Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself?

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

"highly intelligent supermodel"

And now for other famous stupid oxymorons.

Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp

While it's true that intelligence is not a trait that's required of supermodels and is frequently absent, there have been a few intelligent supermodels. Even though what I was proposing was pure fantasy and so anything is possible I'll give an example.

Exhibit A: Cindy Crawford

Helped by an academic scholarship (she'd been a straight-A student in high school), Crawford studied chemical engineering at Northwestern University, but shrewdly decided that she'd make more money as a model. For a while, Crawford worked in Chicago, but didn't hit the big time until she moved to New York City in 1986.

http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/cel ... 18435&mp=b

So "how about a nice game of chess" with Cindy when she was a freshman at Northwestern U?

[Raindog101]

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I have almost the same amount of wargames today, as I had 10 years ago.

The list is a very long one, and I am not interested in posting a long list of titles you already know.

But, in the end, the final result is, let them produce games I can't run on my current PC. I don't care squat.

It won't prevent my enjoy the current inventory one iota, only prevent me supporting their new creations which I don't really require.

The Wargame genre will be here tomorrow, and the next year and the next year, but the wargame making "business" might not be.

And all of my games will still run fine in the absence of the current wargaming businesses.

So let them decide.

The above quote is why wargames are dieing.

It seems a lot of people dont want to upgrade there pc....tough cookies.

Why should wargames design not use the latest and greatest stuff to make a better game.


Why is there an unwritten rule that wargames must have crappy graphics and only use minimal requirements?

You can make good wargames without the bells and whistles but.....why?Just to please "old timers" who cant see the advantages of a graphicaly superior game.Who wants to read charts or strain there eyes to see if a unit is destroyed?If its possible to represent this on the screen then do it.

Wargame designers shoulnt care if people dont want to upgrade...its there loss,not the designers.

For designers not to use the "best available" is insane.We are supposed to progress right.Why go backwards?

Everything is based on advancement.....life,education,technology ...etc ...etc..why not wargames.

Some styles of games are tried and true and thats all good but you must continue the push the envelope.

Once again the above quote proves that people who dont/cant upgrade are hostile towards any good wargame that mite come out that they cant run.

They use phrases like ..."dont give a squat"...."it wont hurt me"...well obviously it does bug people.

fact is,players like this dont hurt the wargaming industry one bit.So what if 5% dont want to upgrade and be stuck in the stone age of pc/wargame development....its their loss...not the designers.

I would think "dumbing down" games for 5% of the wargaming crowd who is more than likely cry about it anyway is damaging to designers and all involved.

Keep on pushing it as far as you go and dont sweat the "bored game" crowd.

Whats next?....Lets make models with less pieces and parts so we dont have to pay an extra 2 bucks.

Exactly right.

Nothing is going to stop technilogical advances, and as usual it's the companies that refuse to incorparate those advances that will fail.

Who really cares if some skinflint in Canada won't upgrade?

The vast majority of folks want better graphics, sound, realism, etc.

If game companies only cater to people who want to play 1980's boardgames on $2,000 PC's, they'll be left in the dust. Upgrading your PC is just a part of gaming.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Do you know what I hate about fancy graphics? It's that stupid idea that fancy graphics automatically makes the game better.

Your problem is that you don’t even know what a fancy graphic is.

If I run my eye across the Korsun Pocket map, I can spot one graphic and understand in an instant what it means. Before computers I would have needed to consult half a dozen charts.

This is what we use graphics for. Something very complex can be represented by a single graphic which is easy to understand

If you don’t like graphics then replace Windows with DOS

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I have had buddies hand me free copies of several fancy schmancy graphically cute spiffy nifty 3d real time games in recent years.

Who cares? You have now brought up a topic unrelated to wargaming, so the rest of your post can be ignored.

[Fallschirmjager]

I would like to add that graphics are not the only thing that hardware adds to.
Force sizes, map sizes, AI levels (and the AI of your own units when playing another human) complexity of supply, complexity of the battle systems etc. are all judged by processor speed and amount of ram.
I remember in the disscussion of HTTR the developers had to make adjustments to the game as far as the size of the force represented in order to meet system requirments for low end users.
I read an interview recently with one of the desingers of Rome Total War and he remarked that the the size of the units in the game would of been impossible just three years ago.
So hardware just isnt for pretty graphics. It goes alot deeper into how the level of detail we have in our wargames and also the size of them.

[Frank W.]

mhh.. what´s the problem ?

all games i want run on my pc..

it´s not the newest one ( 1,4 celeron, 512SDRAM, ATi8500, 2x baracuda 40gig etc..)
but the games i play run on it - even far cry does it ( on 800x600 though [:D]).

and i have 3-4 games that i even don´t play longer then some hours.

the only game i´m really waitning fo rin the moment is "war in the pacific"
and this should run also, so for me personally no problem.

if really a game comes out that need higher specs and i really want it
to play i can still decide if it´s worth the money to upgrade......

[junk2drive]

i am that smelly single wide guy from deliverence. it took me 20 years to see that movie uncut on cable. all my family was in there.

back to subject, tech is advancing at a rate which, if you wait 1-2 years, you can buy old tech and games fairly cheap, imho. i spent 600 usd last year to build a computer that surfs fast, and plays combat mission very well. i wont run out and buy an amd 64, or ms longhorn, or the games that go with it. but in a year or two after they are out, i might.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

i am that smelly single wide guy from deliverence. it took me 20 years to see that movie uncut on cable. all my family was in there.

back to subject, tech is advancing at a rate which, if you wait 1-2 years, you can buy old tech and games fairly cheap, imho. i spent 600 usd last year to build a computer that surfs fast, and plays combat mission very well. i wont run out and buy an amd 64, or ms longhorn, or the games that go with it. but in a year or two after they are out, i might.

No offense intended. If you had a choice between playing with me or Cindy Crawford, I'd strongly suggest choosing Cindy.

What has yet to be revealed are the recommended specs for the games in question. If you have a computer that's only a year old, I don't see how it wouldn't be able to handle 99% of the computer wargames currently and probably 75% of those released in the next two years.

While I understand why people don't like upgrading, I don't see any conspiracy like some have alluded to. Technology marches on and game companies are going to cater to those that are most likely to open their wallets. It's understandable to me and I'm willing to pay to be on the near cutting edge. Although, I've long since stopped trying to be on the bleeding edge of technology. IMO, The best bang for the buck is on hardware that is 6-12 months old. It may not last quite as long as a bleeding edge system but you can maintain a quality system for less dollars year to year.

edit -

You raised another good point. Except in rare instances, I don't normally buy PC games immediately upon release. War in the Pacific is likely to be the first PC game that I've purchased on release since Uncommon Valor. That means if you wait awhile before purchasing new games, a computer system has that much longer of a life. There are plenty of old games available cheap. People on a tight budget can be well entertained even if they're a couple of years behind the times.

[Rainbow7]

@ Old Eagle 101, Joe 98:
Such venom in your replies to Les_the_Sarge. This discussion is somewhat moot if we don't have some standard with which to compare. I play Korsun Pocket and Highway to the Reich. I don't play FPS games anymore. Something like Hitman probably benefits from the moody, ultra-realistic graphics. But I have no desire to play such games because of the genre. My computer couldn't handle it anyway, and if most of you have money to burn, so be it, but don't lay into me because I don't want to fork out $2000 every two years. I'm pretty sure the game companies, from Atari down to 2by3, know who their market is, and it seems to me that they are creating the system requirements for their respective games perfectly well at the moment.

We really should be clear if we're refering to the latest tank sim or if we're refering to the latest TBS game.

Now when I refer to wargames, I'm just refering to turn-based games, specifically operational-level wargames. Arguably, a 3d engine is irrelevant. I don't think of KP's graphics as "fancy". I do think of them as excellent and appropriate. Being able to tax the latest graphics card would do what? Allow me to zoom down to look into the eyeballs of each of the men in one of my 40 divisions. Irrelevant. But just to be clear, I'm assuming we aren't talking about upgrading the CPU for more processor power to handle more complex ai routines -- something that I wouldn't argue against.

Oh yeah. I'm from Canada too. This post must be irrelevant.

[Fred98]

Les,

Its appropriate that Rainbow mentioned KP

Here is a screen shot from the TAO4 scenario, from the upcoming Battles in Normandy. It shows some of those dreaded fancy shmancy graphics you hate so much

In the bottom right corner are some artillery units. You can tell that by the GRAPHIC on the counter.

Each artillery unit has a yellow or green dot at the right corner. This fancy shmancy coloured GRAPHIC shows whether or not the unit has been used this turn.

Further, towards the bottom left corner, is a smaller artillery unit. While all arty can be used in attack, only the large ones can be used in defence. So we need fancy shmancy graphics to show us the difference between the 2.

You will see some infantry units, the square on the fancy shmancy graphic has a gold colour. This meant it is an elite unit and therefore you get an extra shift on the CRT.

Further, the German player has pressed a key on the computer key board to check the possible odds available should he choose to make an attack. An artist has used fancy shmancy graphics to show the odds.

Near the top right are some skulls. This fancy shmancy graphic represents a minefield. But it means more than that. An enemy minefield slows movement. Further, if an attacker is attacking out of such a hex, it provides a –1 shift on the CRT

To the upper left corner you will se some units with stars. This is “fog of war” – taking advantage of computers to make better games. And of course an artist has used fancy shmancy graphics to paint the stars.

And finally, the ground can be frozen or thawed. From the fancy shmancy graphics it is clearly in thaw – and muddy. Mud is good for defense but bad for movement.

These fancy shmancy graphics show us many things at a glance. And require great computing power. And yet it is not so different from the board games of the past

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If I run my eye across the Korsun Pocket map, I can spot one graphic and understand in an instant what it means. Before computers I would have needed to consult half a dozen charts.

What's killed PC wargames is that there are more luddites than people like Joe 98. People confuse the amount of time it takes to make a turn with depth. Unfortunately, most of the "depth" is deciphering the interface and making repetative mouseclicks. Korsun Pocket and Highway To The Reich are shining examples of how the genre can be made great and accessible.

It's just a shame that accessibility and graphics are dirty words to most wargamers.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If I run my eye across the Korsun Pocket map, I can spot one graphic and understand in an instant what it means. Before computers I would have needed to consult half a dozen charts.

What's killed PC wargames is that there are more luddites than people like Joe 98. People confuse the amount of time it takes to make a turn with depth. Unfortunately, most of the "depth" is deciphering the interface and making repetative mouseclicks. Korsun Pocket and Highway To The Reich are shining examples of how the genre can be made great and accessible.

It's just a shame that accessibility and graphics are dirty words to most wargamers.

Amen

Games like PacWar and WiR while awesome back in the day SUCK in todays times.
The very dull graphics and piss poor interfaces just dont cut it any longer.
WiTP is an example of how changing times are going to make a much better wargame.
Its deeper, prettier and has an interface that isnt archaic and cryptic to most users.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

What the heck, I am going to read it as a compliment. I am clearly so well known, and that sort of baggage, that people seem more interested in putting down my comments, instead of trying to understand them.

I guess I will just have to take it as you guys gunning for the old pro, what else am I to think?

Joe98, that was a nice image. Pity it wasn't "fancy".

It is colourful, nicely rendered, 2d and look down perspective. And not even remotely new radical or any of what annoys me.

Now Blitzkreig is another matter. And I am sure Sudden Strike 3 will be very pretty too.
Then there is Code Name Panzers. And almost any game of their sort.

Those are "fancy". Rendered in oh so spiffy 3d and everything.

And judging from comments I am seeing, not all that tangibly credible as a serious wargamers wargame.

PacWar and WiR are indeed "old" looking. But they only suffer from interfaces that are not as efficient as the latest designs. The most efficient interface out there is the one for Strategic Command.

I have HTTR, and I rather like it. I have to say I am glad real time can be made real credible. Until HTTR I frankly didn't think anyone out there knew how.
With some luck, the designer will grace us with 5 or 6 follow on titles for other famous battles.

Korsun is a good game, only thing is, I am not big on that battle. I am planning on trying to get the Normandy one.
I hope that design generates several battles as well.

When I say "fancy", I am talking about the obsession with 3d.
With the exception of a tank sim, I have no use for 3d for the most part.

[mavraam]

More than any other type of software, high end computer games and the people willing to plunk down $50 for them are responsible for the incredibly fast development of PC's. Outside of video games there are very few applications that people use on a regular basis that come anywhere neer using up the processor speed, memory, disk access and graphics of a modern PC.

It is because of them that you can walk into Circuit City and plunk down $120 bucks and get a high end graphics card with its own 3D processor on board.

I started programming on a Commodore 64. I remember writing a joystick reader in assembly back then. Took me forever to get a black rectangle on a white screen to move smoothly when I used the stick. If you had told me then, that we would have PC's like we do today, I and everyone else would have said you were nuts. It seemed inconceivable.

The other factor, love them or hate them, was Microsoft. By monopolizing the OS market, they made it much easier for PC game developers because they effectively had only one platform to target. It doesn't really matter if Windows was the best, what mattered is that it was on 95% of the PC's in the world. That's a big target.

Add direct X which fixes many of Windows inadequacies in handling graphics cards, game controllers, sound, networking and you have a world class platform for game development.

And that allows game programmers to build bigger maps with better graphics and better AI and more units and more realistic physics models and all that adds up to better games.

And that drives better graphics cards and better processors and faster memory...

And the cycle goes on and all PC users benefit from the reduced costs and improved performance even if they never invade the beaches of Normandy with their little electronic armies!

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
"Wargame designers shoulnt care if people dont want to upgrade...its there loss,not the designers."

Well actually no that is not to brilliant a stance. Because if your audience is to many people like me, and coming from a market whic is already small, then it is also likely if you want to make graphically intense games, you might just have to forget wargames.
Actual wargames that is.

The audience isnt people like you,you are a minority just like the ALL the people on this board are...let me explain so I dont lose you and youre attention span.

Its a fact that only MAYBE 5% of wargamers even contribute to ANY forums.

For wargames to survive they are gonna have to draw in NEW players,not just try to "bring back" old players to the genre.

You take some newbie who is thinking about getting into wargames and show him the back of even a good game like KP and chances are he will say "no thanks" just from looking at the back of the box.

Show him somthing like CM,SA or some shots of some of the new 3d games coming out and chances are they will say "thats more like it".Im not talking about shooters either...strictly wargames.

Its the "guts" of the game that make it,the graphics are just a bonus.

The wargaming crowd is evolving,older players are being lost to real-life,to busy,not into it anymore...whatever.This means,like everything else in life,they need to be replaced in order for our hobby to continue to advance and thrive.

This wont happen if the games dont appeal to *gasp*...younger players.

If you look at games outside of wargames...I saw atari mentioned...I still play asteroids.Does this mean if atari ever puts out another version of this game they wont advance the graphics?

If wargame devs thought like Les,we wouldnt get anywhere.Fact is the genre would have been dead a long time ago.

Lets look at the evolution of wargames.

Table top board games.
Miniature wargaming
DOS games
2d chit pc games
2d RTS ala CC
3d RTS or WEGO

Once again...why go backwards?In order to please the minority of a minority?

Chit style games have there place but to think its the future or the only way is insane.

If the majority of wargamers had the views Les does the genre would have died off a LONG time ago.

If you chose to stay stuck in the stone age than so be it but dont stand in the way of progress.If you so chose to protest the advancement of gaming then so be it,you are only hurting yourself and the gaming community.

Poubt and watch the world go by...its youre choice.

Lead,follow or get out of the way.

Leading is out of the question,cant follow somthing he doesnt understand,so that leaves one option....get out of the way.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I can't argue that PC game demands have likely played a part in hardware development.

But, it is not absolutely certain that hardware would NOT have pressed forward in the absence of games.

Still, its a neither here not there situation with me. It's not nearly how pretty the game lucks that determines it's worth where wargames are concerned, but rather, how credible the simulation that counts.

You don't need "accuracy" in a Sonic the Hedgehog game.
It is not important if the simulation is "credible" in a game of Grand Theft Auto.
Because they are just visual amusements entirely.

It's when you tell me you are going to put me in command of the forces of a famous moment in history, that you better have your facts in order while the game is running.

Because a pretty sham, is going to be just a sham that is pretty, no matter how awesomely pretty that sham is.

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1


It's when you tell me you are going to put me in command of the forces of a famous moment in history, that you better have your facts in order while the game is running.

Because a pretty sham, is going to be just a sham that is pretty, no matter how awesomely pretty that sham is.

Ok, you are in command...this little chit represents the "Regina Rifles"...Now,do youre duty as a commander[8|]

Ok,so it goes from graphics to the actual AI.

Funny how when people dont see it his way the subject changes or its a sham.Ok,I'll bite.

Thats were technology comes in.

In order to have a proper wargame (if its based on history and not some space deal) then you must have youre facts in order as well as AP values,ranges,ammo,fire ratios,accuracey,ammo loads,correct number of men in each unit,correct terrain,Moral...etc etc.

You dont get this without progressing.

Everyone here is in agreement (at least I hope) that without a good AI the game sucks...no matter what...I know this first hand....trust me[8|]

The trick is getting every thing to mesh together.

If you dont try than it will never get anywhere.Kinda like putting a man on the moon...I guess one day a man will just appear on the moon?

Its a trial and error thing...not all wargames will live up to everones expectations.But without trying it becomes a lost cause as well.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Nice topic,
I will shoot some disarranged thoughts on the subject.
1) I read somewhere that because computer programmer's time is becoming more and more expensive and that hardware is becoming more and more cheap, computer programs are becoming bigger. Programmers dump piles of (sometimes unneccessary) data to process on more and more capable hardware. Optimization is not important, more capable hardware is the philosophy.
2) A clear example of the previous comes from the industry of flight simulators. Let's take two flight sims Flanker 2.5 and its follower Lock On, Modern Air Combat. The two were done by the same company. You fly an hypothetical mission in F 2.5: 50 frames per second. You fly the same mission in LOMAC: 15 frames per second. The cause: new revamped graphics in LOMAC. A quick search on the forums for LOMAC will make clear to you that the low fps is YOUR fault. Come on! You should get new flashy hardware for LOMAC (why did you believe the minimum specs posted in the box?). And (more stunningly) if you do have new flashy hardware YOU are supposed to optimize your hardware. And people go trying to clean their sinful computers out of glitches that stop LOMAC from runing as it should.
Not all flight sims are the same. IL-2 Sturmovik shines in performance when LOMAC barely stutters all the time.
Now, is there more substance in LOMAC? Something you feel like an improvement apart from the graphics? Some new planes, that's it. Besides that a boring, scripted predictable virtual battlefield as usual. Is LOMAC a significantly better representation of a conflict from fighter pilot point of view? No, defenetively not.
Was LOMAC successful? Yeah, toped the scores in reviews. Post in the forums go like this: this sim is amazing, the graphics are superb! They don't care if a barely believable mission (10 planes in the air or so) crawls in their computers.
Is all about the graphics, I am afraid. People wants them and developers respond. What is frightening is the fact that people is willing to accept more and more dull games at the expense of graphics. Developers have sensed this since a long time. A recent comment by a leader at UbiSoft made it clear to me: " we are not in the GEEK games business anymore".
3) Coming back to war games. I find sometimes very though to "read" the many variables in the battlefield. Where is my division located? Is it a good terrain to defend? Should I expect heavy losses if I leave it an extra turn in its position? That's where I welcome new graphics. Anything that makes it less though to realize what your situation is.

Edited for a missing word and other things.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ah!
An additional thought:
Nothing would please more than to see my son (now 2 years old) getting into wargames when he grows up. I make that extensive to teens and young people who are now into FPS and other genres. Well, without some attractive graphics, the genre will never atract them.

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ah!
An additional thought:
Nothing would please more than to see my son (now 2 years old) getting into wargames when he grows up. I make that extensive to teens and young people who are now into FPS and other genres. Well, without some attractive graphics, the genre will never atract them.

My son is 13 soon to be 14.

He has tried KP and HTTR and it was a no-go.

CC....yea.

Being how new wargamers or would be new gamers are younger and are USED to more bells and whistles means that dont be suprised if bells and whistles become the norm.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi riverbravo!
Nice to hear from you!
I have not doubts that, as he grows, he will be into those two. He is in the right path! He has seen the light!
Joke aside, do you two guys H2H in CC?