Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
"Mike Kreuzer" <INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au> wrote in
news:428704a7@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
> Maybe it's all for the good, but there are some signs on the new site
> that your interpretation may be overly optimistic:
>
> - according to the site 25% of a game's score in a review are for
> graphics and sound, irrespective of gameplay, interface or value
> (which are separate categories). None of my favourite wargames are
> going to get a score above 85%.
You're a TacOps fan
[Sorry Major, couldn't resist]
Seriously : We'll have to see what "graphics" means in this context - is
a great, intuitive gui part of "graphics" ? Given that 100% of your
wargaming time is spend watching what's on your screen good, crisp, non-
confusing graphics are important. Multiple screen resolution support is
important. The proof of this pudding will be in the eating.
> - the site will be paying "a lot more attention to strategy games and
> tactical FPS titles". Strategy games are undefined, but are
> presumably neither FPS or wargames.
Given that they've got a "strategic alliance" with the Armchair General
magazine I think you're reading too much into that. The Armchair General
did devote a review or 2 to tactical shooters, but the reviews focused
on the "realitistic" aspect of said games from a wargamer's pov.
Their idea is that today's tactical shooters are the introductory path
to computer wargaming just as Tactics II was to serious board-wargames
30 years ago.
> As a hint to what they might be:
> - the first game review added to the new site is for a Act of War, a
> bog standard RTS clone. It gets 86% btw. Hurrah. My interest in
> this sort of game: pretty close to 0%; and wargamer.com also carries
> banner adds for the game.
Internet-based commerce is all about getting visitors to your site, make
them stick around and come back again later. There's only 1 way to do
this and that's by providing original content. (Incidently : this is
something Wargamer.com are very good at and I think WarfareHQ is trying
to go the same route)
If Wargamer.com can get non-true-blue-wargaming developers/publishers to
pay for adds on their side I say kudos to them. It means that non-
wargame buyers are funding us wargamers
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram