On track?

[Sean Murphy]

I was wondering how 'All American' is going? Is it still on track for gold in late June?

I've been watching 'Band of Brothers' on DVD & it's making me jones for this new game.

I'm going to go ahead & pre-order this title. I loved 101st and believe that small outfits deserve support to continue to give us interesting games.

Thanks for any info! Maybe some new screen shots?

Yours, Sean

[Joe 98]

If you do a search you will find web sites announcing that this game will go gold in June 2000 – some 3 years ago.

But I feel that if it is ever released it will be obsolete. It may not even run under the more recent graphics cards.

I played 101st Airborne. At least I tried to. I had great trouble getting my men out of their schutes.

This game has great potential.

Combat at the tactical level is a combination of continous time action and turn based action. I feel this game models it very well.

And we wargamers really need a game where individual soldiers are modelled rather than squads.

Yet I could never get into the game. Mostly because its so slow. When I read of the improvements I thought I would give it a go. But the graphics are so out of date and development has taken so long, I am doubtful that the game will be enjoyable.

I am all for supporting small wargame companies but it’s not a good idea to pre-order this game as it may never see the light of day.

[reimero]

Tim,

Thanks for the update!!!

[Sean Murphy]

Tim - thanks for the update. I look forward to seeing new screenshots! If I still lived in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area, I'd be able to come to your offices & press my nose against the window to check on progress. And then apologize for the smudges by buying you a beer...

In response to Joe 98, there is a lot more to games than the graphics. A lot of the most whiz-bang games are a downright bore after 10 hours of pretty pictures.

[Tim Brooks]

Wow Joe 98! That's very interesting that you know so much about what we have been doing with this game! Are you on the development team?

Sean:

We are moving forward. We have almost all the art work - just some tweaks, the missions are being created, maps are 80% complete. We need to add the new voices, soldier data, complete the missions and maps and test the scenarios. We are close, but as always has happened with 82nd, we put it on hold from time to time to make sure our games from other developers are where they need to be. Right now, it looks like Gold in July sometime with an August release. Based on testing, this could slide either way, but I feel confident with these timeframes.

OH, 82nd was developed on XP, so it will handle the new systems - and graphics cards... screenshots in a few weeks!

[Paul Roberts]

I also remember the old "June 2000" release date, but I'm still optimistic about the game's potential. Those of us who remember X-COM know that the combination of individual soldiers, skill points, action points, and turn-based play is a potent mix no matter what "state of the art" may be in other genres. I don't expect beautiful 3-D models in 82nd Airborne. I just want a system that captures squad tactics with playability and authenticity.

They could have rushed this one out long ago. I'm glad that they're taking the time to get the balance right. Good luck to Tim and the rest of the design team.

[foxtrot]

I'm very tempted to pre-order this one myself. To bad my birthday's not until Nov. 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.

[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 ]

[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 ]

[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.