

While I can appreciate people's love for history (I love history), what people can't get in their heads is, the new generations out there basically could care less. In fact I have come to the conclusion that waning sales caused wargame designers to pander to an ever decreasing audience, building more and more complexity into their designs, while failing to take advantage of the increased power of the PC. That decision, IMO, was completely contrary to the prevailing trend which is to optimize every aspect of gaming, while at the same time, providing an intutitive gaming experience which just about anybody can load up and play.

Hence, for example, you see games like the TW series selling like crazy. Is this because they focus on "historical rigour" or because they take the player, who probably has no idea of what the era was actually like, and walk him through the mechanics such than in no time a novice can learn how to be "king." The strategy guys definately have the forumula for "broad appeal," while the wargaming guys seem intent on "falling on their swords" rather than submit to a game which may play loose with fact to optimize gameplay.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Well, the game is already flexible enough to cover a huge range of conflicts.

True enough, but unfortunately the scenarios we see generated are just one more iteration of yet another "historical" clash. Believe it or not, one of my last personal game designs was a "starship troopers" kinda game. Did it matter that each of my single troopers consisted of 20 M1 tanks (with no replacements) or whether I could obtain my objective before they all were "killed" by the hordes of insects they faced (I used the chemical unit icon for these dudes)? Didn't to me, I had fun designing the scenario and then playing it. Can someone say the word "imagination?" Why must all scenarios be ground in historical minutea which are more like puzzles requiring historical preknowledge to win and not be a little more willing to design stuff with a more open ended approach to strategy and operational warfare?

The bottom line is, if we want TOAW to succeed, indeed if we want wargames to expand, people have got to stop this "I could give a snot if some jerk finds the game too historical or complex." Kewl, I'm one of those jerks and proud of it. And those kinds of games, just don't get my money.

Like I have said before, I hope there will be lots more scenarios in the Matrix edition of TOAW, and I also hope some of them use a bit of "imagination." Either way, I love TOAW and for me it is a sure sale. But whether you or I (those of us here on the forums) buy the game will not determine its commercial success.

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Re-read the post please, I stated "basically"... as in generally. You want to take that as an insult...

Thing is, in my experience of the TOAW community, there are old players who just want to play a balanced game, and there are young players who want a really vigorous simulation; and vice versa. I don't think there's any correlation at all.

If anything, I'd say that the fact that older players grew up with board games etc. makes them more likely to be satisfied with less; a lack of fog of war, a lack of detail, a lack of flexibility, and sharp limits on the size of the game.

Ah, the old "we" again. I have been a wargamer for a loooong time (30+ years). The answer to your question is, if it attracts more young people and players in general... a resounding YES.

While I can appreciate people's love for history (I love history), what people can't get in their heads is, the new generations out there basically could care less.

I really don't think so. Young people have tremendous expectations from games- and I don't mean graphics and sound. We (am I not allowed to use this pronoun at all? I mean young people here) haven't been brought up with nothing more than small, simple board games. We've been brought up with incredibly complicated systems- not just in wargames, but in every type of game. You've been playing wargames for 30+ years. Well done. I've only been playing TOAW for six years- but that's more than a quarter of my life.

In fact I have come to the conclusion that waning sales caused wargame designers to pander to an ever decreasing audience, building more and more complexity into their designs, while failing to take advantage of the increased power of the PC.

I assume you've played large scenarios. See how long the inter-turn calculations take? Norm was definitely taking advantage of the increased power of the PC. In my BA dissertation I discussed further ways to do so; not just in terms of processing power but in terms of what can be done with the AI, etc.

Anyway, you want wargaming to go in the same direction as other computer games because you see its current direction as moribund. Well, I follow mainstream gaming news to a certain extent; that's seen as moribund too. Endless sequels and film tie-ins. The only area where there's a big boom is online gaming. Since you're a single player guy I guess that doesn't interest you.

True enough, but unfortunately the scenarios we see generated are just one more iteration of yet another "historical" clash.

Well, if designers don't want to make non-historical scenarios, you can't make them.

I had fun designing the scenario and then playing it.

Great! So is this scenario available for download anywhere? Could be interesting. Did you ever playing any of Rhino Bones' scenarios? He did a very interesting project on the War of the Ring, as well as his fictional 'Revisionist War' scenario. Perhaps you'd be interested in my Grand Strategic TOAW project. That's a fantasy game, too. Of course, since you only play single player I guess it'd be lost on you.

Can someone say the word "imagination?"

I can. I see a lot of it at TDG. You should see some of the ideas we come up with for solving simulation problems.

My own vision of the future of serious wargaming is one where the program is very complex, but the player doesn't have to deal with the details- at least not if he doesn't want to. One doesn't have to scroll through dozens of supply screens to understand that one can't support twenty divisions in Libya from the port of Tripoli. What I suggest is that wargames reflect major real-world concerns like this through complex modelling which the player will rarely if ever have to examine in any detail.

[*Lava*]

@golden delicious

Hey, you remind me of me when I was your age! [X(]

And yes, although there maybe a number of young men like yourself who love the nitty gritty of a good historical wargame, I do think you are in the minority.

The problem here is not whether or not a game is "complex" or not, it is the way it is presented. Youngsters don't shy away from complexity, if that complexity "enhances" the gaming experience and is not included just for the sake of making the game a cerebral torture test.

The same applies to a historical setting. While many may bask in the glorious bearskins of Napoleon's old guard (the era which first drew my attention to wargaming), historical accuracy just doesn't hack it, in and of itself. It is merely the "enviornment" which the player finds himself in. The true test is gameplay, not accuracy, and above all else... fun.

You should drop by some of the other gaming forums out there. I was watching the "Dawn of War" forum for quite some time. Some of the posts were incredibly "dumb." But that is "dumb" from my perspective, from a guy who has played loads of games. To a new comer or youngster, they ask "dumb" questions, because, well, they just don't know. I was also a moderator for MMG's The Civil War: Bull Run. After reading every post on the forums for quite sometime, it became pretty obvious to me, that there were loads of people out there that really wanted to learn how to play the game, but that the learning curve was very steep. Another forum which I found highly interesting was Slitherine (I am a big fan of Slitherine.. so as to keep the record straight). I really enjoyed their game Spartan, but was totally amazed to see people posting on their forums that the game was too hard. Hey, I found the game challenging on normal, so it had to be a great game right? Well, obviously the folks over there didn't think so. Slitherine promptly issued a number of patches. The first was to ease up on the game (dumb it down if you will) and they followed that with a couple more optional ones, which were designed to make the game harder. They bent over backwards to please both the newcomer and the old timer. I was really impressed with that.

The problem here is scalability. Some have said that wargames need more "entry level" games to widen the appeal. I can agree with that, but I think the problem goes much deeper. Developers need to approach their games from the viewpoint that their audience may not have a clue as to how to play the game. They need to "teach" the player solid gameplay right from the get go, and then build on that knowledge by steadily adding more depth to the game. To me that means either incorporating very good tutorials at each level of the game and/or providing multiple options which, when toggled off (default), provide a satisfy gaming experience for the inexperienced, but when toggled on, cater to the hardcore gamer. I think you will find that just about every genre in gaming does this, with possibly the exception of wargaming.

There is a comprise out there that can serve both the novice and the "grog," but first we must acknowledge that there is a problem, before we seek out solutions. And the problem is simple, catering to the desires of the young and newcomers while at the same time being able to provide a satisfying experience for grizzly old "grogs". It can be done.. but for some reason, I just get the idea that people just don't care. And that, is a great pity.

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

And yes, although there maybe a number of young men like yourself who love the nitty gritty of a good historical wargame, I do think you are in the minority.

Of course I am. I'm a wargamer. Hold on....

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/artic ... 422&page=1

A very interesting article there.

The problem here is not whether or not a game is "complex" or not, it is the way it is presented. Youngsters don't shy away from complexity, if that complexity "enhances" the gaming experience and is not included just for the sake of making the game a cerebral torture test.

It is there to make the game more realistic, and therefore more immersive. Immersive games are more fun- this is true in any genre.

The true test is gameplay, not accuracy, and above all else... fun.

If it's not accurate- note that this is something distinct from historical- I don't really consider it a wargame. I might as well be playing Red Alert.

I really enjoyed their game Spartan, but was totally amazed to see people posting on their forums that the game was too hard. Hey, I found the game challenging on normal, so it had to be a great game right?

Well, we don't have this problem with TOAW. I am certainly of the school of thought that if you set a game to 'easy' it should be easy to win.

The problem here is scalability. Some have said that wargames need more "entry level" games to widen the appeal.

See the article I posted above. Only a very limited number of people can ever be interested in wargames. You're not going to be able to ween your brother/friend/wife onto TOAW by starting with Axis and Allies; it just doesn't work like that. Most people simply do not enjoy making the kind of decisions which are at the centre of TOAW gameplay.

Developers need to approach their games from the viewpoint that their audience may not have a clue as to how to play the game.

People seem to have been able to grasp the basics of TOAW quite quickly- then spent a long time trying to learn all the quirks in the system, because the game is not complex enough to be truly realistic. If it was realistic, then they'd only need the basics plus instinct.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find extensive tutorials pretty boring- I prefer to learn by doing. Lessons in the form of strategy guides are even worse. I find them patronising and don't like to read them because I'd rather come up with those ideas on my own.

providing multiple options which, when toggled off (default), provide a satisfy gaming experience for the inexperienced, but when toggled on, cater to the hardcore gamer.

Well I certainly advocate something similar in terms of playability and realism options- but I don't think options to make the game simpler are going to get used. The game already has a 'Standard' and an 'Advanced' mode. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone playing in 'Standard' mode.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Lava

@golden delicious

Hey, you remind me of me when I was your age! [X(]

And yes, although there maybe a number of young men like yourself who love the nitty gritty of a good historical wargame, I do think you are in the minority.

The problem here is not whether or not a game is "complex" or not, it is the way it is presented. Youngsters don't shy away from complexity, if that complexity "enhances" the gaming experience and is not included just for the sake of making the game a cerebral torture test.

The same applies to a historical setting. While many may bask in the glorious bearskins of Napoleon's old guard (the era which first drew my attention to wargaming), historical accuracy just doesn't hack it, in and of itself. It is merely the "enviornment" which the player finds himself in. The true test is gameplay, not accuracy, and above all else... fun.

You should drop by some of the other gaming forums out there. I was watching the "Dawn of War" forum for quite some time. Some of the posts were incredibly "dumb." But that is "dumb" from my perspective, from a guy who has played loads of games. To a new comer or youngster, they ask "dumb" questions, because, well, they just don't know. I was also a moderator for MMG's The Civil War: Bull Run. After reading every post on the forums for quite sometime, it became pretty obvious to me, that there were loads of people out there that really wanted to learn how to play the game, but that the learning curve was very steep. Another forum which I found highly interesting was Slitherine (I am a big fan of Slitherine.. so as to keep the record straight). I really enjoyed their game Spartan, but was totally amazed to see people posting on their forums that the game was too hard. Hey, I found the game challenging on normal, so it had to be a great game right? Well, obviously the folks over there didn't think so. Slitherine promptly issued a number of patches. The first was to ease up on the game (dumb it down if you will) and they followed that with a couple more optional ones, which were designed to make the game harder. They bent over backwards to please both the newcomer and the old timer. I was really impressed with that.

The problem here is scalability. Some have said that wargames need more "entry level" games to widen the appeal. I can agree with that, but I think the problem goes much deeper. Developers need to approach their games from the viewpoint that their audience may not have a clue as to how to play the game. They need to "teach" the player solid gameplay right from the get go, and then build on that knowledge by steadily adding more depth to the game. To me that means either incorporating very good tutorials at each level of the game and/or providing multiple options which, when toggled off (default), provide a satisfy gaming experience for the inexperienced, but when toggled on, cater to the hardcore gamer. I think you will find that just about every genre in gaming does this, with possibly the exception of wargaming.

There is a comprise out there that can serve both the novice and the "grog," but first we must acknowledge that there is a problem, before we seek out solutions. And the problem is simple, catering to the desires of the young and newcomers while at the same time being able to provide a satisfying experience for grizzly old "grogs". It can be done.. but for some reason, I just get the idea that people just don't care. And that, is a great pity.

Ray (alias Lava)

One distinction you're overlooking here is that these other games construct a reality to fit the program, whereas TOAW is attempting to construct a program to fit external reality. So ___________ whatever has real cool space goblins. These goblins, as it happens, are assigned whatever attributes happen to be convenient to program.

TOAW is not about that. It presupposes an interest in actually putting someone in the position some commander in a real past was in. It doesn't matter if it would be really cool if Robert E Lee could have been twenty feet tall, bulletproof, and able to run up Seminary Ridge and slaughter all the Yankees himself. Any game that offered that wouldn't bear a discernable resemblance to to the TOAW that interests me. It sounds like it would be fun -- but it wouldn't be TOAW.

Maybe TOAW isn't the game for you. That's fine -- but don't start trying to demand that it be. I don't think you're all that familiar with the game in the first place. For one thing, you decry the lack of scenarios. There are literally hundreds out there. Didn't you know?

[geozero]

AS usually happens, people get so emotional, they stray off the thread's topic. [:D]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: geozero

AS usually happens, people get so emotional, they stray off the thread's topic. [:D]

...

[geozero]

Yes Colin you are getting off topic.

I found an article (likely written several years ago):

http://www.nhmgs.org/articles/historyofwargaming.html

Part of the article (near the bottom) states:

Computer gamers will probably number some one million (plus!) over the next few years, but recent statistics quoted in publications such as PC Gamer imply that historical wargame computer buffs may actually number less than the cardboard variety. Indeed, consider that last year's PC Wargame of the year, Talonsoft's very well received The Operational Art of War, sold far less than 2000 total copies.

This is interesting. I always thought the number of gamers (especially for TOAW) was greater than this. If that's an accurate number it could explain why there are few games of this genre, as the cost (in dollars and time) would be far too great to realize a profit.

These numbers MUST be bigger IMO. I'm just wondering how many PC wargamers are out there.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero

Yes Colin you are getting off topic.

Right. Colin's discussion of the future of TOAW is off topic. Oleg and Keke's discussion of the former's testicles was on topic.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: geozero

AS usually happens, people get so emotional, they stray off the thread's topic. [:D]

So? If you don't like it, stop watching the topic.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: geozero

Yes Colin you are getting off topic.

Right. Colin's discussion of the future of TOAW is off topic. Oleg and Keke's discussion of the former's testicles was on topic.

I was ON topic when cojones were mentioned for the first time, Mr. Thread Police Officer. [8D]

O.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I was ON topic when cojones were mentioned for the first time, Mr. Thread Police Officer. [8D]

O.

Actually, you can talk about your sexual organs as much as you like in my view. I just thought it was a bit much that Geozero objected to our discussion but found your posts perfectly acceptable.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: geozero

AS usually happens, people get so emotional, they stray off the thread's topic. [:D]

So? If you don't like it, stop watching the topic.

Seeing that I started the thread, it is relevant that I watch the thread. Posting useless nonsense or flaming is rude.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I was ON topic when cojones were mentioned for the first time, Mr. Thread Police Officer. [8D]

O.

Actually, you can talk about your sexual organs as much as you like in my view. I just thought it was a bit much that Geozero objected to our discussion but found your posts perfectly acceptable.

Golden,

You are right. I failed to mention the cojones. I found that way off topic, and rude.

I would rather have an intelligent discussion.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero
Seeing that I started the thread, it is relevant that I watch the thread. Posting useless nonsense or flaming is rude.

The way I view internet discussions, if people want to discuss the original topic, they will. Do you have any further comments to make on the original subject? I'd be interested to hear them.

Now, absent such comments, it's hardly a disaster if some other interesting discussion is had instead. Neither myself, Colin or Lava has posted useless nonsense or flamed anyone.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: geozero

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: geozero

AS usually happens, people get so emotional, they stray off the thread's topic. [:D]

So? If you don't like it, stop watching the topic.

Seeing that I started the thread, it is relevant that I watch the thread. Posting useless nonsense or flaming is rude.

I would guess you'll find this about as practical as herding squirrels. Just go with the flow...