Over the past six months I have found myself asking this question more and more. It becomes more and more prevalent, I have to admit, with each magazine review I read, each super hype press release, or yet another glossy flyer/coming soon advertisement.
The PC games industry is becoming obsessed by increasing the levels of realism, providing greater intricacy in the challenge, including the latest batch of technological goodies, and so on. In the process of achieving this I fear they are losing sight of the founding principle "Games are meant to be fun".
Should a game provide some education at the same time then this is a bonus. The most import thing is that anyone who plays the game actually enjoys it pure and simple. Just because they can make games ever more complex, include the latest technology, drown it in masses of detail, does not mean they should; it's not compulsory.
The games creators seem, on occasions, intent on including items in a game in the cause of one-upmanship and very little else. There is little or no thought to the games playability, even good honest research of the subject matter goes astray. This is then compounded by releasing the game onto the market before the flaws have been ironed out, which ultimately leaves me feeling like I have been ripped-off.
I keep finding these days that more and more games software is being reviewed just like the business software I write. The inclination is to dissect the program, comment on the design tools used, the level of technology, the processor needed and how much functionality it contains. They wax lyrical about the fantastic levels of complexity, not there because the game really needs it, but just because the machine can do it. What does this tell you - the gamer? It tells you absolutely nothing about the game, just the software, which you don't want to know. This in turn leads to pressure to buy bigger and better machines to play the games with, of course, the games costing more. A simple economic fact being over-looked is the higher the price, the less you sell since the average customer has limited funds.
Take a look in the market place of computer wargames and you will find that there are only a few really popular games series around. You will also notice something else. They do not require high specification computers, they are simple to play, they offer a sensible challenge, are well researched, well tested, but most important of all they are aimed at the average casual player. There are a great number of games published but the majority seem to fall sadly short of expectations and end up a disappointment to the public and the producer. I personally believe a lot of this is due to the ever present hype which builds expectation upon expectation and sadly, in many cases, it fails to materialise.
I am probably being cynical (due to my age no doubt) but it seems to me that there are an ever-growing number of games that never make it past the 'vapourware' stage. This translates into, a design is formulated, a prototype built but then it is superseded, outmoded, or simply shelved, in favour of the next great idea.
There are people who enjoy games of great intricacy, with hordes of statistics, and of great complexity, and there are companies who write games for these people. For the most part the technology level of the games is not high, the machine requirements are modest but the historical content, game operation, accuracy and power of the AI are excellent. This is a niche market, and as such, works just fine.
Most gamers, including me, are what can be termed casual players. They want a game that is easy to play, is challenging without causing severe mental stress, simple without being simplistic, has an element of learning within it that does not need a university degree and will run on a standard entry level PC. This market is large and growing but it can just as easily vanish without trace if the games are pitched at a level which needs a state of the art MMX machine to play it.
It is my opinion that what the industry need to do is take a long serious look at exactly what they are trying to accomplish when they conceive a new wargame. What area of the marketplace are they aiming at? Is this aimed at the ordinary gamer or the expert? Will it run on an average PC or only high-end technology? Is it a design exercise ego trip or a genuine effort to produce a game? If its historically based, is it in a new area or re-vamping a battle/campaign that's been done many times before? Hopefully the designers and publishers will realise that games aimed at the widest possible audience have a greater chance of success.
I do not seek perfection, nor do I seek absolute accuracy, for these are impossible dreams I know are unattainable. I have been solo gaming for a good number of years now and I am still searching for the definitive set of rules. I enjoy researching into history but now have many more questions than I started with. I have adapted my solo rules countless times but I will keep searching. PC wargames are, and always will be, for me at least, puzzles to challenge my intellect, an escape from reality for a short while at least, a release from the stress of life but most important of all fun. Good gaming. Graham.
Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #120
Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1997 by Solo Wargamers Association.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com