There's nothing wrong with the graphics in HPS or the BG series of games and anyone who has issues with the graphics in these two series of games just has graphicsbuttitus. They don't care about the game all they care about is how does it look. These are your total world yahoos and that's what they should go back and play with its sorry gameplay and AI. I'd rather have a game that is good in overall gameplay with poor or average graphics than one with great graphics and nothing else. I mean look at the graphics of that new game AT, it's nothing state of the are for sure, but, just look at the fanfare about it. Which proves it's better to have a better game and just average graphics.
--I have been playing wargames for 45 years, since the AH board games from the early 1960s.
--For me, the most important things in a game are, in descending order, from most important to least important: (a) subject matter; (b) historical plausbility; (c) depth; (d) "production values" (graphics, sound, music); (e) solitaire suitability, hence strength of AI.
--I don't play Medieval Total War, Age of Empires, etc. and others of their ilk. I wouldn't even think of playing a 3D shooter or RPG.
--When I play BGS and HPS, I mostly do it in 2D. I think the HPS 2D graphics are top-notch.
--From time to time, on occasion to clarify some game play point (e.g., to gain a better understanding of the terrain) and at other times just for the enjoyment of it, I will switch to 3D.
Why is your thinking so binary, so either/or? Why must their be a tradeoff between (a) good gameplay and (b) good graphics? Why can't we expect to have the best of both (indeed all) worlds?
If you want to see a game that has it all, check out AGEOD's American Civil War: unparalleled historical plausibility and depth of game play and truly beautiful "counters" and maps. They offer it all. More power to them!
IMO, what helped (not exclusively; it added to the total experience) make SPI games so great was the work of Redmond Simonsen, a true graphics design genius. His games were beautiful. Games from the pre-Simonsen era to the Simonsen era were like night and day. My wargame playing brother I both agreed: Sometimes we would stretch out our game play (each at his own residence, especially when playing solitaire), leaving some of the monster games like Terrible Swift Sword up for days, weeks, and even months at a time because they were so gorgeous to look at--akin to performance art.
This is a good deal to those that don't already own the BG series or even those that do and don't like the hassle of having to put everything together to get them to work on XP.
--I already own most of the BGS series, although for some reason over the years I lost Gettysburg and Waterloo, and I never purchased Age of Sail.
--I intend to purchase the rereleased BGS, both Civil War and Napoleonics, because (a) I want those lost titles, (b) I want to be able to play them on my faster XP systems (my BGS games are installed on an old Win ME system here), (c) I don't want the hassle of having to patch the old games ever again, (d) I want to support Matrix, (e) I want to support the genres.
--So far, I have three titles in the HPS Civil War Series (Vicksburg, Shiloh, Chicamauga--I have a special fondness for the war in the west; I have other HPS games besides), and I intend to get them all eventually. I will also purchase the entire HPS Napoleonics lineup sooner or later. What tips the balance in HPS favor, what helps get me over my distaste for their poor 3D graphics (just part of the total equation!) is that there are user-modded 3D graphics fixes available.
In sum, I am no "total war yahoo" and I don't think I have "graphicsbuttitus" What's the source of your either/or, two-dimension thinking? Why can't we hope to appreciate these games in all of their dimensions, on all levels? And at least expect, if not demand, high production values across the board from the game designers?
(And does HPS not see that there is a significant, vocal minority of players--would-be but maybe lost customers--for whom good 3D graphics is a significant consideration (just one of many)? That they would increase their game sales if they, HPS, would just try harder in this one area?)
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
