Matrix Games Forums

..not enough opponents, time etc? There are hundreds of wargames to choose from both board & computer and in some cases people are demanding more, but that begs the question; should they? Is it better to pick just a few very appealing systems and focus exclusively on those dynamics and potentials for a select few genre's rather than bouncing from trend to trend that certain levels of players choose? I could spend the rest of my life on less than a dozen games that I already have possessed for years and not be bored. Opinions appreciated.

I have purchased many games over the years and really only play maybe 1-2 on a regular basis

Depends on the game some have very little replayability or only so much any way.

In the guitar world when you really want a guitar you are referred to as having GAS. Guitar Aquisition Syndrome.

I suppose you could call the continuous collecting of games GAS as well. Game Aquisition Syndrome.

Like many people I have many games but only play a few. I don't regret the games I have bought as they enabled me to choose the very few I really like and actually play.

In the past few years there are very few games I have purchased. There are a number of games that are released and are clearly unfinished. Many are also great to start but are not supported properly. This also makes me quite careful about what I buy.

Quantity and quality rarely happen simultaneously.

Not to be flippant but, NO there are not too many games.

I don't think there's too many game. There is definitely too many acronyms for games though.

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I don't think there's too many game. There is definitely too many acronyms for games though.

[:D]Good point.[;)]

too many applies to same games re hashed maybe, or those who are almost the same, so yes agree with the too many part, except for good ones, there aren't many of those, and tbh and don't think there ever will be to many great or good games or classic ones either...

most seem to be just quick made, then move on to the next one before someone else beats you to the same old rubbish, and there's steam green light for you in a few words...

Yes there are

When I was 20 I didn't have the troubles I have now. It wasn't possible to have the troubles I have now.

There are too many games even if you limit it to just board games

But there are definitely too many computer wargames now.

Scroll down the list of games, have you played them all? What are the chances you have even heard of them all? I'll bet you will be surprised to see some of them. You likely will wonder where some of them even came from.

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

..not enough opponents, time etc? There are hundreds of wargames to choose from both board & computer and in some cases people are demanding more, but that begs the question; should they? Is it better to pick just a few very appealing systems and focus exclusively on those dynamics and potentials for a select few genre's rather than bouncing from trend to trend that certain levels of players choose? I could spend the rest of my life on less than a dozen games that I already have possessed for years and not be bored. Opinions appreciated.

Warspite1

I suspect the simple answer is no. If there were then people would stop buying which would mean the likes of Matrix would go out of business.

I suspect many war gamers are still waiting for THAT game - the one that they have always wanted and can devote time to. Then when they have found it, they play it to death and then move on to the next ONE. in between times they buy a load of stuff that never quite fits the bill, or never even gets played.

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I don't think there's too many game. There is definitely too many acronyms for games though.

There are definitely too many acronyms for games [:@], I generally type the full name of the game. A lot of people that read a message or article about games or gaming and start seeing acronyms for the games or other information will stop reading and move on...if you want to get your point across, type in the full name! [:)]

As far as "Are there too many games", I say absolutely not! The old saying "variety is the spice of life" applies to gaming also. All the games that I have played, I always learn something new or different about games or gaming. If you think there are too many games...then don't buy or play them, that's OK, I understand. Please don't whine that there are too many games [8|], it gets real old.

Happy Gaming Everyone!
Patrick

I have to answer no to this question to. There are a great many subjects, as yet untouched, or hardly touched, by PC Wargames. When that is no longer the case, then there will be different scales, tactical, operational for example, and a few designers individual takes on the subject. Once all that is done, the answer will be yes. Currently, we are not even close.

The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The only time you have too many games is when you can't play any of them.

The game market market provides a wide variety of games that have to appeal to different types of players. As we know, the games range from simple to complex and from the ancient world to the scifi universe. That shows a well developed market place with plenty of choices. Yay capitalism and free choice. I don't expect to play them all but am happy I have a choice.

No, and there aren't too many flavours of ice cream either,...[:)]

I believe original poster is frustrated that one given game doesn't have enough players for multiplayer. Particularly older games that didn't sell well. So if Matrix's WW2 hex games were limited to TOAW3, Panzer Corps, Gary Grigsby's monster games (WitP & sequels), and SPWAW, then those games would have much more multiplayer base and much more official scenarios and (mega) campaigns than what they have now with abundance of other titles (Korsun Pocket, Unity of Command...) that seem to be just some variation or another. If Panzer Corps and Allied Corps were in one package instead spreading multiplayer base across 2 different games...

I believe original poster is frustrated that one given game doesn't have enough players for multiplayer. Particularly older games that didn't sell well. So if Matrix's WW2 hex games were limited to TOAW3, Panzer Corps, Gary Grigsby's monster games (WitP & sequels), and SPWAW, then those games would have much more multiplayer base and much more official scenarios and (mega) campaigns than what they have now with abundance of other titles (Korsun Pocket, Unity of Command...) that seem to be just some variation or another. If Panzer Corps and Allied Corps were in one package instead spreading multiplayer base across 2 different games...

Actually the time factor is what is most pressing. I dont have enough time (translates as money) to coordinate and devote to the range of games that I so earnestly crave to play. Theres about a dozen campaigns I would like to run but simply dont have enough time and I fear that by the time I do, the most worthy opponents will have already passed into the Moebius Tubes of the Multiverse. [:(][:@]

No, and there aren't too many flavours of ice cream either,...

Yes there is. I only need chocolate. [:'(]

Though there are loads of games out there I find very few will stay on my hard drive for long..infact it's a select few so for me even though there are loads of games out only a few really do it for me in the end.

J

I find that there is not to many games, just not enough time to play with 45-50hr work week and family life. I end up buying way more games than I can play, just as many others here.

I find that there is not to many games, just not enough time to play with 45-50hr work week and family life. I end up buying way more games than I can play, just as many others here.

Good point. Is there a solution to this dilemma? [:D]