I'll weigh in here. BTW, I love Paster's comment about the "ugly girl you used to park with," has to be the best game review analogy I have ever read!
I liked Making History, but sort of for the same reason Paster said about WWII:RtV. It was fun, simple (sort of) and has the potential for ahistorical madness. Sure, WWII games are fun, but they tend to start "in media res" and don't leave open for the very unplausible but fun... like say... a Mexican-Germano Alliance and a South of the Border invasion of the US by the Axis. I would look at MH as a sort of simplified Hearts of Iron 2, lots of options, grand strategy, but broad brush style gameplay. Unfortunately, it didn't stick with me a long time, and once I won the war as the Germans (by Atomic bombing Washington, D.C., forcing the British into becoming a puppet facist state, and atom bombing Japan - who would not ally with me) I never really wanted to go back and play. I did try to be the Russians and spread communism, but I got distracted like a racoon to a shiny object by some other game. It has all sorts of fun things you can do, but actually following WWII is harder than one would thing - I could not get Italy to stay allied with me and Japan was against me, for instance. Of course, this was all early on, and the game has been patched much since.
I would not buy DotD. I am very much over the Decisive Battles engine, and I feel that these games just haven't advanced much in the past few years. Nothing against the developers, but I always feel that the bang for the buck here is a bit low - limited scenarios, promises of new "modder created" maps (which never really materialize lately), same strange cross between board game and computer game that leaves me cruching stat numbers (which is nice, but I tend to plan all my moves depending on those numbers they given on the units, which leads to me feel like I am watching someone else playing). Just not my thing I guess, especially at the prices.
Now WWII:RtV is interesting. I like the look, but I am a bit irritated at the limited resolutions available. Had there been a 1440x900 (for my laptop) I probably would have bought it out the gate. I don't own SC2 or its expansion (which do support higher and widescreen resolutions) but the games just look so similar that I would tempted to get SC2 over WWII:RtV if I bought right now. I know there are sizable differences in the gameplay, but fact of the matter is that they are the same basic genre, with the same basic plot and scenario, with similar execution. Now that map on WWII:RtV is pretty awesome, but is it enough to offset eye-strain due to blurry resolution scaling?
Frankly, I am getting a little tired of games that have people say things like - "while limited now, this has the potential to be great," or "several things are broken, but with patches, this game will be a classic," or "modders might turn this decent game into an epic one." I have heard these things about almost all three of the games above (particularly lately about WWII:RtV) and I always feel a bit uneasy with that type of gamble.
BTW, if it wouldn't be more than the cost of a new one, I would certainly mail my MH DVD to you - but I would think the overseas mailing would be prohibitive, especially since this is the vanilla version and the Gold version is only $19.99.
EDIT: One major question, what do you mean by MH having a text based, non-interactive demo? I remember playing a demo that allowed you to play several turns of the full game as the Axis (or maybe China). Is this no longer there? This says that you get one single play scenario with the demo...
< Message edited by Son_of_Montfort -- 8/2/2008 9:27:11 PM >
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade