dinsdale, I have said it before, I will obviously need to say it again.
Sometimes my opinion is sourced by a multitude of sources that DO have the game, HAVE played the game, and if I elect to support a view point of people I know to trust, then my not having had the game, is not relevant in all cases.
It's not like driving where you can't drive without a license hehe, everyone is allowed to have an opinion or through one support another's opinion.
Gamers and reviewers put out opinions all the time after having payed and or played. It doesn't bother me to pass along the sentiments.
You speak of "danger signs". That's too opinion. Danger signs that is
My idea of a "danger sign" is everyone insisting a game has to be in stunning richly detailed real time 3d to be any good, because it is required to attract joe blow gamer who is often to dim to be capable of enjoying an old style game that is "too boring".
First off, I don't care if that just insulted joe average gamer.
Second, that just fuels the myth joe average gamer is ever going to want to become joe average wargamer.
All real time 3d has given us, is a great wealth of copy cat crud in most cases. I read the reviews eh, most real time 3d games being produced or that have been produced, feature stunning graphics and lame game play.
Korsun Pocket no real time 3d.
Highway to the Reich, no real time 3d.
Strategic Command, no real time 3d.
Uncommon Valour, no real time 3d.
War in the Pacific, no real time 3d.
Battles in Normandy, no real time 3d.
Steel Panthers, no real time 3d.
The Operational Art of War, no real time 3d
Campaign series, no real time 3d.
Panzer Campaigns, no real time 3d.
Squad battles, no real time 3d.
Civilization series, no real time 3d.
Heroes of Might and Magic series, no real tme 3d.
Close Combat has gone 3d, and a lot think it is a bad idea.
Panzer General series, the moment it went into quasi 3d they say it ruined it.
Those are all acknowledged great games that I know of (I have excluded some, because contrary to popular belief, I don't actually know everything

).
I can't think of a single game using real time and 3d, that anyone has been willing to state was a "great wargame".
Combat Mission uses 3d, but they gave it WEGO system, and I think that makes a substantial difference.
Highway to the Reich uses real time, but isn't 3d, and that makes a difference.
The only danger I see for computer wargaming, is game makers waste to much time and effort pandering to people that never wanted to be wargamers in the first place, and not enough energy delivering a great wargame in the first place.
There is a reason why people still pay top dollar for ASL on eBay when they can't buy if from MMP fast enough. It's because it is a real wargame, and has remained as such regardless of the trend in compuer wargames to imply you need to dummy down a product to make it sell.
The hobby will remain so long as it turns out games the real wargamers can respect. It will die only when it loses that respect.
And there will NEVER be a day when you can't see the jocks for the crowds of wargamers milling about.
It will never be "cool" to be a historian, as much as it is "cool" to be a quarterback. Thus, I don't expect in 10 years or 20 years, to see a massive influx of wargamers, regardless of how "cute" a wargame designer makes his product.
The inclination to study the past will remain the same among our population.
What our hobby needs is just something "fresh".
How about someone re creating the popularity of Up Front, but not necessarily that specific game, and matching it with the power to play it competitively online like a good game of poker.