Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself?

[KG Erwin]

The question I'm posing is, are the minimum PC requirements of new titles pushing you away? Is the PC wargame genre advancing itself into extinction? This is an important question, as the best new games require top-notch PCs. Do you really want to buy a new PC just to play a game? SPWaW can be played on most older PCs. Combat Leader and Close Assault will require higher-end machines. Is this the problem? Should new wargames retro-fit to our obsolete PCs, or should the gamers cough up the cash to upgrade?

[Makoto]

hmm I paid two large for a new computer last September, I don't think wargames will come up to my system's specs for at least a few years

[Fred98]

Only the shoot-em ups require massive new computing power. The wargame does not.

The 2 games you mention will not be released for a long long time, by that time you will probably upgrade anyhow.

[Lars Remmen]

I can easily understand how a game such as CA can require huge ressources. Take 100 units on each side. The computer must continually calculate position, LOS, which units in LOS are spotted, how artillery and small arms fire affects morale, casualties, render graphics, allow for scrolling around the game, sound and much, much more.

CL on the other hand... I can't really figure out why it has so massive hardware requirements as it is much more liniar in the wa many things are handled. Perhaps it is a case of 'covering ones behind' so they'll avoid screaming and shouting about 'promises' that the game could run on a 286 with 2mb of RAM.

Regads,

Lars

[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.

[Hertston]

It's much less of a problem than with virtually every other genre (where folks have just learned to live with it). The only wargame I have that remotely challenges the specs of my two year old PC is PoA 2, which is something of a special case.

I havn't been following either of those games very closely, but why the heck does Combat Leader need a high spec rig ?! I'm probably being very unfair, but it just looked like an improved Steel Panthers to me.

[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.

[Pippin]

Well some interesting points i'll chuck in here. Many years ago when Hasbro released their computer adaptation of Axis&Allies, me and some friends were somewhat dumbfounded as to why on earth it was requiring such high end specs when it is just a simple 2D based sprite game. Well, the answere could be seen, in the repetitive and large movies which play during startup and during in-game. Unfortunately, these really did server almots no purpose and got boring very FAST. Not to mention they helped contribute to bugs (timing issues) for online play so were always set to OFF. To sume things up, the specs were so overblown for something so useless. But, alas, that is the way hasbro did business when they owned the electronics dept. Spice the game up with lots of over-rated candy, and display it on a box.

On the other hand, I miss that TOAW. Bought it damn cheap! 12$ CAN because the 3D shooter kids runing the EB store thought it was an OLD game due to the 2D form and took 50$ off the box by accident one day! I wonder if the owner ever did catch that mistake?

Anyhow, even on my old clunky & slow computer I could get that TOAW to run. Was not too bad, it had a somewhat fake 3D icon view and other little elements to spice things up. Unfortuntaly, as fate would have it, newer versions of DirectX started to give it serious problems (install blocking). Then later with newer versions of windows above 95, you run into problem of the OS claiming it is a non windows compatible CD! Non win compatible CD, great! Bill Gates must feel proud.


In any case, I somewhat used to look down on those 3D shooters, but I admit I do play em time to time. Though I somewhat have no choice in the matter as it IS my job at this time. But I will tell you one thing, I will continue to be on the lookout for some good turn based style games. I feel somewhat saddened that when I walk into the EB stores now, all the racks of SSI and Talonsoft wargames are long gone, replaced by ugly looking 3D shooters....

But, what can you do. Perhaps it's a sign of me getting old, not sure.

[Rainbow7]

I own a laptop without a dedicated video card. I use my computer for my work. It can't handle, I would guess, 85% of the games I see on shelves these days. Do I care? No. Hell, my main criterion is that the game can be minimized while I work on other things (hardly a description of the common gamer). It's the companies that make turn-based strategy games that have to cater to their crowd (not the other way around!). My guess is that we tend to be older, stay with the games longer, and definitely don't have "nVidia Super-cooled Stealth Millenium 9900+ whatever" video cards. I won't follow a game company that tries to force me into upgrading my system. Can't afford it. Don't want to. But I do support Matrix Games and its developers.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

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

There is no "unwritten" rule about anything.

This myth that the graphics are "crappy" is actually funny.
Don't like the graphics? fine, go play something else.

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

I have had buddies hand me free copies of several fancy schmancy graphically cute spiffy nifty 3d real time games in recent years. And you know something, even though they absolutely had to have those games, enough that they absolutely had to go online and download them, they are never found playing those games a month after they got them.

What does that tell you about fancy schmancy spiffy nifty graphics?

It tells me they don't do squat to make the game sufficiently good to be worth playing long enough to be worth having even if free.

Meanwhile, I am happy to announce, I am still enjoying playing Strategic Command, in spite of the incredibly dull boring graphics, because it is actually a good wargame.

The design is sound, the game is solid. Nothing stopping anyone from shamelessly copying Hubert Cater's sterlingly good design and making it into a new setting of course.

"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.

"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."

Actually you have that backwards. Making pretty graphics is dumbing the game down. We grognards are the smart ones remember. We're the ones used to reading extremely complex manuals eh. I'm not the one with the attention span difficulties.

[Sarge]

My game PC cost 2500+ I have had countless hours of gaming bliss in the last year. Say I play 30 min. a day (give or take a half hour) that = around $ 6.90 a day for the first year. And I can play any game that will come out for the next year or two (do the math). You just can get that kind of entertinment for the buck ANYWHERE.

[gts2096]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

My game PC cost 2500+ I have had countless hours of gaming bliss in the last year. Say I play 30 min. a day (give or take a half hour) that = around $ 6.90 a day for the first year. And I can play any game that will come out for the next year or two (do the math). You just can get that kind of entertinment for the buck ANYWHERE.

I second that Sarge. Lets take it a step futher. 6.90 x 5 days a week= 34.5. And the wife can't understand why I'm not on a bowling league or softball team. It's cheaper and the beer's are whithin arms reach.......[:D]

[mjk428]

I don't recall ever upgrading/replacing a computer because of a wargame. I do recall being pleased that the computer was able to process turns on a few wargames much faster after upgrading. Of course, that occasionally meant that the old wargame needed tweaking to run on a new OS.

Generally, though I think Riverbravo has a good point. Is it a coincidence that the best selling games tend to be games that utilize the latest computing power, especially graphically? I think if wargame makers continually produce games that can be run on 5+ year old technology, they're not going to be getting many new customers. Unfortunately the older customers tend to stop playing altogether or in our cases will eventually die.

I just don't see why anyone should be concerned about wargames pushing the technology envelope. I bought an off the shelf Compaq a few months ago for $500 to use strictly as an internet computer. It will easily play any wargame I currently have. (Athlon 3000XP, 512 MB, 160 GB HD, Windows XP - plus I installed an old Geforce2 GTS 32MB I had left over from another computer) I don't know what the specs are on the games mentioned that haven't been released yet. Should they run on this machine reasonably well?

[Drex]

I think wargames should attempt to "be the best they can be" if that requires new machines every so often then so be it. The genre has to keep growing or die.

[Fallschirmjager]

I have never had a wargame to push the limits of any computer I have owned.
Even the CM series on the largest maps have not come close to pushing my computer.

I havnt seen the specs for either CL or CA.

If you enjoy wargaming, there really is no excuse not to keep your machine upgraded. Any hobby takes infusions of cash to keep up with. And upgrading your computer isnt nearly as expensive as it is made out to be. Especialy for wargames who I have found to always have the lowest system requirments of any game that I buy.
Wargames have to keep moving forward in order to be fun and sell copies. I think they move forward at a pace that 95% of people can keep up with.
Those who cant are either special circumstances who are strapped for money or those who think wargames should be just like the apple 2 days.
The first group I have sympathy for, the second group needs to find a new hobby.

In short I have yet to see a wargame that has unreasonable system requirments.

[junk2drive]

chess isn't checkers with fancy graphics. and chess plays the same whether the pieces are plastic or ebony and ivory.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

chess isn't checkers with fancy graphics. and chess plays the same whether the pieces are plastic or ebony and ivory.

Yes, but who would you rather play chess with:

A stupid smelly person that looks like a cast member from Deliverance or a highly intelligent supermodel?

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

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.

I'd agree with much of that, but there are other issues. It's the "bells and whistles" that cost, and wargames are very much a niche market. The standard of graphics you may see in other games may not be possible, not so much to pander to those who won't upgrade, but because the development time and costs are enormous - hardcore wargames (possibly the CM franchise excepted) just don't generate the kind of sales that can get that money back.

We may well as consumers have to make a concious decision on what we want development money spent, good gameplay, features and AI or graphics. I'm not denying that in many cases good graphics can really improve gameplay and are NOT just eye candy, but maybe hardcore wargamers will just have to live without them.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

"highly intelligent supermodel"

And now for other famous stupid oxymorons.

Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp

I bought my computer to do work on, that it can play games is handy, not required.
I only "upgrade" when the part breaks down.

Designed obselence, what a wonderful phrase. Sort of says "sucker" but without sounding rude.

Hey let's design a game, but we'll design in new features just so the customer has to buy entirely new hardware if they want to play it. Then we'll explain to them, these new features are actually enhancements which will ensure their game is better than it might otherwise have been.

Come on, we all know they don't want a game that doesn't require an upgrade. That would be to easy. Besides, think of the repercussions. If we prove we can make a decent game without bells and whistles, they will expect us to finally get around to actually making AIs smart.

[Jane Doe]

You can find a 2 ghz pc for under 400 US, i think there is no problem with wargames' sys specs getting higher.