description
Obligatory IGF 2008 Post
Posted October 11th, 2007 at 12:01 AM by S.R. Krol
Yeah, an IGF posting like the rest of the world. What can I say? Peer pressure is a *****.
Looking at the massive list of entries there are a good number that simply don’t do anything for me; a lot just seem bland.
Something that surprises me is the number of specifically online multiplayer titles, some even throwing “massive” in their description. It’s bad enough that the mainstream world is constantly chasing the MMOG rainbow, let’s hope that disease hasn’t affected the indie world, too.
What didn’t surprise me is the huge number of wargames being entered. Huge number if you count zero as big. The closest seems to be The History Channel Great Battles of the Middle Ages game from Slitherine, but even that’s being billed as “a unique blend of role playing and strategic gameplay”. This also begs the question, is a game contracted out by The History Channel really an indie game?
I suppose another similar question would be exactly what type of development budget should be allowed? I could have sworn there used to be a limit to this, but researching this tonight yielded nothing except some forum posts from 2004 of people complaining about how games with mid-six figure development budgets seem to always win. So I guess I’m not the first person to wonder about this. Since Bungie is now a privately held independent company could they enter Halo 3?
It will be interesting to see who the finalists end up being. In the meantime there’s a 173 entries to look through and maybe find something cool to download.
Looking at the massive list of entries there are a good number that simply don’t do anything for me; a lot just seem bland.
Something that surprises me is the number of specifically online multiplayer titles, some even throwing “massive” in their description. It’s bad enough that the mainstream world is constantly chasing the MMOG rainbow, let’s hope that disease hasn’t affected the indie world, too.
What didn’t surprise me is the huge number of wargames being entered. Huge number if you count zero as big. The closest seems to be The History Channel Great Battles of the Middle Ages game from Slitherine, but even that’s being billed as “a unique blend of role playing and strategic gameplay”. This also begs the question, is a game contracted out by The History Channel really an indie game?
I suppose another similar question would be exactly what type of development budget should be allowed? I could have sworn there used to be a limit to this, but researching this tonight yielded nothing except some forum posts from 2004 of people complaining about how games with mid-six figure development budgets seem to always win. So I guess I’m not the first person to wonder about this. Since Bungie is now a privately held independent company could they enter Halo 3?
It will be interesting to see who the finalists end up being. In the meantime there’s a 173 entries to look through and maybe find something cool to download.
Total Comments 4
Comments
|
Eddy SterckxHi,
Posted this over at war-historical - might as well do a copy & paste here : - - In his most recent blog entry over at Shrapnel Scott Krol observed that Indie gaming has gone online - totally online - online-only in a lot of cases. With FPS, RPG and RTS games all pouring more effort and money into enhancing the online multi-player experience compared to the single-player experience you have to wonder what the future of wargaming will be as this will be the sole genre where the demand for a more performant AI seems to be top of the list for most gamers. Oh, I know that if a niche demands something, and customers are willing to pay for it, it doesn't really matter what happens in other genres but there is an ongoing trend for gamers in general to see gaming as a multi-player experience by default and where the single- player version is just to get you up to speed with the game mechanics, a trainer. And trends tend to have an influence, whether we like it or not because wargame developers deep down inside always hope to score that cross-over hit. So will wargame developers start to focus more and more on enhancing the multiplayer experience and will "good AI" drop in the priority list ? I've heard and even postulated myself the objections against this - that it's hard to get people together across time-zones and that it's pretty easy to schedule an hour for a frag fest or some dungeon crawling, but how do you do this for wargames which last hours ? Will we have to adapt our gaming style which for most gamers I know seems to be : grab a quick game whenever life, work and family schedules leave an opening ? Will we have to schedule our (online only) wargame just like we schedule our weekly racketball game ? Anyone have a crystal ball ? Greetz, Eddy Sterckx |
| Posted October 12th, 2007 at 03:44 AM by |
|
|
ScottI don't see wargaming going the online-only route anytime soon, if at all. I think for that stuff like VASSAL and Cyberboard fills the demand. After all, wargamers are a different breed than other games, and have different expectations.
Of course I've always believed the reason for the increase in multiplayer only gaming is so programmers don't have to worry about an AI, maybe some wargame programmer will figure that skipping an AI would save time and he'll just make the game multiplayer-only. On the subject of AI, that's what I don't get. We have these great powerful machines now, but no one gives a damn about using them for a better AI. Consider EA posting the system specs for Crysis. Why do you need all that? Because of the graphics. Nothing else. Isn't it about time we start working on building a better computer opponent than more shiny water? |
Posted October 13th, 2007 at 02:54 PM by S.R. Krol
|
|
|
Eddy Sterckx> maybe some wargame programmer will figure that skipping an AI would save time and he’ll just make the game multiplayer-only.
That's the premise behind the upcoming "Computer War in Europe II" - it's PBEM only wargame. It will be interesting to see how the market responds to this. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx |
| Posted October 15th, 2007 at 06:52 AM by |
|
|
ScottIf it ever comes out.
 I have a friend who owns the first version of that. He and his old gaming group who played WiE and WiP on a regular basis in the golden days of their youth all had the program and used it for a while, but since it still required such an investment in time that eventually went away. I'm thinking the second one will be like that for most people. First, for the most part the only people who will really be interested will be those already familiar with WiE. Not a big pool of buyers. Next, you have to convince them that paying for what amounts to be a VASSAL module is worth the money. Sure, you don't need to worry about setup time anymore and a place to lay out the maps, but you still have to find time to play, plus opponents. In the end it's very much a niche product (amongst a niche already!) with a small audience. Possibly you would see folks who are already experienced in WiE talking their friends into getting it so they can have the experience, but I doubt someone who has no experience with the board game would be that interested, especially since you could find alternative PBEM games online for free. |
|
Posted October 16th, 2007 at 01:31 AM by S.R. Krol
|
Recent Blog Entries by S.R. Krol
- Rod Humble's Eastern Front Game (June 22nd, 2011)
- The Bloodiest Game Ever: John Hill's Battle for Stalingrad (SPI) (April 10th, 2011)
- Michigan Toy Soldier Company: Of Crime And Punishment (February 14th, 2011)
- Hail Of Bullets: Perfect Music When Playing War Plan Pacific (February 13th, 2011)
- The Slippery Slope Of Game Pricing (January 9th, 2011)
