ORIGINAL: Max 86
I agree with most everyone's opinion about the intelligence of today's utes but not sure I can see how that corresponds to the lack of tactical games. I feel it is more of a challenge for a game developer to make a tactical scale game and most do not want to attempt it for many reasons. I have to put some of this on game developers in general.
It is easier for a developer to create a generic 'division' type unit with attack strength, defense, movement etc. than it is to create a database that models every nation's small, medium and large arms, the range of each, penetration factors over range, sloping armor and its thickness for each AFV, etc. Also it is easier to make a game where units have to be adjacent to one another for combat than it is to work out LOS mechanics over a detailed tactical map. And the developers that do make such games create small sampling sizes for their games with limited theatres of operations, limited OOBs, etc., making you wish there was more to work with as was the case for Steel Panthers and the older Age of Rifles, et al.
The days of a mega game that contains many OOBs from different nations, easy modding to create any battle in the time period covered are gone forever I am afraid. If they re-did SP today it would only have the eastern front up to 1943, the rest would be a never ending stream of add ons that only continue as long as the developer stays in business.
Armored Brigade has 11 nations, is very easy to mod and is still free.
It is true that it's a developer-side problem, though.
Legends of Blitzkrieg offer some hope for a cutting-edge tactical game.
Most of the games I play now I get from Matrix or GoG.
IMHO most new games are dumbed down rubbish for Mummies little Angels who can't be told that they failed at anything.
I think it's more a question of cinematization of many games. Online gaming is very popular so it can't be a question of losing.
Also, I noticed that even among intelligent people who are into challenging stuff, wargaming is still rare. They'd rather play DOTA or Company of Heroes or whatever rather than a realistic wargame :/ .
NOTE: if you are all ate up with political correctness and dealing with reality is difficult for you then skip this post less your brain explode!
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
It seems that the grandaddy of tactical games, Steel Panthers (Matrix version, not the other one), is fading into the past, and there is no successor to it in the offing. Why is this? It looks as if "simpler" games such as Panzercorps are taking over, which disappoints me. Oh, well, I still play SPWAW (the Enhanced Version) and enjoy it very much. If that makes me a dinosaur in the gaming world then so be it.
When I 1st started playing PC wargames in 1979 only the well educated and those with money played (they were the only ones who could afford a computer and learn how to use it - my TRS-80 after all upgrades cost me around $2600 and that doesn't include software). Smart and could afford it described the PC game player back then. The average IQ of the typical PC game player in my estimation was probably around 130 or so. That's just a bit less than 3 standard deviations. What that means is in 1979 and probably up thru '87 or so is that people playing PC games back then were in the top .75% (that is 3/4 of a percent not seventy five percent for the mathematically challenged) of the population IQ wise.
PC/Console gaming has gone mainstream and the masses are the folks that developers create games for now. Not terribly well educated, console focused, hand eye coordination driven and graphics whores. Average IQ of the masses - by definition since the masses includes everyone - 100. The standard deviation for IQ is 12 points (last time I cared to look) which means that 2/3 of the population has an IQ between 88 (dummies) and 112 (slightly above average). NOTE: if one adjusts the current 100 to 1979 measure the guy with 100 IQ today would measure somewhere in the 90's by '79 standards. And yes Virginia, the IQ of the population as a whole is going down - think Idiocracy.
So the answer to your question is actually fairly simple. PC game players are, on average, dumber now than 34 years ago and developers have to take that into account when creating a game for the current market.
Wargames - especially those with a decent AI - none recently - are not easy to beat (especially so when playing against a human). The average Joe Sixpack isn't gonna spend $59 on a gaming product he or she can't beat.
Pandering to the masses! That's my story and I am sticking to it.
This too. The thing is that there's still a lot of intelligent people out there that don't play wargames and probably will never play wargames.
I'd argue that wargames would be more enjoyable to less intelligent people due to the AI being a better match for them.
The main thing that wargames require is a strong interest in military history and tactics and most importantly in realism. Someone with IQ of 110 but interest in history still is more likely to be a wargamer than someone with IQ of 150 who wants to play some game with rules detached from reality.
< Message edited by Perturabo -- 4/29/2014 6:16:38 PM >
People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.