From: Alien spacecraft
Originally posted by Charles_22:
I'm more inclined to think that the game is dominated by players of some or all of the previous versions. I don't think it being free enters into it at all. Sure, if somebody hadn't played many wargames before, and this type of setup, sure being free is likely to break a barrier, but even so it's complexity will take quite a bit of effort when you consider the ease of playing so many FPSs and RTSs.
I have RGW at home, and though it seems very compelling to me, because of it's difficulty right out of the shoot with dealing with a number of reality issues, I haven't even got to the stage where I understand the fundamental differences in phases or how to move the units in the way they're used, so it sits till I don't know when.
Unfortunately my BTR game is the same way, in that it sits. It is VERY interesting to me, but because a very childish bug remains with it, and unlike with USAAF, I cannot steer around that bug and not feel that I'm playing a complete joke. Maybe a good thing, but that game's bad bug didn't appear until three or four 'fixes' down the line, and all monitoring I do of their website seems to indicate that they have no intentions on fixing it and pretend it can be worked around.
I suppose it's the mark of software development, that there's enough fair stuff out there, that works well, that can bide you over until the BIG MAMAS (the RTSs, the BTRs, and hopefully not the CLs, UVs, etc) get their act together. It's sort of a strange journey. So many of the relatively simpler games (AOE and now SPWW2 and SPWAW, for example) are being played by people like myself, simply because the BIG MAMAS are coming out of the box often quite inept. There's nothing that disgusts me more than having a killer game like BTR confined to almost the dustbin status because there's something "better to play" that I really only have nominal interest in. It's funny, if you ask me what my favorite game is, I really couldn't tell you (though I am playing one of them more than the others) because do I value the ability to play something which working for how it's designed more, or do I value something which I cannot play for the reasons stated, but has much more interesting ideals? I think you've griped about this sort of thing before. It does concern me that CL may go that same route. At LEAST one thing I can say for CL, it does have a testing base in SPWAW, so my concern isn't so great there, it's just those others such as UV and the aforementioned games like BTR that have me hesitant. Before, I would buy a game right away, now, however, I'm pretty much sitting back a couple of weeks at least and read the bug reports etc. It appears, that if you ever want a product which won't disappoint you with being very bad in some way, you have to discipline yourself to not buy it for a while, because it appears more and more that games are coming out with some very FUNDAMENTAL things askew. It seems people are concentrating more on trivia such as what time a division was available than in whether a portion of the gameplay is horrendously off.
I'm pretty sure I can live even with bad OOBs in CL, and can probably expect the gameplay will be pretty sound in terms of what it tries to do, but anything else these days seems to be more and more of a tossup.
I just recently picked up BTR Charles, what 'big bug' are you reffering too that has'nt been fixed?
heh, SCALE is what makes BTR sit on my HD. Sheesh, its fully possible, nay 'probable' that a single long campaign in BTR would take at least as long to play out as the real thing!!!!! Even at X8 speed