Gamespy - Game of the year awards 2005

[Marc von Martial]

The annual Gamespy GOTY awards are out.

Trends We Hate - Slow Year for Some Genres, Again
http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index25.html

But at the same time Gamespy has awarded no "Wargame of the year" award for the second time in a row [8|]
Last winner was "Korsun Pocket" in 2003

[rhondabrwn]

Hmm... I can say with some pride that I don't own a single title on their PC "top 10 list" despite all of the games that I have purchased in the past year (though I may get Civ IV someday).

Thank God for Matrix and HPS!

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Hmm... I can say with some pride that I don't own a single title on their PC "top 10 list" despite all of the games that I have purchased in the past year

It depends on your tastes, I guess. IMHO its a better bunch than usual, and I'd certainly recommend SH3 and SWAT4 (my personal GotY) in particular. Havn't got Civ 4 either.. I know its supposed to be very, very good, but I still have that "don't really want to go there again" feeling.

Glad to see Dangerous Waters got a mention, too. Pity they know nothing about flightsims, though. Battle of Britain 2? Not a catagory winner maybe, but well worth a mention.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Hmm... I can say with some pride that I don't own a single title on their PC "top 10 list" ....

Hmm, I can say with pride that I own like 5 of them [;)] and fully agree with a lot of their GOTY calls.

[elmo3]

They should have just called it The Year of the Retreads!

SH 3
SWAT 4
AOE 3
COD 2
BF 2
Civ 4

Sheesh, how about some originality for a change. [8|]

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Hmm... I can say with some pride that I don't own a single title on their PC "top 10 list" ....

Hmm, I can say with pride that I own like 5 of them [;)] and fully agree with a lot of their GOTY calls.

It's just a reflection of my own lack of interest in many of those genres. I'm especially negative on "shooters" and pretty well burnt out on most RTS offerings. I also do not have the time to expend doing online games like WOW. As to CIV IV, I'm pretty well content with CIV II and my copy of CIV III is gathering dust so I'm in no hurry to get it until I can pick it up for $9.95 somewhere.

Someone called this the "year of the retreads" and I agree with that sentiment. My kids went through every version of the "Need for Speed" series, but ultimately a driving game is a driving game... it was all just enhanced chrome. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does leave me a bit cold to the "breathless" game press hype over every new release and their GOTY rankings.

And so, I again say with pride that my money goes to Matrix, HPS, and (occasionally) Paradox with an occasional moment of weakness for a new flight simulator (MS 2004 and Pacific Battles).

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

They should have just called it The Year of the Retreads!

SH 3
SWAT 4
AOE 3
COD 2
BF 2
Civ 4

Sheesh, how about some originality for a change. [8|]

Have you played SH3

[elmo3]

No. It uses Starforce so no sale for me. I heard good things about it, but will stand by my point that it is a retread even if a good one.

[Sarge]

Well I can't disagree with games we are seeing released being retreads, but that being said I think we all better get use to it. I will not go as far as saying we will never see another ground breaking game engine, but I will say as the years click by in this hobby of ours they will be far and few between.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Sarge
Well I can't disagree with games we are seeing released being retreads, but that being said I think we all better get use to it. I will not go as far as saying we will never see another ground breaking game engine, but I will say as the years click by in this hobby of ours they will be far and few between.

Part of what frustrates us is the enormous expansion of the game industry in directions that we don't want it to go. The manufacturers go where the dollars are or else they go out of business.

I have taken to restricting my definition of "this hobby of ours" to be more in line with Rhonda - without any of those moments of weakness for RTS of simulators. This way I can view all these GOTY rankings as only of mild interest, concerning a related, but different, hobby. Sort of like the current fashions on the Paris runways - "Curious what they're doing there, isn't it?" But of no immediate effect on my world.

I do hold out hope for new war game designs. SPI (circa 1970's) pushed the board game design very hard (hundred of games, a new one every other month in the magazine) but then World in Flames came out which was completely different and very successful. The potential of new war game designs using the computer haven't really been touched, in my opinion. Internet play is still young and PBEM is in its infancy.

Ya gotta be patient though. None of this programming stuff is easy.

[pasternakski]

I have been following with interest developments at Decision Games, current publishers of S&T and the Wargamer magazines, testing the waters for the possibility of either a revamping of S&T or publication of a new magazine including a computer wargame with each issue.

Decision has carried the "aide de camp" computer support for PBEM players with some apparent success, and now markets itself as a computer wargame publisher (although its first title, "Computer War in Europe," has been in "development" for some six years and still lacks an AI).

It might be interesting to see what would come of a meeting between Decision and Matrix staff ... one might want to note the impending release of Decision's rework of SPI's old "War in the Pacific" game with 9,000 counters and 24 tactical maps depicting dozens of the Pacific islands and other locations that figured heavily in the actual campaign. They have already produced a new version of "Wacht am Rhein," and my wargaming club has just voted to obtain a copy.

Someone could also stand to light a fire under Multiman Publishing, which is currently sitting on such excellent old AH/VG titles as Up Front and the "Fleet" and "GCACW" series.

I have lost track of what happened to the rights to Victory's terrific strategic level games (Civil War, Vietnam, and Korea being the best). These would be fantastic subjects for computer conversion, as well.

Many more games could be added to this list. I think that there are plenty of designs out there (not necessarily for "porting" to computer, but with fully developed game systems that would eliminate a lot of wheel re-inventing).

Instead, what are we getting? "The Harbinger Saga." I'm sure that has sold like hotcakes. "WitP without airplanes." You know the one I mean. "Starships Unwanted: Episode 3 or something."

I remember Matrix's launch motto: "Wargaming gets serious." Did it?

[TAIL GUNNER]

Instead, what are we getting? "The Harbinger Saga." I'm sure that has sold like hotcakes. "WitP without airplanes." You know the one I mean. "Starships Unwanted: Episode 3 or something."

And who can forget these other "classics"?

I of the Enema
Supremacy: Four Sales So Far

[:D]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

But at the same time Gamespy has awarded no "Wargame of the year" award for the second time in a row [8|]
Last winner was "Korsun Pocket" in 2003

They opted for a "Coaster of the year" award instead, for which Paradox's Diplomacy had the distinctive honor of receiving. Though the authors noted its probably no longer warranted, the awards are apparantley based upon the games as they were released.

Guild Wars deserves all its various awards and praises though its unfair to the real MMPORG community as the game isn't an MMPORG (But there are no other worthy winners in this category which is probably why.. EQ2 definetely should not win nor should WoW especially in both cases based upon the games at release).

Warhammer 40k deserves the best level award. It's really an excellent RTS game overall.

I disagree Civ4 should be ranked so highly.

I also feel Star Wars Battleground 2 deserved higher praise and awards than many other shooters. Its integration of space based combat along with star destroyer boarding and assault etc is brilliant and has never been done before. Also the additional of multi single player modes including the strategic maneovering mode has likewise never made a multiplayer game so much fun to play single player.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I have been following with interest developments at Decision Games, current publishers of S&T and the Wargamer magazines, testing the waters for the possibility of either a revamping of S&T or publication of a new magazine including a computer wargame with each issue.

I challenge anyone to name a single company that has put out multiple quality board wargames and multiple quality computer wargames. None come to mind. I don't know that it should even be attempted. Decision Games is a great company but a computer wargame maker they are not nor likely to ever successfully be.

Someone could also stand to light a fire under Multiman Publishing, which is currently sitting on such excellent old AH/VG titles as Up Front and the "Fleet" and "GCACW" series.

Have it on excellent authority that this will never happen. Repeat NEVER. For two reasons. One MMP has zero interest in making computer games as they dont even have the staff to put out the boardgames and they never have (We are still waiting on the remake of PanzerBlitz/PanzerLeader, UpFront, etc). They basically just do ASL stuff and limited at that. Two, and much more importantly, they do not own electronic rights to a single AH title. Atari owns them all (aside from those few that reverted back to their original developers etc) and it appears Paradox has established first dibbs on those rights from Atari. So everything from Computer ASL to Computer Amoeba Wars is likely to have a Paradox label on it and will have exactly zero to do with MMP.

I have lost track of what happened to the rights to Victory's terrific strategic level games (Civil War, Vietnam, and Korea being the best). These would be fantastic subjects for computer conversion, as well.

Atari owns them (The electronic rights anyway). Hasbro has the actual boardgame rights.

Instead, what are we getting? "The Harbinger Saga." I'm sure that has sold like hotcakes. "WitP without airplanes." You know the one I mean. "Starships Unwanted: Episode 3 or something."

I remember Matrix's launch motto: "Wargaming gets serious." Did it?

There is nothing wrong with any of those games. The only thing wrong is that more wargames aren't being released by Matrix as well. And on that point I agree. For that matter there aren't enough new computer wargames period being made by anyone, much less released. But it does often take more time and effort to make a historically accurate wargame than just a totally ficticious game. That is why boardgame ports are so attractive. You also don't need to add the time to actually come up with valid game mechanics or necessarily spend as much time on game balance or half a dozen other things. No doubt this is one of many reasons why Paradox is focusing on spitting out AH titles now.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I have lost track of what happened to the rights to Victory's terrific strategic level games (Civil War, Vietnam, and Korea being the best). These would be fantastic subjects for computer conversion, as well.

Many more games could be added to this list. I think that there are plenty of designs out there (not necessarily for "porting" to computer, but with fully developed game systems that would eliminate a lot of wheel re-inventing).

Instead, what are we getting? "The Harbinger Saga." I'm sure that has sold like hotcakes. "WitP without airplanes." You know the one I mean. "Starships Unwanted: Episode 3 or something."

I remember Matrix's launch motto: "Wargaming gets serious." Did it?

And who exactly is supposed to be developing all these wargames? We are not getting Star Chamber (a superb strategy game, BTW) "instead"; its already been around two years. As with all of Matrix's non-wargame output, all they are doing is publishing games developed by other people. Games like SC, Supremacy and I of the Enemy are all very good (Matrix don't pick up rubbish) and deserve the wider exposure someone like Matrix can give them - not even the most whinging grog suffers in the process, so what's your beef?

ORIGINAL: Veldor

The only thing wrong is that more wargames aren't being released by Matrix as well. And on that point I agree. For that matter there aren't enough new computer wargames period being made by anyone, much less released.

I don't have the numbers to hand, but I would guess that if you include Matrix (this year? Tin Soldiers: Caesar, Battles in Italy, Flashpoint Germany, War Plan Orange), HPS, and Shrapnel the numbers of computer wargames being released are higher than ever before. There are others, too, like Madminute, and Battlefront were just in between years with two huge releases due in 2006.

Why would developers make re-hashes of old board games (isn't that what Vassel is supposed all about?) rather than new and innovative titles like the Combat Mission Games, WitP and HttR?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
I don't have the numbers to hand, but I would guess that if you include Matrix (this year? Tin Soldiers: Caesar, Battles in Italy, Flashpoint Germany, War Plan Orange),

Don't forget Crown of Glory, Gates of Troy, Lock 'n Load: Band of Heroes and Gary Grigsby's World At War. Anyone who thinks we're not releasing wargames isn't paying attention or is willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I should also add that other projects are also moving along and getting closer to release. I honestly don't understand the griping over some of the Sci-Fi releases. Those of you that don't like Sci-Fi, don't buy them! We do and we also think some of them are wargames in disguise and great games as well. I can say this for certain - none of the Sci-Fi releases delayed any of our historical wargames. In fact, in some cases they helped fund more historical wargames.

Regards,

- Erik

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Veldor

The only thing wrong is that more wargames aren't being released by Matrix as well. And on that point I agree. For that matter there aren't enough new computer wargames period being made by anyone, much less released.

I don't have the numbers to hand, but I would guess that if you include Matrix (this year? Tin Soldiers: Caesar, Battles in Italy, Flashpoint Germany, War Plan Orange), HPS, and Shrapnel the numbers of computer wargames being released are higher than ever before. There are others, too, like Madminute, and Battlefront were just in between years with two huge releases due in 2006.

Let me clarify then. For those that can't list every Matrix release by name and release date, it would certainly seem as if the Matrix release rate for wargame vs non-wargame is pretty close to 50/50. Less wargames get made then other games so as long as a company is going to publish non-wargames there are going to be lots more great games to pick from. They are generally next to done already when picked up as compared to many wargame titles that we are still sitting around and waiting for. I am not spending much effort in articulating this feeling perfectly, but I do personally understand where the thoughts of many come from in this regard and, wrong as they certainly are, don't feel much differently myself.

But I personally don't blame Matrix for that. I don't see anything they could do differently besides give hordes of cash to would-be developers who might wish to make wargames. And I don't really even think that would help much, if at all, because wargame development has become (or always been) more of a labor of love anyway then money. One day Gary Grigsby and company will "retire" and the already small group of wargame developers will be even smaller. There is little to motivate new developers/programmers. We mostly see the same names over and over again that we have for multiple decades now. And while that has its pluses it doesn't change the fact that there just aren't enough DIFFERENT people making wargames. And if Matrix is going to be a wargame publisher, then they can't publish wargames if no one is making them.

So that is what I am angry about. MORE people should be making wargames thus MATRIX should be publishing more wargames.

Period.

Why would developers make re-hashes of old board games (isn't that what Vassel is supposed all about?) rather than new and innovative titles like the Combat Mission Games, WitP and HttR?

Because it can very well take less time (perhaps even a lot less) and have a higher chance for success. You also don't have to market it as much since much of the potential buying audience is already at least vaguely familiar with what kind of game it is. Vassel doesn't give you any enforced game mechanics or A.I. and thats just the beginning of issues there. One also shouldn't have to worry what Computer Squad Leader or Computer World in Flames might play like. Many already know the rules and what to expect from the gameplay itself. Also, though you may not agree, to me a boardgame port forces a certain "simplicity" on the game and rules that new more innovative games like WiTP or even HTTR don't have to adhere too. Even some of the most complex boardgames have simpler rules, or at the very least simpler game mechanics, then many newer more innovative titles. Thats not to say more complexity isn't better, but with the freedom in that regard that computers offer, too often the added detail really adds little of value to the gameplay itself or otherwise detracts from what in a boardgame world might have originally been a much better game. Perhaps boardgame ports are just more familiar feeling for the lazy ones among us. I'm not sure but on nastalgic value alone I will pay $49.99 for Paradox's Squad Leader and whatever Matrix decides to charge for games like EiA and CWiF. Many such as I will blindly buy titles like these, whereas my dollar has to be earned with substantially more marketing effort in comparison to get me to buy, say CoTA.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Veldor

Why would developers make re-hashes of old board games (isn't that what Vassel is supposed all about?) rather than new and innovative titles like the Combat Mission Games, WitP and HttR?

Because it can very well take less time (perhaps even a lot less) and have a higher chance for success. You also don't have to market it as much since much of the potential buying audience is already at least vaguely familiar with what kind of game it is. Vassel doesn't give you any enforced game mechanics or A.I. and thats just the beginning of issues there. One also shouldn't have to worry what Computer Squad Leader or Computer World in Flames might play like. Many already know the rules and what to expect from the gameplay itself. Also, though you may not agree, to me a boardgame port forces a certain "simplicity" on the game and rules that new more innovative games like WiTP or even HTTR don't have to adhere too. Even some of the most complex boardgames have simpler rules, or at the very least simpler game mechanics, then many newer more innovative titles. Thats not to say more complexity isn't better, but with the freedom in that regard that computers offer, too often the added detail really adds little of value to the gameplay itself or otherwise detracts from what in a boardgame world might have originally been a much better game. Perhaps boardgame ports are just more familiar feeling for the lazy ones among us. I'm not sure but on nastalgic value alone I will pay $49.99 for Paradox's Squad Leader and whatever Matrix decides to charge for games like EiA and CWiF. Many such as I will blindly buy titles like these, whereas my dollar has to be earned with substantially more marketing effort in comparison to get me to buy, say CoTA.

I believe I can offer some insight here, based on writing code for World in Flames. I also own and have played over a hundred different boardgames (war games almost exclusively) and programmed a couple of other computer games starting from a blank sheet of paper. I have a strong prefrence for Napoleonics, American Civil War, and WW II titles.

Pluses and Minuses

The board games offer proven game designs. ++++

However, some of the board games were dogs because of play imbalance, limited alternative tactics/strategies available, or any of a host of other imperfections. - -

Obtaining copyrights is very difficult. - - - -

The graphics tend to be very good. And current computer technology makes porting them "as is" visually feasible. ++

The rules are vague and rely on the players making over the board accommodations when ambiguities arise. One of the classic tactics when losing is to examine the rule book in minute detail to try and discover some aspect of the game that is being played incorrectly, so the game has to be started over. Porting ambiguous (or even contradictory) rules is a nightmare. - - - -

Interaction between players over the board is different than interaction over the Internet or PBEM. As the programmer you have to be very imaginative to create an effective computer game interface that handles the nuances well. Most of the time the nuances either become awkward or bland, are lost, or, even worst, bizzarre deformities. - - -
==========================

I think porting some of the better titles worth considering. But if you look at the history of success/failure doing this, I suspect (no facts have been used for the basis of this sentence) the record isn't very good.

[Captain Cruft]

I have a lot of admiration for "Shannon" in the attempt to port a rather large and complex board game (WiF) to the computer. The two things are very different beasts and that is probably why you don't see this happen more often.

--
With regard to Matrix or any other publisher releasing "non-wargames": Why is this is a problem? If you don't like it don't buy it. They're just trying to run a business under (IMHO) very difficult conditions. The main one of which is that the customers are not prepared to pay an economic cost for the niche products that they want. This is precisely why the big computer game publishers continue to churn out the same old stuff time and time again.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Why would developers make re-hashes of old board games (isn't that what Vassel is supposed all about?) rather than new and innovative titles like the Combat Mission Games, WitP and HttR?

Well said Hertston, could not agree more. [;)]

When I get the bug to play ASL I just fire up Vassel and am perfectly happy with that. Why shell out for a ported title that most likely will only have a vague resemblance of the original game. No thanks I want developers to start earning my business, with out the titles Hertston has mentioned above I find it hard to believe I would still have any inetrest in this hobby and would have long since gone back to board/miniatures games.