Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

This game has no editor that allows users to modify it

Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail.

no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game?

On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list.

And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

warspite1

Well we each like games for different reasons and have different requirements. As per my post, my comment was based on the game design and why I believe they've 'done it best' but would respond as follows:

This game has no editor that allows users to modify it

This seems to be important to many gamers (no idea of the percentage) but certainly not to everyone. I have made use of a small, aesthetic, mod of the original game (Counter colour for the CW, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese) but could easily live without it. I know others have edited certain aspects but no, I don't believe there is a comprehensive editing ability. But World In Flames shouldn't need editing. It is based on a hugely successful board game and just coding the rules - designed for the world of cardboard and not pixels - has been an enormous challenge. If editing games is a must, then I can understand why this would be a no no. For me, I have no ability to edit and, for a game like this, I don't think its necessary so lack of an editor has zero impact for me.

Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail.

I can't see having an editor was a specific requirement laid out by the OP. It was a question "which wargame has done it best"? This game is at the 'strategy end of the spectrum' but regardless, I think its the best wargame ever. It seeks to allow players to play out World War II and it is, by some margin, the best game to do this.

no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game?

This could set in train the old argument about an AI and its value so won't go down that route. I think the game would be difficult to add a meaningful AI (although the programmer begs to differ). If correct, it would be good to have one - if only to boost sales - but I think human vs human is the best way to play games so again, for me personally, I don't have an issue.

On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list.

Again this is a personal thing but size and complexity shouldn't disqualify a game from such a list - the game either works for a player or it doesn't. WITP-AE is a monster but that has a large following and many players of that will have it as no.1. World In Flames the same. There are plenty of smaller games that I've really enjoyed, really got my money's worth out of - but I know I will never go back to them. WIF however stands the test of time for me and I keep returning to it. It's replayability (added to its sheer fun factor) means it never gets old.

And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs?

I don't know which big bugs you refer to. The game is playable, but yes bugs remain and it remains imperfect - although as you say - sadly that is not something unique to WIF and is an all too common issue with computer wargames.

come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice.

I don't see you ragging on Steel Panthers

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice.

Yes sir, for sure. I'm not against peoples choices, and certainly a thread like this will have many. It's that when people point out what they think is the game that has 'done it best' is one that obviously doesn't, I'm throwing in a quick counter view so that others who aren't aware become better informed. Folks will nominate their passionate choices, but you can't dispute the facts that I post. One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way. However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements.

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way.

However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: wodin

warspite1
Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: wodin

warspite1
Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice.

And to clarify what I said, it was in the context of my original post here, concerning the state of games in general. I was not commenting on anyone's opinion, I was pointing out how my opinion was supported. For example, a game that is 'playable' is considerd by someone to be the best ever. This shows were we are.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: KingHart

My choice:

Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: KingHart

My choice:

Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.