Gamespy - Game of the year awards 2005

[bradfordkay]

I have to say that this is probably the first year in a long time that I did not buy a single game that is on their list. I blame Matrix/2by3 for this. I have purchased exactly two games since WITP was released: War Plan Orange and Knights of the Old Republic II (the latter because I really like Bioware's RPG designs). I used to buy ten to twenty games a year. I'm still addicted to WITP...

Matrix, do you realize just what damage you have done to the industry by releasing WITP?!

[nekron]

pasternakski,

"although its first title, "Computer War in Europe," has been in "development" for some six years and still lacks an AI"

The original CWiE was a DOS program created by Greg Ploussis in the mid 90's as a private 'for personal use only' program. The final result was so close to the original board game that he sold the rights to Decision who released it, and still sell it.

The new CWie-II is an entirely new project build from the ground up to take advantage of modern systems. The new release will not include an AI, at least in part because the existing user base is strongly based in PBEM (oh, and the new project has not been in development for 6 years - the DOS program has been for sale for 6 years)

----------------

Veldor,

"Decision Games is a great company but a computer wargame maker they are not nor likely to ever successfully be."

With respect, I hope you'll come to agree that this is about to change. We have released a ' preview/demo' of Computer War In Europe-II if you'd care to take a look.

----------------

I'm a little uncomfortable with discussing CWiE here on th Matrix forums. There is a forum for WiE (and CWiE) on Consimworld at

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@174 ... 4@.ee6bd6a

if anyone wants more info. There is a development website up, but I'm not sure if it's a breach of forum protocol to post a link to what amounts to a 'rival' product. If you want more info just search the web for us ... you'll find us.

Now, back to lurking ...

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: nekron
I'm a little uncomfortable with discussing CWiE here on th Matrix forums. There is a forum for WiE (and CWiE) on Consimworld at

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@174 ... 4@.ee6bd6a

Link doesn't seem to be working ... don't you need to pay to access the consimworld forums ?
<edit>
well, it works now
</edit>

ORIGINAL: nekron
if anyone wants more info. There is a development website up, but I'm not sure if it's a breach of forum protocol to post a link to what amounts to a 'rival' product. If you want more info just search the web for us ... you'll find us.

No protocols here (well apart from tcp/ip) - I'm sure the guys at Matrix Games won't mind, they're wargamers, not corporate suits so to save others the trouble of having to google it:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~nosacred99/cwie/

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: nekron

The new CWie-II is an entirely new project build from the ground up to take advantage of modern systems. The new release will not include an AI, at least in part because the existing user base is strongly based in PBEM (oh, and the new project has not been in development for 6 years - the DOS program has been for sale for 6 years)

Since I personally no longer buy or play board wargames, I fall into that category that very much needs an AI to, at a minimum, learn the game system and relevant basic strategies & tactics. You cannot complete enough PBEM games period or in quick enough time to really learn through that method. And even though I enjoy network and/or PBEM play, AI/Solitaire still remains my primary preferred method of play.

It would sound as if your game will be an excellent addition to what is probably already a wide fan-base, but I would question how much you can really expand on that base without including at least a basic AI opponent.

----------------

Veldor,

"Decision Games is a great company but a computer wargame maker they are not nor likely to ever successfully be."

With respect, I hope you'll come to agree that this is about to change. We have released a ' preview/demo' of Computer War In Europe-II if you'd care to take a look.

It would be very excellent to see many computer wargames coming from Decision Games. Next to seeing more AH boardgame conversions nothing would make me happier. But I think I said already that Im not aware that any board wargame company has ever been successful at doing so in the past. I would propose that the possible #1 problem would be in satisfying your existing boardgame fanbase while still appealing to the potentially wider audience of computer wargame players. Each side (and they are sides to an extent) values different things and it is difficult to make a game that satisfies both.

A similiar example is how I still strongely believe its extremely difficult to make a game that is great for both PBEM and Network Play. To do so I believe causes sacrifices on both ends that a game meant for one or the other only would not have to submit to and would therefore be a superior product.

I checked out the demo and it looks interesting, but not being familiar with the game I'm not sure how to play it.

I really hope an AI gets added to it later, that would greatly increase the chances that i would personally purchase it.

[TAIL GUNNER]

It would be very excellent to see many computer wargames coming from Decision Games.

If I remember right, isn't Eric Young with that company now?


If so, I would think they should be very capable of making excellent wargames....

[old man of the sea]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


Obtaining copyrights is very difficult. - - - -

That is the easy part, getting a patent is the hard part....

E

[old man of the sea]

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

It would be very excellent to see many computer wargames coming from Decision Games.

If I remember right, isn't Eric Young with that company now?


If so, I would think they should be very capable of making excellent wargames....

Nah, I work for Dynamic Animation Systems.....

http://vice.d-a-s.com/ This is not a game add, it is a government sim I have been helping with....

E

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea


http://vice.d-a-s.com/ This is not a game add, it is a government sim I have been helping with....

E

Is that the same one that has you laughing all the way to the bank [8|]

[ravinhood]

Yeah granted Matrixgames had several "new" releases this year (Gate of Troy isn't one of them, it may be a new published release for them, but, the game was out a whole year before they ever picked it up, so, I ain't counting old news.). But, look at them and look at the forums on them, they just aren't highly anticiapated and likeable. I got "Tin Soldiers:Caesar", thas it. And that because it's DIFFERENT from WWII or Napoleon or American Civil War. Now, I will get "Combat Leader" if/when it's ever released. I know it's just a Steel Panthers reskinning, but, it's been many many many years since a reskinning so that's ok. These that reskin a game every year or every other year are the ones that piss me off.

As far as Decision Games and a computer wargame in every issue. I'd buy into it. And those wouldn't have to have an AI. But, they would need to be PBEMable. Man I'd jump on that in a second cause I enjoy reading S&T magazines. If the price is right and it has a PBEM function, those kinds of games would work and they'd have a monster of a fanbase just from their S&T magzine fans alone. I even suggested something like this awhile back, hrmmm, maybe I'll get some royalties. lol Being as AI's just aren't what they used to be, no use paying $50-$60 for really just a PBEM game that I could probably get a lot cheaper through a subscription, plus a magazine besides!!! I'd pay up to $180 a year for (6) issues/games, that seems fair considering you're getting a game and a magazine with great reading.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Yeah granted Matrixgames had several "new" releases this year (Gate of Troy isn't one of them, it may be a new published release for them, but, the game was out a whole year before they ever picked it up, so, I ain't counting old news.). But, look at them and look at the forums on them, they just aren't highly anticiapated and likeable. I got "Tin Soldiers:Caesar", thas it. And that because it's DIFFERENT from WWII or Napoleon or American Civil War. Now, I will get "Combat Leader" if/when it's ever released. I know it's just a Steel Panthers reskinning, but, it's been many many many years since a reskinning so that's ok. These that reskin a game every year or every other year are the ones that piss me off.

As far as Decision Games and a computer wargame in every issue. I'd buy into it. And those wouldn't have to have an AI. But, they would need to be PBEMable. Man I'd jump on that in a second cause I enjoy reading S&T magazines. If the price is right and it has a PBEM function, those kinds of games would work and they'd have a monster of a fanbase just from their S&T magzine fans alone. I even suggested something like this awhile back, hrmmm, maybe I'll get some royalties. lol Being as AI's just aren't what they used to be, no use paying $50-$60 for really just a PBEM game that I could probably get a lot cheaper through a subscription, plus a magazine besides!!! I'd pay up to $180 a year for (6) issues/games, that seems fair considering you're getting a game and a magazine with great reading.

I agree. I would definitely be a subscriber to a new S&T that included a computer game. Heck, I'd love to have it in an electronic addition that I just downloaded the magazine and game. Not sure if I would pay $180 a year though, but definitely something like $60 to $80 would seem fair. After all, I wouldn't be getting my choice of games and probably some of the games wouldn't be of any interest to me so $30 an issue is a bit steep. If something like this did get launched though and produced some decent material, I might relent an go to $120 since most of my impulse game buys are in the $19.95 range and that would be the equivalent.

Ah, the rebirth of the SPI approach... yea, I'd like to see that.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: nekron

pasternakski,

"although its first title, "Computer War in Europe," has been in "development" for some six years and still lacks an AI"

The original CWiE was a DOS program created by Greg Ploussis in the mid 90's as a private 'for personal use only' program. The final result was so close to the original board game that he sold the rights to Decision who released it, and still sell it.

The new CWie-II is an entirely new project build from the ground up to take advantage of modern systems. The new release will not include an AI, at least in part because the existing user base is strongly based in PBEM (oh, and the new project has not been in development for 6 years - the DOS program has been for sale for 6 years)

I'm fully aware of the history of this ill-fated project. The plain fact is that the DOS thingie is a DOG, it was picked up as a springboard from which to work, nothing has actually worked, and what you have now is something that will not sell, and you don't know what to do about it. As I said earlier (if you can sort back through what is presented here as "information," most of which is inaccurate), the key would be to sit down with a game publisher (HINT) and work out a way to create and market something really good that would capture (or, in my case, recapture) the interest of wargamers and lead to a revitalization of this - I will be kind and call it dying instead of dead - market.

There are several people on this thread who have wrung their hands over the body of Caesar and declared how difficult it is to obtain copyrights and how they are held by this entity or that entity and it's all too much to comprehend, let alone exploit.

Crap. Veldor and O'Keets are talking through their hats. The rights are there for the taking, and at paupers' rates. It's one thing to try. It's another to sit on your self-satisfied butt and talk about how impossible it is.

As far as the "why buy reworked board games" argument is concerned, I am only saying that the games I mentioned were excellent for their subject, scope, design, and treatment. Why start out at the beginning of a three or four year process reinventing the wheel? Look, for example, at the Victory Games "Civil War" design. Look closely. Consider as you look how perfectly adapted it is to computer simulation, which could not only use what's there but add to it in tremendously satisfying ways.

For example. The leader system in the Victory design is one of the best you will ever see, and it led to refinement and use in any number of later games on warfare of the same period. One problem was that it allowed the player to know at the beginning whether a particular leader would be excellent or just another Halleck. Think of how a computer simulation could handle this uncertainty. What fun.

As someone more astute than I pointed out in these forums awhile back, the number of subjects for wargaming is actually rather limited. Board wargaming addressed most if not all of them in the past 45 or so years. Why not draw from that wealth of knowledge and design expertise?

If not, it's probably a future of "Massive Assfault" or "The News in Welsh" for life.

[old man of the sea]

ORIGINAL: Sarge
Is that the same one that has you laughing all the way to the bank [8|]

No, that was GI Combat, it still brings in money to this day. I'm pretty pleased with that.

V*I*C*E is the wave of the future in Squad Training for many countries forces.

E

[TAIL GUNNER]

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

It would be very excellent to see many computer wargames coming from Decision Games.

If I remember right, isn't Eric Young with that company now?


If so, I would think they should be very capable of making excellent wargames....

Nah, I work for Dynamic Animation Systems.....

http://vice.d-a-s.com/ This is not a game add, it is a government sim I have been helping with....

E

Actually, 30 seconds after i posted this, I was gonna edit it because I thought you worked for Destineer instead....

But that would've been wrong too![:D]

Are you ever going to go back to the wargame making biz......ever?[&:]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Crap. Veldor and O'Keets are talking through their hats. The rights are there for the taking, and at paupers' rates. It's one thing to try. It's another to sit on your self-satisfied butt and talk about how impossible it is.

My information isn't made up or merely heresay or drawn from unreliable internet sources. It comes from words spoken or written directly to me by MMP, Hasbro, Atari, and Paradox Interactive. I believe that makes me at least a tad bit qualified to comment on the subject, and probably more so than most if not all others here.

In fact, I obtained much of my information prior to Paradox's own efforts and at a time where some of the facts were not well known, or figured out, by all those parties mentioned. I should point out to that the very fact that I managed to achieve contact with the right parties does in fact prove that anyone can do it. I did not go through the proper channels at all, but like most other things, persistance and resourcefullness usually pay off.

Ultimately I did not think the rights were worth what they'd have costed, at least not for the title I was interested in. I do not know exact specifics of Paradox's deal, as frankly they would not tell me unless we became more engaged (and perhaps not even then), and I do not know if their claims on what they did say were in fact true or made up lies, but I'd hardly have seen reason for them to be untruthful in what I was told (Which wasn't all that much but I tend to believe its hard for foreigners to lie to americans and get away with it..they simply aren't good enough to manipulate the language into sounding truthful when they're not [:D])

So I'm not sure what piece of info you are doubting, but its true that Atari has electronic rights to the AH/VG games, that they aren't available for pennies or even close (Except for the Amoeba War rights which are $37.50 if anyone is interested [:D]), and that to date Paradox has the quickest and best relationship in that area. Its also true that MMP is extremely unlikely to ever be much or at all involved in any computer game production. In MMP's case ask them yourself. Brian Youse at a minimum is all over the message boards. It's not as if no developers have already talked with them or tried to talk with them. If anything they are probably sick of all of those that keep pestering them about it. Of course any of the above is subject to change, perhaps Curt Shilling bought all the AH electronic rights in bulk yesterday for 57 cents.

Shannon had made an excellent point. When converting a boardgame to PC there are a lot of ambiguous rules and as Paradox's Diplomacy adaption shows you can't mess with the game at all, or you guarantee yourself being attacked by angry mobs of fans. That point was in fact the main problem I had with UP FRONT. Aside from a notoriously bad and confusing rulebook, all kinds of things from relative range to the combat resolution system make little to no sense to anyone who hasn't already played the game. The relative range level of extreme abstraction is just not necessary in a computerized version as there are other and better alternatives to controlling and visualizing this. I'd still rush to buy any commercial attempt at UP FRONT, by Paradox or whomever, but I personally enjoy the challenge of making a much better and detailed design merely inspired by it.

It's the same with Combat Leader. Whatever it is and whenever we get it, it will be a far better computer game than a PC Squad Leader version would be (Just like most other projects inspired in some way by Squad Leader turned out to be). But that doesn't change the fact that many will still buy both and Squad Leader may very well sell more copies even for being suposedly "inferior". They are just two different extremes and I hope to see loads of both of them in the future.

[old man of the sea]

Well,

V*I*C*E is a real wargame in First Person Shooter format. No health power ups, one shot one kill if it lands in the right place, and limited ammo. There is even a morale system for supression on AI controlled characters.

I have a lot on my plate, but I am sure I'll get back to wargames some time in the future. A hex based wego game is what I really want to do more than anything else. I have made games for other people since the last World at war title shipped back in 1995 so its been ten years of doing other stuff that is getting me a little bored with the biz.

E

[ravinhood]

What game is "better" than Squad Leader??? Not even Combat Mission or Steel Panthers is better than Squad Leader!!! And don't even try to tell me "Close Combat" is better than Squad Leader, I hated that series of RTS BS! Nothing will ever be better than squad leader. I'm praying Paradox's Squad Leader will not be an exact copy, dirt just doesn't taste very good. I'm sure I will find "something" different about it. OHHH I know one already, it's a "computer game" and not a board game!! hehe

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Veldor

It's the same with Combat Leader. Whatever it is and whenever we get it, it will be a far better computer game than a PC Squad Leader version would be (Just like most other projects inspired in some way by Squad Leader turned out to be).

Veldor how can you compare and make judgments on games that DON'T exist [:D]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
What game is "better" than Squad Leader???

To an extent I'd agree. But Squad Leader is mostly "better" for non-technical reasons. In the same way the original Star Wars movies might be viewed as better than the new ones or the First Matrix movie better than those after. Squad Leader in many ways was the first. The first big game of its type. One many play over and over again. It defined what a tactical WW2 game is/was. And so on.

But a game can be more realistic, have more detail, present it in a better way, and so on. Games can be better from that more analytical/technical aspect no? And many, like Combat Leader, are very likely to achieve those things (Or so I'd hope).

I'm praying Paradox's Squad Leader will not be an exact copy, dirt just doesn't taste very good. I'm sure I will find "something" different about it. OHHH I know one already, it's a "computer game" and not a board game!! hehe

I don't think they've officially said for sure, but everything I'm aware of points towards that being the case. And really how Diplomacy has turned out would support that as well.

If I was absolutely forced to pick between Squad Leader and Combat Leader I'd pick Squad Leader without a second thought. Fortuneately I don't think many will have to do that. I just don't believe competition really exists, in most cases, in this genre. There aren't enough games. And likely, after having bought both Squad Leader and Combat Leader, it is Combat Leader that I'd end up playing more often.

Why? Because as I said before it'll be a better game in those other ways that new titles and designs can be. But Squad Leader has the better title and reminds me of memories and days past that Combat Leader is far less capable of. <sniffle>

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: Veldor

It's the same with Combat Leader. Whatever it is and whenever we get it, it will be a far better computer game than a PC Squad Leader version would be (Just like most other projects inspired in some way by Squad Leader turned out to be).

Veldor how can you compare and make judgments on games that DON'T exist [:D]

Trying to work off the best information available. It's more interesting and fun then just annoying the developer/publisher with "Whens the game coming out". Look over the average games coming soon forums latest posts...

TOAW - "ETA Release..."
Maximum Football - "Release.."
GOA - "Hurry up and finish this"
Combined Arms - "How about a firm date"
Combat Leader - "Release date?"

Squad Leader HAS TO be a far simpler game than Combat Leader would. Most of you are the ones screaming for more and more complexity and detail in wargames right? Certainly my own survey is showing that. Generally better equates to meeting the things you want.

Computers have added the ability for games to reach complexity levels or inclusion of levels of detail that a board wargame could never have dreamed of. It would seem many think for that very reason games need to be made that take advantage of that. In my opinion somewhere in all that depth and detail the things that made board wargames fun to play in the first place is lost. No one ever said Squad Leader was unrealistic way back when, and no one would probably say that now about a computer adaptation. Yet were that game never to have existed and to have been done like that from scratch now as a computer title, Id think it would be laughed at in comparison to other titles. So "better" really only means more levels of detail and perhaps related levels of realism.

But better in terms of gameplay, fun factor, etc. etc. Squad Leader certainly is.

And if you value those things more than you are in what seems to be the "uncool, non-grog" wargamer crowd. Not to worry though you can sit at that lunch table with me, I'm tired of sitting there by myself...

[ravinhood]

I think you hit the nail on the head Veldor when you said Squad Leader by AH it DEFIND tactical wargaming on a boargame. I was hooked from day 1, play the heck out of the scenarios and then we made up our own. Now, I'm not sure where you get this "complexity" is what wargamers want. I didn't take your poll so you didn't get my feedback. I like "intermediate" games and "entry level" games. I loathe "advanced" ones because they turn something that was fun into a mathematical too damn much analyzing nightmare. I want to play a game, not calculate 5000 combat odds. Thus when I saw "Advanced Squad Leader" and that HUGE manual of rules, I said, no way. I'm not buying into that mess. The rules of the origional SL were simple enough and made things challenging enough not to buy into more rules to recall and remember and fight about not being clear.

When I looked at the demo for that board game band of brothers, I was somewhat impressed. The Graphics of course make it look enticing, but, of course the feedback from some of the consumers were bad counter sheet cuts. You won't get that in a "computer" game thas for sure. We get instead crashes to desktop, lockups, blank screens of death, lol stuff like that. But, at least a computer game comes with an AI no matter how crappy it may be, it'll still road block you for awhile.

What I'd like to see is a test of age vs AI. Take one person from the age of 11 to 60 and have them play the game and then give a full report on what they thought about the AI. And all of these participants need to at least have some knowledge of REAL computer wargames and boardgames. Not just some joker off the street. I would guess the median level of difficulty of most AI's around late teens to early 20ish. Probably depend on the "amount of wargames" one has played to their age level. You could be 60 and only played a handful of times (though I doubt many exist like that, once you are hooked you are hooked for life)

I also wish publishers like Matrixgames, HPS, Shrapnel would put in game buyer survey cards to find out ages and years of experience these people have that ARE BUYING their games, even an online survey during or after purchase of a direct downloaded item. Something to show who and at what age level are buying their products and then perhaps more emphasis on finding a median level of difficulty to program future games. I'm really tired of playing kiddiefied AI's, because some of these blokes "think" only kids are buying their games. It was US those that are 40, 50 and 60 now who STARTED this Industry and it seems many are just forgetting all about us now in the winter of our lives. It's cold, I need a new game to warm me up with an excellent AI.

For me an ADULT wargame isn't determined on how "complex" it is as far as interface and number of units. It's how "challenging it is" with any interface and smaller amount of units. Like "War of the Lance" by SSI back in the mid 80's. Very challenging game, but, simple as heck to operate, not an over abundance of units to move around and you could finish a game within a day or two easy. Todays games WitP, gawd, how rediculous to sit down and play ONE wargame for so long, I'd go nuts if I had to play a game like that. I prefer them one day affairs, two at the most. I loved seeing games like "The Longest Day", setup, but, I'd be darned if I ever played one of them. I also like wargames that give you "choices" like SPWAW and Combat Mission. There's those out there that only want to play 5000+ point games, me I prefer 1000pt or 2000 point games and 30 turns max. I can play those in a setting and with the right AI handicaps have the computer give me a very good challenge. I notice if one goes beyond 30 turns the AI starts to get stupid even if it's defending. Leaving foxholes for some Magnificent 7 charge of the Light Brigade of Hill 621 for gawd knows what reason. lol "Battles of Napoleon" another ole 80's game has a Great challenging AI and not a complicated interface or an over abundance of units. But, then Talonsofts Waterloo, I turned that game off and deleted it faster than you can say Jack Rabbit. Too many units, too much information to have to deal with, too much of a waste of time.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying WitP or Waterloo suks, I'm just saying I don't like those types of monster games with so many units and too much time involed in playing out one game. I like wargames, I just like them to be playable in one days play like a Sat or Sunday 4 to 6 hours max. And even though I can "save" them. By the time I would get back to them I would have forgotten everything that was going on. This is why I'm a big supporter of "entry level to intermediate level games", right now we need more entry level ones to bring new blood into this world. Then maybe they will turn into monster game PBEMers for a bunch of you.