Matrix Games Forums

What some of you might be forgetting or maybe don't even know, but, it was the baby boomer age that brought to life the boxed board wargaming to it's heights. It's still us that drive most of the computer market in wargaming today, we are still in our 40's and 50's and we still can make a difference in the wargaming industry both boardgame and computer wargames. Remember we come from families of large sizes like 5's and 6's, I even have an aunt that had 12 children. heh

This isn't just one or two of us here, this is on a much larger scale and these very same posts spring up in our emails, our social groups, even during our gaming moments.

This trend of graphics over gameplay has gone on for long enough. This trend of II's, III's and IV's has gone on long enough, this trend of "cloning" the same idea in another engine and calling it something else has gone on long enough.

Computer techie wargamers of course wouldn't understand, you have your "eyes" glued to the eyecandy and technology and are missing the point about quality gameplay with a more than decent AI opponent and a move from the "same ole repeat of the last game" into something different.

Where's the Ancients Wargames for computers? Where's the Hannibals TOAW programs? Where's the Caesar at Alesia HTTR programs? Where's the Dark Ages Battles in Normandy? Or Medieval Ages Fall of the Reich (HRE for those that don't understand this analogy). Also I'm not talking about games like the total war engine or paradox's real time follylolly games, I'm talking about the games by well known developers that know wargaming or at least I thought they did. Where's the computer version of an ancients boardgame style of play, not RTS or slow motion RTS like paradoxs follylolly games.

I could go on and on about wargames of the early time periods, but, my main point is every tom dick and harryjane wants to stick in WWII or the Civil War or Napolean at Waterloo or some futuristic mumbo jumbo like "something Assault" or the fatality of Victoria by paradox using the same engine as EU for the umpteenth time. My gawd how many games do we need on the same warfront? I could live with old style graphics, if the change in era would happen, as an old time wargamer, I certainly don't need pretty pictures or motion animation to get into a real complex operational/strategy/tactical wargame. Seems to me someone could divert that wasted money on graphics and put it to good use on gameplay and AI.

So as in the movie "Network" I'm going to shout out my window at 6am in the morning, I'm tired of it and I'm not going to take it anymore"! LOL To bad we live in the techie days of 911, I could get away with this for hours before someone would come, maybe! lol

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Trouble is, we live in a disposable concept world.

Can't sell it if they don't need it.

Which explains a lot of things.

We are trapped in a mire that preaches all the wrong lessons.

Ya I too agree, how many WWII games can you really do on the same subject.

But, company A wants to make a game, naturally they pick the biggie battles.
Company B wants to make a buck, but don't expect them to lead off with a more obscure battle. So naturally they pick the same biggie battles.
And then they try to tell you how their game is better than the other guys game.

But in the process, nothing new is really accomplished. Slight bit of learning is generated in how to use graphics, but, does anyone really think the AI you played on a game on a machine in the 80s, is any better than you are playing on a game you bought yesterday?

Aside from the game's interface making it actually "easier" to run the game, is it really any more "challenging". Did it take you any longer to outwit the program?

But to be fair, board games have this same trouble.
If I wanted to make a board game, odds are I would have to lead off with a popular event.
And I would likely find that people started copying me if I actually produced something that was any good.
But it is not 100% garanteed I or anyone else would get around to gaming out the more out of the ordinary settings.

I could list a long list of good games to base new good games off of, both board game as well as computer game.
But has anyone else ever heard the lament "oh they are just milking the customer with an old engine and new graphics".

In some cases we have done this to ourselves eh.

Would you willingly put out 50 bucks for a computer game you KNEW was based off a program that was on sale 10 years ago, if the software was more or less just re tooled slightly to work in new Windows, and had a new graphics set?
Most would get miffed at being asked for 50 bucks for an old program.

And there you have it, a major reason why a lot of "possible" great options for games have not shown up, and likely won't.

Single best board game design I hate to see not done in a modern setting is the Assault system. Probably best platoon/company level board game I ever bought. But it is so completely and categorically stuck in a hypothetical WW3 setting.
Now if the game was re released with a set of counters for the current time, and the rules maybe glanced over to make sure they were still relevant, you might have a new game, with next to no effort needed in design. Just make new counters basically.

There are no shortage of examples out there of proven game concepts for the computer. But either the company went under, or the company was bought up, and now the current owners for reasons no one will ever fathom won't release it even for sale.

Can't tell you how many times people have said they would gladly pay for Steel Panthers. But SSI owns the game, and someone owns SSI, and they won't sell it.
Go figure. Who ever owns SSI, is in my opinion a #%$#& looney.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Computer techie wargamers of course wouldn't understand, you have your "eyes" glued to the eyecandy and technology and are missing the point about quality gameplay with a more than decent AI opponent and a move from the "same ole repeat of the last game" into something different.

I've seen the light. All we need is Birth of a Nation, A Chess Set & The Bible to meet all our entertainment needs.

When will you understand that great graphics don't automatically equal poor AI & gameplay. And just because many games have not been as strong in those areas as we'd like, doesn't mean they would be better if the graphics sucked.

It really is possible to appreciate graphics and also appreciate all those things you (and most everyone else) value so highly.

Great graphics may have sold a few games in the past, but customers expect a lot more than that now. Their standards just also include graphics which for some reason a few old 'grognards' don't care about. It seems to be worn as a badge of honor.

To put it simply: I want everything you want and more.

What's really funny here is that I don't believe anyone is demanding better graphics from Matrix than they are already providing. UV looked great and WitP looks to be equally presentable. I can't wait to get my hands on it. If the gameplay is poor you can be sure I won't be placated by the pretty pictures.

So unless there is some evidence that the folks working on the graphics have the skills to program a great AI, it seems that one thing has little to do with the other. My guess is that there are plenty of graphics folks around and a lot fewer great AI programmers available to work on commercial wargames. IF the choice between the two absolutely had to be made, I would sacrifice the graphics for a better AI. I just think it's a false choice.

My problem is finding anything decent in the first place. Whatever the era.

Look at WW1 the first world war and no games for it. Thank god Matrix will put this right. As far as I can see there are plent y of games from different eras. Rome is well covered. You have games covering ancient greece and the Spartan era.

Yes certain conflicts are left out. But you are likely to find a mod somewhere for them with certian games. Wargamers arent one fro graphics and to be honest I havent seen many wargamer swho like RTS games whatever the era except the CLose Combat series and HTTR.

This isnt to say wargames should be ghastly to look at either nor should sound effects be passed over but realism and gameplay are really what counts.

A company has to look at what will sell first and foremost as that is market forces. Im sure some games could be modded to fit what you want if not now maybe in the future. But even WW2 doesnt really have that many great games out there. Infact there arent many great games full stop.

Are you talking about massive assault? Fi so I agre I just cant stand science fiction yet bought this game as I heard it was a good wargame. I just could get into it at all cos of the setting . I hate it.

Titans of Steel got me for a few days and then the setting finished me off Im afraid.

GREAT WARGAMES SHOULD LOOK DAMN GOOD TO.

Yes dont bother with 3d bull but make it look good give it some atmosphere and a feeling of the times it is set in and add qualtiy sound effects.

I really cant stand this nonesense that a wargame shouldnt look good to.

COTD looks great. So does Combat Leader. It all helps.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Computer techie wargamers of course wouldn't understand, you have your "eyes" glued to the eyecandy and technology and are missing the point about quality gameplay with a more than decent AI opponent and a move from the "same ole repeat of the last game" into something different.

I've seen the light. All we need is Birth of a Nation, A Chess Set & The Bible to meet all our entertainment needs.

When will you understand that great graphics don't automatically equal poor AI & gameplay. And just because many games have not been as strong in those areas as we'd like, doesn't mean they would be better if the graphics sucked.

It really is possible to appreciate graphics and also appreciate all those things you (and most everyone else) value so highly.

Great graphics may have sold a few games in the past, but customers expect a lot more than that now. Their standards just also include graphics which for some reason a few old 'grognards' don't care about. It seems to be worn as a badge of honor.

To put it simply: I want everything you want and more.

What's really funny here is that I don't believe anyone is demanding better graphics from Matrix than they are already providing. UV looked great and WitP looks to be equally presentable. I can't wait to get my hands on it. If the gameplay is poor you can be sure I won't be placated by the pretty pictures.

So unless there is some evidence that the folks working on the graphics have the skills to program a great AI, it seems that one thing has little to do with the other. My guess is that there are plenty of graphics folks around and a lot fewer great AI programmers available to work on commercial wargames. IF the choice between the two absolutely had to be made, I would sacrifice the graphics for a better AI. I just think it's a false choice.

Good post Ravenhood! I agree with just about all you said. And all this time I thought I was the only one around here that thought that way. Beer here too.

Whilst I disagree over the 'eye candy' comments I can see where Ravin is coming from. I'd like to see more wargames set in 'Ancient' or 'Renaissance' or 'Seven Years War' type eras. SSG are bringing out 'Battles in Normandy'. Do we really need another turn-based hex wargame covering this setting? Actually I'm looking forward to it as I haven't got any games set there but you see my point.

I agree that wargames on varied topics would be welcomed by the hardcore wargaming community. What always seems to be a limiting factor is how many games must be sold to make it economically viable.

When "Hannibal" is mentioned, there are a lot of people whose first thoughts turn to Anthony Hopkins eating people. While most people know Alexander the Great, how many would be familiar enough with the Battle of Issus or the Siege of Tyre to buy a game on the subject?

Even with more familiar wars, it would be interesting to know the sales figures for the Talonsoft Battleground games. I would be willing to bet Gettysburg well outsold Chickamauga. In the heyday of board wargaming, SPI always said that the "Three Ns" sold games (NATO, Nukes, Nazis). Other games either sold to people that bought almost every game or a niche audience. Probably the only WWI era game that was truly a big seller was Diplomacy, and it really does not deal much with true WWI topics.

Perhaps a few well done games (such as Korsun Pocket and Uncommon Valor) will garner enough critical acclaim and sales to broaden the market and then eventually games on other topics will be developed.

I don't care if it is the same setting yet again, I just want it to be differently done.

When the heck is the computer version of Up Front going to show up.

No boards, no fancy schmancy 3d, no turns, no real time.

Just a nice game that requires a good bit of thinking and some decent card playing skills.

And feels like the confusion of the battlefield.

It's all very well complaining that you don't get the games that you want - its a market driven world.

You'll get many more impulse buys if you do "Battle of the Bulge", "Gettysberg", Pacific War than if you do Alexander the great (although wait for the RTS film tie-in [>:]).

The whole problem with wargames is that the market is not big enough for the traditional sales route for computer games. Matrix have had to face this this year as have Paradox, HPS etc. But not everyone has lost the habit of producing the sexy sounding games or designing for the kiddy market.

I suspect that once the "serious" wargame comapnies have worked out how to target their advertising and operate in the specialist niche market rather than the mass market console world that the games may start to evolve into the most interesting campaigns rather than the most famous

It is of course a refrigerator and eskimo deal

A you can't sell something someone doesn't need.

and

B, they have to want it first.

But I guess it doesn't get some of us to stop asking eh.

Two card driven games are being done over at battlefront. Both look like good simple fun.

Well I've already laid my cards on the table.

My view is that the industry needs to recognise the split in the wargame market and develop appropriate game systems for each.

What is happening at present is what Ravinhood is highlighting perfectly and that is that in trying to shoehorn what every wargamers wants into a single package the result falls through the crack in the middle and satisfies neither.

What surprises me most however is that 35 years on the old animosities between the two interest groups is still there festering under the surface. I would have thought by now that the hatchett would have been well and truly buried and we could have at least have acknowledged the commonality in our interests.

Bottom line: I agree 100% fancy graphic's and 3D environments should not be imposed upon computer boardgames in the hope of attracting a wider market of wargamers. Computer boardgames are excellent at what they do and development should be focused on getting them to do it better.

Save the graphic's and 3D environments for a new and totally seperate class of computer wargame aimed at those who will be attracted to them and will appreciate the eye candy.

Just don't make them real-time.[:-]

[&:]

Didz, why not real-time?

Also, who are the 'two interest groups'?

Just asking for clarity that's all[:)]

You know what would be part of a solution to Ravins problem, a decent emulator programme for XP and/or those games to be released in a few packages. But linking from another thread, computer recreations of old-style board-wargaming is not the way forward.

Yes but you can still make computer wargames look good without going into 3d and RTS.

Look at the graphics in Korsun Pocket and COTD. I think they are superb and I really dont think the graphics of these games makes people who arent interested to go and buy them.

Good graphics good sound and excellent gameplay and AI with a lot of tactical or strategic options.

Would you willingly put out 50 bucks for a computer game you KNEW was based off a program that was on sale 10 years ago, if the software was more or less just re tooled slightly to work in new Windows, and had a new graphics set?
Most would get miffed at being asked for 50 bucks for an old program.

LOL Les that's happening quite often anyways. Sid Meier is actually redoing omg "PIRATES" with NEW GRAPHICS, oh boy I can't wait! NOT! lol Then of course Halflife 2 and Doom III are on the way also. Same game, just better GRAPHICS. A new story but the concept is the same, FPS, kill floozie.

The problem I see with games today is they are building the game around the GRAPHICS instead of the other way around. Build the game, actually build the game AI first and then build the game around it and then build the graphics around the first two. It's just backwards nowadays and has been for a long time.

The AI I have been told by some developers is the LAST thing they program into the game other than polish and tweaks and by the time they get to the AI, then they are under "time to release it" pushes from the publishers, so one ends up getting a "beautiful" sorry crappy AI game, but, if it has multiplayer then you are in luck to a degree, except for time contraints.

Personally I got into computer gaming not for "multiplayer" purposes, I got into computer gaming because I couldn't always get my friends over to play or go over to play with them with RL time contraints becoming more of a reality as we grew into adulthood. Sure, was easy when we were teenagers, gamed every weekend, but, that's not possible now with all of us with families and jobs and other wonderful stressful things in life. lol A computer game gave me an opponent on my time, could play when I wanted to play or had time to play, but, what saddens me is the computer opponent hasn't improved in 24 years. Well a few have, but, I can count them all on one hand that present a decent challenge to me.

I'm not just an individual standing on a soap box here, just read your editors comments in various gaming magazines nowadays, read some of the reviewers comments, I'm not the only one seeing that "graphics" have been pushed into our faces out the ying yang with hardly any improvements to the other parts of the game, and of course the AI is the worst for still most all of them. What's next after 3D? 4D? lol

I'm just hoping somewhere somehow someone reads this or gets the idea from the magazines and other players that this "graphics trend market" is "boringggggggggggggg" to many of us, since we aren't really getting anything NEW NEW NEW, except title and graphics and some new user interfaces, heck I'm just as happy using the keyboard as I was back in my commodore 64 or Amiga 500 days.

Heaven forbid in the next 10 to 15 years when these 13 year olds of today hit the development market, omg, I don't even really want to think about it. The 13 year olds of the 80's certainly drove with the "cheat codes" being included in just about every game, and I blame that all on GAME GENIE, something that never should have ever been put on the market. It's ruined a lot of players of today, who think if they can't use a cheat code then the game is crap! lol

Has anyone else noticed in online games this trend for "cheating and hacking" the games?
I think Counter Strike got hit the hardest next to Diablo 2 maybe. Why did "we" or whoever allow "cheating" to be taught to our youth? Cheating in computer games is just about as normal in life as sueing someone has become nowadays. LOL Whatever happened to baseball, apple pie and mom as the National Pastime?

Perhaps I'm just an ole fuddy duddy, but, my money is the same as the next persons. I spend it wiser though today than I did in my youth and maybe perhaps that is why our generation has been put aside for the frivilous spending of the youth of today that don't really know what they want in a game, as long as it has pretty graphics and cheat codes and they can frag someone online, or piss them off one or the two. lol

I cant understand cheating either.

However as far as graphics and processing power goes I think flight sims really need these advances in tech.

I for one cant wait for IL2 Battle of Britian and this game is the only one due out that I will upgrade for. As I feel it would be worth it. Far more than any FPS. God RTS and FPS do am I starting to loathe these two genres.

I'd agree that there are developers who put the cart (graphics) before the horse (gameplay) but a keen FPS-er I can say that this isn't true of some. I can't speak for HL2 or Doom 3 as I haven't played them but 'Far Cry' is an absolute scorcher of a game featuring cutting-edge graphics, a great physics engine and superb AI. Committed PC gamers are becoming quite discerning and tend to reject shoddy 'ports' from consoles ('Halo' on the PC anyone?). When 'Half-Life' came out it set a benchmark for AI, I expect HL2 to do the same whatever the graphics are like. Now that graphics are getting close to photo-realism developers will have to pay attention to the AI because if they can't make it better than a six year-old game then .....

Cheating is rife in any part of life where 'winning' or 'succeeding' is prized above all else. Look at the number of top sportsmen/women who have been caught taking drugs, even where the financial gain was minimal. At least in wargaming we don't have that kind of problem, or is that why I keep losing when I play online[:D]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
Didz, why not real-time?

Quite simply, if the game is detailed enough to warrant the title wargame it probably isn't going to be possible to complete it in an hour and if you wish to play the game against teams of human players as most wargamers do then even getting six people together in the same game for a hour is going to be difficult. This was proven with Sid Meirs Gettysburg.

Also, I have to say I don't trust designers to use real time sensibly (Lords of the Realm III for example not to mention Europa Universalis). In fact in most cases Real Time isn't real time at all its usually accelerated time and modern game designers seem to take a peverse pleasure in insisting that everything you do has to take place when the game time is running. Great for a combat simulation, crap for a wargame.

My personal preference is for WEGO movement in real time interpersed with command phases which enable orders to be issued, plans to be considered and files to be exchanged with other players. That way the game can be played PBEM and it doesn't matter if it takes two of three weeks of game play to complete.

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
Also, who are the 'two interest groups'?

Just asking for clarity that's all[:)]

Ah! well there's the rub. As I found to my cost on another thread its very difficult to talk about these two interest groups without getting drawn into a argument so I deliberately kept it vague. But seeing as you asked I shall try to explain the differences in a diplomatic way which won't get people all defensive.

Today a game is marketed as a wargame simply on the basis that its a game that depicts war. Thus for example Warhammer 40K is marketed as a wargame. But 35 years ago wargaming only occurred in two forms.

There were players who wargamed using printed boards covered with hexes and cardboard counters (Boardgamers) and there were players who wargamed using miniature figures on a table (Tabletop Wargamers) . The vast majority like myself did both, but NOT at the same time.

Both formats had their advantages and disadvantages. Board Wargames gave players the opportunity to replay entire wars in a few hours play for nothing more than the cost of the game. But tabletop games provided a much more colourful and emotional experience.

People were drawn to each format for very different reasons.

Generally the boardgamers enjoyed the higher operational level of play where they could develop grand strategies and manage entire campaigns or wars whereas tabletop gamers spent more time researching uniforms and tactic's than actually playing and were much more interested in the drama and detail of combat.

Boardgamers might complete a game within a week, Tabletop gamers might take a year.

For Boardgamers success was acheived through intellectual assessment of the options and odds and correct movement of your counters, there were techniques like 'soaking off' where counters were deliberately sacrificed to create more favourable odds elsewhere. It was all very controlled and precise. For Tabletop gamers success was acheived by assessing risks, luck, bluff, determination, boldness and sometimes sheer bloody-mindedness. Boardgamers would probably liken their game to a more complex form of chess, tabletop games whilst acknowledge chess as a form of wargame actually approached their hobby more like a sport.

So, typically those with a boardgamers interest today will be seeking computer programs that test their intellect, provide complex problems that need to be solved and model large scale conflicts normally atan operational command level.

Those who retain the old tabletop interest in wargaming want drama, they want to see accurate uniforms, accurately modelled weapons, accurate tactic's, accurate music, acurate sound effects and they want to be in the thick of the fighting along with their troops. In fact if computers had offactory peripherals they would be clamouring for accurate smells too.

So, for computer wargame designers its a problem because they are dealing with two very different interest groups which aren't really compatible. I think that given the skill you can produce a game that does one or the other really well but attempting to do both in one package is impossible.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing at the moment is a growing trend to try and do just that, or at least an attempt to find a middle ground between the two, putting just enough eye candy in a boardgame to satisfy a former tabletop gamer, or adding just enough operational complexity into a 3D battlegame to intrigue a boardgamer. But all to often the result is an unsatisfactory half-way house that is rejected by both groups.

What we are seeing on this thread is a quite justifiable objection to the addition of completely spurious graphic's into computer boardgames. I agree entirely that they aren't necessary to enjoy the game. However, an equally justifiable claim can be made to the addition of just such graphic's, only better, in games aimed at the tabletop wargamer and the exclusion of hexgrids which are an instant turn-off for this type of gamer.