From: Cornwall, UK
ORIGINAL: Ola Berli
I must say that I am stunned and perplexed by the reaction on this forum. All serious wargamers should support SSG for making a new wargame. It is not too many companies in this business.
There are a sufficient number so that buying every new wargame release to 'support' all of them is not necessary. Nobody has any ill-will towards SSG and everybody is hoping that this game really is some sort of innovative tour de force that will make it an essential purchase for those "serious wargamers" and hopefully lots of other people as well. If the reviewers rave sufficiently, I will happily part with my cash.
What worries me, and seems to worry others as well, is that SSG and Matrix might have significantly misunderstood both where Battlefront went wrong (as they seem intent on repeating the same mistakes) and what their core market actually wants. We may well be wrong, or just confusing the general ("core market") with the specific ("me") and, viewed objectively, Matrix/SSG really ought to be able to make better judgements on both those things than we can. Whether we are being needlessly pessimistic, or delivering a necessary wake-up call, will be determined in the fullness of time.
The "white lie" of "they'll be more scenarios" with battlefront is not forgotten
True. It was assumed, presumably, that the same thing would happen with BF as did with BiI, and it didn't - despite, as far as I can judge, BF being a better choice for player scenario development. The big mistake was doing nothing to catalyse the process.. even a couple of new, meaty, 'official' scenarios would have done wonders for the game.
< Message edited by Hertston -- 5/2/2008 3:37:16 AM >