On track?

[Joe 98]

I am a wargamer.

I too believe in game-play over graphics.

But with recent technology we should not need to choose one over the other.

If graphics were not important we would still have monitors with a black background and green text.

The point about graphics (and sounds) is immersion.

Immersion is the most important thing about a wargame. If you can be immersed in a game you can be hooked and then we get a good game.

But the game is now 3 years over due. The graphics are circa 1996. They are obsolete. This means that only die-hard fans will buy it. There will not be a sequel.

Wargaming is a small hobby. My view is that to increase sales there needs to be an option to use whiz-bang graphics. This will attract the “maybe” wargamers and increase sales. And we might turn them into proper wargamers.

The one genre missing in wargaming, is where you have one squad and you control each man in that squad throughout a campaign. I played 2 board games- Patrol and Ambush. Patrol in particular was a good game and I hoped that 82nd Airborne would be the PC replacement.

I no longer like hexes. 101st Airborne had one innovation – points. There is a grid and men move from one point to another. This is much superior to hexes.

The other feature it needs is for players to play H2H in continous time or by PBEM in a turn based game.

As for Paul’s comment, it is clear that Shrapnel have put the game on hold to sell more profitable games – unfortunately its not a case of “taking the time to get the balance right”.

As for Tim’s comment, it seems there is still a lot of work to do. To complete it all in a month and get it released a month later – perhaps the November birthday is realistic.

I however will await the demo and then wait for the first patch of the game before putting any money up.

[ June 10, 2003, 02:39: Message edited by: Joe 98 ]

[Tbone3336]

Well I just preordered Combat Command Gold Edition and I look forward to 82nd as I never got to play 101st except finding the demo recently somewhere. I will be purchasing 82nd when available. I do agree that games that are solid and have good graphics are better that way, I feel as long as the game is enjoyable and fun and stimulating I can look past the graphics and play the games over and over. Like Final Fantasy on the PS2, Great game, great graphics, however once I finished the game I never went back to it because of the graphics or gameplay. Solid gameplay minus great graphics will bring me back over and over. Great graphics and great gameplay will do the same. Great graphics minus great gameplay and in the trash bin it goes.

[MIGMaster]

Joe 98

Immersion comes from gameplay not graphics. Look at Tornado for instance - I would hazard a guess to say that most would consider the graphics to be "obsolete", but it remains one of the greatest sims out there, due to campaign mechanics and the depth of gameplay. The same could be said of the Harpoon series or other wargames. To be blunt, the sound and graphics in Harpoon ( pick a Version ) suck ! But gameplay is what keeps us gearheads drooling.

As far as the rest of your comments go they are based on your opinion and you have every right to espouse those views, but others who are also wargamers may not care about the size of the community. They care about the quality of the games (read gameplay), thus high-end graphics and massive sales are not a priority - hence the existence of Shrapnel Games to begin with.

I'll take BCT or ATF over GI Combat any day - and let there be no doubt - the latter is much better looking, but in the end it means nothing. You don't make people into proper wargamers - they are either interested in the conventions and games associated with the genre or they are not.

Lastly, you've got to be careful in classifying what is "obsolete". You are making assumptions based on your standards and without seeing any final code. I understand your point regarding graphics, but remember that most games now undergo a multi-year development process. Does this make them obsolete upon being released ?

I can understand your point of view, but you must also appreciate that others may think such concerns have little relevance in the face of getting the gameplay right.

Andy "MIGMaster" Mills
CombatCanada.Com

[ June 10, 2003, 20:34: Message edited by: MIGMaster ]

[Joe 98]

My view is that game play always comes first

But we have been blessed with good graphics in recent years.

If a new game comes out with great game play but the graphics are worse, then it is a real turn off. My example is Airborne Assault.

The maps of the original game are so horrible. I started to play the demo to the original game but the poor maps are a real turn off.

Then I discovered that Matrix are to publish the sequel. I saw some screen shots of new maps to be used for the sequel. They are very nice.

I immediately loaded the demo of the original yet again and this time I spent some time playing it.

I found a beaut new wargame. It is unique. It is riveting. I will get the sequel when it is released.

But the graphics of the original are just so horrible, I have no desire to get the original.

We must convert the “Maybe” players to wargaming. How could they possibly discover wargaming if they never see a wargame?

If wargames had a “realism” option we wargamers would always turn “realism” on. The “Maybes” would probably begin by turning “realism” off.

But the game sales would be higher and some of the “Maybes” would become one of “Us” – real wargamers.

[Deandx]

Originally posted by CC2fan:
... I'm watching a show on the 82nd airborne ( The True Story of the Screaming Eagles ) on the history channel right now. Its an amazing piece of history that I know very little about.

I'm pretty sure that the 101st were the Screaming Eagles, not the 82nd. Just an FYI.

[foxtrot]

Originally posted by CC2fan:
... I'm watching a show on the 82nd airborne ( The True Story of the Screaming Eagles ) on the history channel right now. Its an amazing piece of history that I know very little about.

I'm pretty sure that the 101st were the Screaming Eagles, not the 82nd. Just an FYI.

You're right, but this was the subtitle of the program as it broke for commercials. It didn't sound right to me at the time but I typed it in anyway as I was pressed for time. To be sure I recorded one of the breaks on the vcr and copied it. Later I went on the web to each units web site and confirmed my beliefs.

To be fair to The History Channel they were talking about actions of both units from D-Day on. It was a strange way to label the program, but thats how they did it.

I figured someone would call me on it sooner or later.

[Joe 98]

A timeline:

This game was set to go Gold in June 2000

This game is being developed on WIN XP

WIN XP was released in October 2001

This game is now set to go gold in July 2003

Its now July, are we close to going gold?

Where are the screen shots? To take and upload them takes 5 mins - I have done it myself.