Matrix Games Forums

I see that us wargamers must, whether we like it or not, rely on the PC gamers.

The companies that are developing these games need to make sales to break even and the wargamers alone don't seem to have the numbers to do this.

The only "games" that I have loaded onto my computer are Flight Simulator 2002 and Steel Panthers World at War. I find that Iam just not interested in the other games out there.

It will be interesting to see how well the SPWAW community support Cross of Iron. Given that SPWAW, it may now be old but still works, covers all theatres of war and Cross of Iron will initialy only cover Eastern Europe.


Klinkenhoffen

Originally posted by Klinkenhoffen
I see that us wargamers must, whether we like it or not, rely on the PC gamers.

The companies that are developing these games need to make sales to break even and the wargamers alone don't seem to have the numbers to do this.
...

Yes, we must rely on PC gamers, and unfortunately even those seem to be in danger of extinction! I know there seem to be a lot of PC games out there, but just walk in EB or Babbage's these days and see how XBox and Playstation2 titles are dominating. The evil plan of the demonic Sony and Microsoft is to eliminate PC games for good. Well, maybe I just made that up, but PC gaming in general seems to be the secondary market these days. GTA3 was a port (you still have to find save locations in the port, rather than just pressing "F6" or whatever).

Personally I go for any entertaining PC game, including the FPS's like NOLF2, RTCW, Medal of Honor, and Half Life. Let's just hope the whole market doesn't come crashing down. That means -- buy games, don't pirate them (not directed at anyone here in particular). If WE don't do our part to buy PC games, they will stop making them in favor of the dumbed down games they release for the consoles.

Originally posted by Joe 98
In my view a PC wargame must target Us and the Maybes.

The way to do this is to have an option. Perhaps a “realism” option. Wargamers will always have realism “on” but the Maybes are likely to turn realism “off”.

Some of the Maybes will do some reading. Then turn realism “on”. Then they will become one of Us

Firstly it will increase sales and secondly as some of the Maybes become one of Us we increase the number of wargamers.

I dont agree that we need to have two different settings. Completely realistic settings in wargames can be appreciated by casual gamers if they are wrapped up with eye candy graphics.

Take the Matrix, it was a big hit with the masses even though it had a convulated, difficult to understand plot. But it had the best special effects yet released so it was consumed and enjoyed by the masses. If the Matrix had no action scenes, no special effects then only die-hard, sci-fi enthusiasts would have watched it.

MOHAA is another example. It does not have the super weapons, big baddies, gore found in other FPS titles. But the realistic looking WWII settings and weapons made it the biggest selling FPS last year.

Up to now, wargames were made by wargamers for other wargamers and with little attention paid to producing graphics/sounds that would entice causual gamers. CC2 probably remains the only title that made a concerted stab at the mainstream market with serious wargame settings and it did work well.

Now with 3D graphics the same can be done again. EYSA graphics are not quite good enough in my opinion, they look dated compared to the latest FPS games, so I am still looking towards BC as being the new CC2.

.Now with 3D graphics the same can be done again. EYSA graphics are not quite good enough in my opinion, they look dated compared to the latest FPS games, so I am still looking towards BC as being the new CC2.

You can not compare EYSA with a FPS, the camera enviroment is totally different, thats why you have to cut on the graphics for some parts of it (simply explained) or end up with minimum specs not from this planet.

I wouldn´t hold my breath too much on BC beeing a "new CC2", I surely hope that I´ll be proofed wrong though.

MOHAA is another example. It does not have the super weapons, big baddies, gore found in other FPS titles. But the realistic looking WWII settings and weapons made it the biggest selling FPS last year.

And that even though it´s scripted like hell . It provides for a whole lot of fun though.

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
It provides for a whole lot of fun though.

Yes it sure does....now I must go to Gamespy to get my daily MOHAA:Spearhead fix:)

Originally posted by U2
Yes it sure does....now I must go to Gamespy to get my daily MOHAA:Spearhead fix:)

HOW dare you ??? You´re not a serious gamer if you play these heretic things, much more, you´re not a wargamer :p

hehe...I play 2 games almost exclusively these days...

Korsun Pocket


and...




Mohaa (online)

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
HOW dare you ??? You´re not a serious gamer if you play these heretic things, much more, you´re not a wargamer :p

It's all true a tell you:D I'm a heretic wargamer....now where do I go to repent my sins?;)

Graphics alone won't see a non wargamer turn into a wargamer.

Nor will gameplay alone.

You gentlemen, you are what sells wargames.

My friend recently upgraded his video card. I don't recall the specific card, but he invested 700 bucks (Canadian) in it, so it was definitely top drawer.

He has the Enter the Matrix game. His comment, well my new video card really makes the game perform better now. Trouble is, he also says it now makes it very apparent the game is no good.

The game obviously has demanding software (I have not seen it myself yet), but that demanding software doesn't appear to have been well employed.

There will always be those interested and those not interested in any manner of topic.
And today's 20 year old, is tomorrow's 30 year old.
Being over 40, I can recognise, I saw the world differently as a 20 and a 30 year old individual as well.

The world though, has seen numerous changes that will impact our entire entertainment experience.
Movies, books, computers, television it is all a good deal different now.

Movies, well in my youth they sure didn't have the ability to do what they can do know. Every tank in warmovies seemed to be an escapee from WW2 or borrowed from the Israelis in some way.

Books, well you had to read, because you didn't have a dozen electronic distractions at the time. But the collapse of Soviet communism has sure had a dramatic effect on the availability of some documentation.
But a lot of the people that made the history of the 40's are now largely gone to us. You don't find much in the way of first person accounts anymore.

Computers, well they are a boon and a bane simultaneously. They aid us as much as hinder us wargamers.
For every wargamer that games the old way, there is one that now games the new way.
Still, they have created a lot of opportunities (this forum being a good example) for keeping all the various ways to wargame active and alive.

Television, well I suppose people still remember the events that took place in Irag this year at least (I have plenty of young friends that don't actually recall Gulf War 1).
Television has so many specialty channels now. It is easier to watch decent historical programs now, they are not condemned to dull weekend spots where they can't fit anything else in.
Wish the classrooms would wake up and exploit all this essentially free programing (a teacher only needs to tape it at home and bring to the school for crying out loud).

But like I said, the only way you will get MORE wargamers, if YOU go out and make them PERSONALLY.

Want more board gaming wargamers, get off your butt and get someone to play one.
If you are not playing enough of your preferred way to recreate history, YOU are to blame mostly.

Everyone knows I champion turn based dull tedious board gaming hehe.

IT'S BECAUSE I NEVER LET ANYONE FORGET IT

Originally posted by Boar
I think you bring up a very important concept here -- wargaming indeed needs to take advantage of the latest technology to keep up the interest of those who would play wargames. I am an old school boardgamer -- started out with the original Gettysburg with large rectangular counters. Played my Dad and was thrilled, even though he took the evil tactic of utilizing hidden movement to mass his Union army behind a ridge and slaughter me. Fast forward (from .. about 1972) to the present. My son saw some of my stacked up wargames and expressed an interest in "Caesar at Alesia." I remember this as a well designed, but rather challenging, wargame. We set it up and he played the Gauls. When the Gauls hit the foss (the ditch lined with sharpened sticks and other deterents), we had to roll for EACH unit in Roman ZOC to see if it survived. We designed a system -- I called out "top" for the top unit and he rolled. Then "bottom" and he rolled for the bottom unit, and so on. We had a great time and he learned a bit about the efficiency of the Roman war machine due to this game. He is very up on his Roman history. But the fact is it was a major challenge to play -- we had to carefully guard the maps and pieces from the marauding wife and a couple of dangerous cats, not to mention the fact that our big fingers have a hard time grasping a stack of two units surrounded by 6 other stacks of units.

It's a beautiful game, and I have many more even larger and more beautiful. Terrible Swift Sword, Wellington's Victory, and La Bataille de la Moskowa, are amongst the "monster games" that were the height of wargaming back in 1979 or so. But today there is an opportunity to use computer graphics and technology to make wargames just as good and engrossing. I don't think we're there yet, but I think that time will come. In the meantime I'll hang on to my old board games, but it sure is nice to have a computer to do the number crunching that became such a problem in the bigger wargames.

Happy gaming, everyone.

I think little boys especially have a natural curiosity about history and war. And I think that interest in history can be magnified many times over when a significant adult shows interest in them and in history. In other words, makes history interesting.

To my mind, a wargame is a simulation of an historical event or of past actions.

Many people who either don't know history or hate it, have usually never been exposed to history or have had very lousy history teachers. In college once, I had a history professor who was so bad I had to drop the course (and this from a guy who lives and breathes history).

Young people especially, if exposed to history at an early age, will grow up to appreciate the significance of past events, and I think will be drawn to those games that reflect upon the past.

I remember once talking to my God son about the Battle of Thermopylae. He was 4 years old and I told him all about the battle. I told him about the great army of Xerxes; about the inspiring leadership of the Spartan King Leonidas; and about the great courage and self-sacrifice of the Spartan warriors, clad in plumed helmets, who fought for days against over-whelming odds. He became so interested that he dug out his little army men and wanted me to set them up to simulate what happened back during that classic battle. And then he sat spell-bound while I re-told the tale using his little plastic men. . .

I am not advocating wargames as a means to instill a war mentality in the young (or the old). Rather, I see wargames as a tool to lead young people into learning more about the periods they are gaming.

As I mentioned previously, the original Age of Empires manual contained a section that went in-depth into the history of 12 ancient civilizations. I enjoyed reading this, and was surprised that a computer game would include so much information about these past civilizations.

I don't see the situation as an "us" vs "them". Rather, people will usually play those games to which they have ben exposed. The computer industry has hyped to us that bigger, faster, flashier is better (so we will always upgrade our computers). But the games that result from all this are often not any better (and are often worse).

Most young people will play games they think other young people are playing (peer pressure is a very powerful thing). But it has been my experience that even people at the age of 12 and 13, if exposed to history and wargaming in the right way, will usually gravitate to them. Remember how we all felt when we played our first game of Risk?

With all the computer games out there, I would much rather children play wargames or strategy games such as Civ2 (where you have the opportunity to play a variety of civilizations and time periods), where they have at least the opportunity to learn something about the history and the importance behind the period they are playing. This type of game can be used as a learning tool.

For example, before I played UV, I never fully appreciated the importance of supply in combat operations. Now I understand what the forces in that theatre had to contend with. This in turn, has led me to read more books on the Pacific War and to re-watch films and documentaries about the war.

I think a real synergy exists between the wargame and history.

And the best thing of all - it is also fun.

Who said no to "eyecandy"?

IMO cram it full of bells and whistles......Make it as goodlooking as possible without screwin up the gameplay.The only people who complain are the ones who's system wont run the game smoothly if at all.

Does it take a eyefull of graphics to make a wargame good.......no it doesnt.

If it is possible for the ones making the game to stuff it full of videos and slick graphics and explosions and stuff .......why not?

If we are discussing wargames one subject has seemed to been left out. Futuristic style fantasy mech type games.I can say that I really dont play any PC games like that but there are plenty that do.

In this style games the artist and devs can go nuts.Really let there imagination run wild with crazy storylines and wild weapons and vehicles.They are not stuck with historical accuracy.

The real type wargames should not just be a "game" but a tool of learning.How many times has a wargame sparked youre interest about a certain theatre or operation?

In wargaming I think accuracy is the key,armor penetration,range of weapons,LOS, etc as well as correct weapons and units that were in the battle.

I cant wait to check out that BC game,it looks great,Im just concerned with the interface and the RP aspect.

My view is that game play always comes first

But we have been blessed with good graphics in recent years.

If a new game comes out with great game play but the graphics are worse, then it is a real turn off. My example is Airborne Assault.

Note that Matrix is to publish the sequel. The maps of the original game are so horrible. I started to play the demo to the original game but the poor maps are a real turn off.

Then I saw some screen shots of new maps to be used for the sequel. They are very nice.

I immediately loaded the demo of the original yet again and this time I spent some time playing it.

I found a beaut new wargame. It is unique. It is riveting. I will get the sequel when it is released.

But the graphics of the original are just so horrible, I have no desire to get the original. There is no way that a “Maybe” person (see my definition above) would ever get the original game.

I continue to press my point: We must convert the “Maybe” players to wargaming. How could they possibly discover wargaming if they never see a wargame?

If wargames had a “realism” option we wargamers would always turn “realism” on. The “Maybes” would probably begin by turning “realism” off.

But the sales would be higher and some of the “Maybes” would become one of “Us” – real wargamers.

The screen shots comment drew me in. So I looked. Hmm I like what I see.

Now I will of course draw groans from the give me cool graphics crowd, get over it. But I like the look of the pieces as being "counters". Damnit all we don't need prancing animations to make a wargame interesting.

To say so is the height of intolerable insult to a potential wargamer. Might as well just add we will make cute options for the intellectually stunted.

Anyone that will play these games at all, will do so if we can say, yes give this game a try, but only if you want a "real" challenge. But we have to be able to back up that claim, and do it better than the other guy.

The market is knee deep in nice cute looking fun games. Some only want that. If you would attract a serious gamer, you must give them a serious game.

Sure make nice graphics if possible. But understand this, if it looks like a baywatch game, it might get dismissed as a baywatch game too. And then where will you be (about the same place all those educated super models are).

I only played a small bit of AA when it was a demo at Battlefront. Frankly 5 minutes was enough. Any good wargamer can see something with potential. I was dismayed when it suddenly disappeared too. I had planned on buying it when I had the chance. I was happy Matrix was able to return it to the wargame circuit.

Heck, we are talking Sarge here eh guys, if I am thinking of buying a non turn using wargame, you have to accept it has to be more than just more of the same.
The graphics mean nothing to me, if the game makes me feel like I am actually running a battle in a tangible and credible fashion, I am interested.

If I want neat graphics I can find neat graphics, but I expect a wargame to look like one. Appearances mean something eh.

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
You can not compare EYSA with a FPS, the camera enviroment is totally different, thats why you have to cut on the graphics for some parts of it (simply explained) or end up with minimum specs not from this planet.

I wouldn´t hold my breath too much on BC beeing a "new CC2", I surely hope that I´ll be proofed wrong though.

I understand your point, but there is a big difference in the graphic quality between EYSA and BC, albeit BC will require much higher system specs.

I think the day when a highly detailed 3D world in which a realistic wargame can be set is drawing near, and that could be the catalyst to get wargames back into the mainstream.

If Saving Private Ryan had not been made, and the subsequent inspired Band of Brothers, then we would not have had this new general interest in WWII and the many WWII based FPS games that are now appearing. We need a SPR version of a 3D wargame to bring casual gamers back in, which does mean highly detailed quality environments will be required.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Graphics alone won't see a non wargamer turn into a wargamer.

Nor will gameplay alone.

You gentlemen, you are what sells wargames.

My friend recently upgraded his video card. I don't recall the specific card, but he invested 700 bucks (Canadian) in it, so it was definitely top drawer.

He has the Enter the Matrix game. His comment, well my new video card really makes the game perform better now. Trouble is, he also says it now makes it very apparent the game is no good.

The game obviously has demanding software (I have not seen it myself yet), but that demanding software doesn't appear to have been well employed.

Except your friend was tempted to spend $700 on a video card and was tempted to buy Enter the Matrix to see the flashy graphics. So eye candy does sell, full stop.

Eye candy is the key to opening up wargames to the casual gamer - there is no need to sacrifice realistic tactics/strategies or statistics. The casual gamer will adopt to any set of rules, whether real or not, so long as they get their fix of eye candy and the user interface is intuitive.

So we must wait for a major studio with deep enough pockets to finance a big budget wargame - thats a risk that so far publishers have not been prepared to take even though WWII FPS are the flavor of the day.

Originally posted by Chris Merchant
hehe...I play 2 games almost exclusively these days...

Korsun Pocket

and...

Mohaa (online)

SNAP! (except insert Wolf: Enemy Territory for Mohaa)

Must be an Adelaide thing unless Chris you are my long lost twin brother in which case I severely pity you...

Brubaker

Originally posted by Joe 98
Then I saw some screen shots of new maps to be used for the sequel. They are very nice.

I immediately loaded the demo of the original yet again and this time I spent some time playing it.

Joe I know this is intended to support your arguement, and it does, but honestly there is some hypocrisy here. I just think you have categorically stated that an old time wargamer can be influenced by pretty graphics (Les included) so I understand the conclsuion to be (in this case) that by improving graphics one can increase sales (to all types by any definition)?


I must be a little different to you people. Although in the same age category, I don'y look at a (new) game and think "oh nice graphics shame about the gameplay". In my opinion this is a tired arguement that although pertinent in the past (and sometimes currently) is not necessarily the be all and end all arguement it used to be. Simply put for any computer product to command more than $20 USD then it has to have a moderate amount of complexity, be pretty to look at, and have a ton of advertising (through various medium) to be successful. This is an industry and as with all industries has logical business parameters that will determine success or not.

Should Microsoft make another "Age" sequel? Hell, wouldn't you? Or would you hire that wierd guy from Texas and his motley crew because they have a 'concept' that may or may not work?

I love graphics. The prettier the game the better. When graphics and wargames combine, I am in heaven. If this appeals to others, then we all win, because their money will drive the industry forward and I am selfish Should David H back a crowd with an ugly 90's game or convince them to move into the 00's? by improving the graphics? What would you do?

I actually find the whole arguement of graphics vs gameplay to be quite redundant. Surely in this day and age ALL games should be at a certain level of graphical capability to be even saleable? Would you buy a car that didn't have a heater or radio? Are we holding back an industry based purely on redundant ideas?

I say god bless 3d graphics in the same way I said god bless 'soundblaster' once because it made 'Gunship' sound better than 'Space Invaders' and god bless 'Commodore64' because it made 'Defender' because it look a heap better than 'Pong'. Lets move with the times people. Graphics aren't an option they are a must have.

Just my

Brubaker

Originally posted by BrubakerII

I love graphics. The prettier the game the better. When graphics and wargames combine, I am in heaven. If this appeals to others, then we all win, because their money will drive the industry forward and I am selfish Should David H back a crowd with an ugly 90's game or convince them to move into the 00's? by improving the graphics? What would you do?

I actually find the whole arguement of graphics vs gameplay to be quite redundant. Surely in this day and age ALL games should be at a certain level of graphical capability to be even saleable? Would you buy a car that didn't have a heater or radio? Are we holding back an industry based purely on redundant ideas?

Graphics aren't an option they are a must have.

Brubaker,

I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. However the problem with the wargames industry IMHO is that it fell into a rut with games that satisfy grogs but with poor graphics which alienated everyone else. It is amazing to me to see games still being released today with graphics that look as if they were made 10 - 15 years ago. Functional yes but very ugly.

With correspondingly low sales, which publisher wants to back a major wargame title these days? If David H has the money to support another year of development work to produce great graphics then he should tell developers to move into the 00's. If he has a limited budget then he will more likely choose titles which can be produced fairly quickly with a small team of programmers and hope that the gameplay is good enough to attract customers.

We need a breakthrough game, a catalyst that will spur other publishers to back big wargame titles. Until then, we are likely to remain graphically deprived and on the sidelines of games society.

I agree 100% that graphics should be of high quality for games today and that when they are not they detract somewhat from the quality. But just as with the Matrix game, graphics must accompany solid gameplay. Between the two if you can have one or the other, most everyone will choose solid gameplay over superior graphics if needed. I know it has been hashed over many times, however, I get a muddled mind when I see games like Age of Empires and these civilisation type games sell so well (yes they are fun and I do enjoy them to an extent), and then you have a game such as TAO, or even some of the better selling games such as UV, or Combat Mission that for them sell ok ( I am only going on what I gleem from people who know better if they sell well or not), but not anywhere near an Age of Empire or other such game. So I am wondering if there is, like others pointed out, an underlying cause that will keep games such as UV and the others at the modest sale points an no higher, regardless of quality. Is it the commitment of time and thought to get the most out of the game by the player, is it the subject, or just the general gameplay that does not appeal to the mass mainstream gamer? I am not a marketing nor psycologist (?sp), but it is interesting to ponder. Anyway, if wargames became hot stuff and sold millions and millions we would have alot more games made and probably alot more shovelware to go with it. Sorry for the Novel lenght post.