SOWGB - The Research Paper?

[norb]

[article=link]165[/article]

[Saddletank]

An interesting read. We need more publicity like this. As the reviewer says, 10s of 1000s of copies of TW get sold and people always moan about the terrible AI, 20 unit armies, lack of proper tactics and formations, and tiny battlefields. If only more would discover SoW and find there is a tactical real time horse & musket simulation out there that CA have been promising and failing to deliver for years.

[Little Powell]

Just a few quotes from the article:

"A large part of the satisfying behavioral realism of "Scourge of War: Gettysburg" is simply due to its successful recreation of the scale of the battle of Gettysburg."

"The essential quality of 'Scourge of War: Gettysburg' is that the AI commanders succeed or fail believably. ...This level of AI crafting extends down to the unit level by creating an important quality in a battlefield simulation that I term 'predictable unpredictability.' ...'Predictable unpredictability' is the kind of randomness that makes sense in the context of real-world combat conditions."

"In 'Scourge of War: Gettysburg' the entire experience of fighting a virtual battle feels more real [than Total War]."

"The difficulty of simply communicating orders, the way both terrain and enemy fire frustrate the ability to maintain formations and to maneuver effectively, the sickening feeling of watching the enemy breach your line and panic gradually spread down its length...all of this makes for a deep and challenging game."

"What really sets the developers at NorbSoft apart is that they understand the concept of the fog of war."

"'Napoleon: Total War' is a game designed to be consumed, while 'Scourge of War: Gettysburg' is a game designed to be played."

[Mazikainen]

Hmm.. It's difficult to imagine that I'm reading a _research_ paper. The language and content are more like from a blog review, and most of the argumentation is based on the author's own opinions. The game design of wargames is a very fertile topic and I'd like to see more comprehensive research on the subject.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be a grouch. It's not like my own papers are winning universal acclaim either


Btw, here's an excellent research on competition, winners and losers. It gave me a lot to think about concerning the reward systems and competitions in gaming. http://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... cTxejaNqwQ

[NY Cavalry]

I believe that SWG is so good is because it is self published. These guys have really given the players a lot of added options/improvements that I wonder would have happened if some big game company was involved.

More players play SP and in SP you do have a very good AI.

It is a good write up and maybe will help to further get the word out.

[born2see]

NY Cavalry wrote:

I believe that SWG is so good is because it is self published. These guys have really given the players a lot of added options/improvements that I wonder would have happened if some big game company was involved.

You're absolutely right on about that. Because of the way NSD is structured, we're able to do things a larger company could never do.

I'm very fortunate to be part of it.

B

[norb]

Hmm.. It's difficult to imagine that I'm reading a _research_ paper. The language and content are more like from a blog review, and most of the argumentation is based on the author's own opinions. The game design of wargames is a very fertile topic and I'd like to see more comprehensive research on the subject.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be a grouch. It's not like my own papers are winning universal acclaim either

It's from a university, it's in an academic journal, it's written by a member of the university staff, that's enough for me

[garyknowz]

I believe that SWG is so good is because it is self published. These guys have really given the players a lot of added options/improvements that I wonder would have happened if some big game company was involved.

I agree. A major factor for NSD's success is that there are no rigid artificial production deadlines (it ships when the creators feel the program is up to their standards). In addition, they don't have to simplify the game to appeal to a mass dummy demographic who are mainly concerned with eye-popping graphics and fast-paced action than a realistic war simulation experience.

[born2see]

garyknowz wrote:

A major factor for NSD's success is that there are no rigid artificial production deadlines (it ships when the creators feel the program is up to their standards). In addition, they don't have to simplify the game to appeal to a mass dummy demographic who are mainly concerned with eye-popping graphics and fast-paced action than a realistic war simulation experience.

Boy, you hit that nail on the head!

B

[Saddletank]

I believe that SWG is so good is because it is self published. These guys have really given the players a lot of added options/improvements that I wonder would have happened if some big game company was involved.

Creative Arts and SEGA have given a far more open game in their Total War series than NSD have given with SoW.

In some ways, and for sound business ethics (and I'm not saying its a bad thing) small dev houses have to be much more restrictive in what they give away as moddable in their games.

garyknowz wrote:

A major factor for NSD's success is that there are no rigid artificial production deadlines (it ships when the creators feel the program is up to their standards). In addition, they don't have to simplify the game to appeal to a mass dummy demographic who are mainly concerned with eye-popping graphics and fast-paced action than a realistic war simulation experience.

Boy, you hit that nail on the head!

B

Well... hmm... there's a few things that are badly and incorrectly implemented in SoW and which could be made better, such as how units wheel, change formation and won't march in a given formation, and the hierarchy of artillery units and how they respond morale-wise. And there's some things which are obviously still busted, like some of the artillery effects. So I don't know that I agree completely with the above sentiments.

I am delighted with the game as it is, but there's niggly things that make me sigh and think "If only they'd seen this and fixed it", etc.