I am pretty sure it is. Thanks for the heads up @SamS, this is exciting news.
I thought it was the FoG2 Devs making this which is why leaving battles out seemed strange. But if AGEOD are making it then I imagine they don’t want to deal with putting another game into their game.
The Roman grand strategic genre is getting crowded, with TWRome II, Aggressors, Imperator, At the Gates and now this.
Exactly
We like so much to wargame the Ancients because it was a truly anarchic period, with lots of middle powers competing for hegemony in three different regions (Mediterranean, Indian Subcontinent and China). To draw an analogy:
- TW Rome II is the Han Dynasty. Big, powerful but distant in themes, tones. As widely panned critically as it is played 5 years after release.
- Aggressors is the Bactrian Successor kingdom. Small, a historical curiosity and ultimately a footnote remembered in popular culture thanks to a great movie featuring Sean Connery and Michael Caine.
- Imperator is the Seleucid Empire. Shambolic, governing over a very diverse constituency, will break up into several smaller kingdoms due to DLC policy.
- At The Gates is the Cimbri.
Hello, sorry to butt in.
Do you have any concerns regarding our review of AB on Wargamer? If you do I’d love to talk them over, see if we can help.
In case it’s relevant, we haven’t been owned by Slitherine/Matrix since February this year, but I can understand certain levels of suspicion still when we’re overly positive towards some of their games.
My own personal thoughts on the matter is that AGEOD were making a new grand-strategy game first, and then they (or Slitherine) made the decision to A/ use the FOG IP (easier than new IP) and B/ integrate with FGO2 (which uses the same engine) a fair ways after the fact.
Should be interesting to see how this develops though - a clear challenger to Imperator: Rome and Rome 2: Total War.
Yay, I was secretly hoping AGEOD’s new game in the new engine would be a continuation to AJE, which is by far their best offering, imho (due to the system command loop and abstraction level better fitting ancients. Also, smallish scenarios that the engine didn’t struggle with).
I am very excited about this.
I don’t care about playing the battles at all (although I like FoG2, so maybe I will try the option).
As someone who plays still plays a few FOG2 battles every week I’m quite intrigued by the option although I’m not sure how well it will be integrated back. I mean, will battle results be re-imported into the AGEOD game or is it a one-way export only?
I think every review in the wargamer is basically an infosheet with encouraging, positive comments. There is no critique, compare/contrast, or any other of a myriad review methodologies applied. Designers/publishers are not held accountable for designs and features. Every game is greeted purely on the terms it arrived on. I think all the items published as reviews are essentially soft adverts and are overly positive, equally applied to all games (Slitherine isn’t treated better than anyone else in that regard).
The Wargamer is not the place I go to get a critical appraisal of wargames.
To be honest, that’s incredibly fair criticism. I disagree for the most part, but I can see where you’re coming from.
Ultimately I can’t get too hands-on with how my guys choose to review games. As long as they’re not being false or misleading and follow the guidelines I can’t force them to take something to task if they don’t feel it’s needed. That would devalue the review even more, because it wouldn’t be their opinions anymore.
I do find the notion of “review methodologies” rather amusing, although that’s not to say best practices don’t exist.
But fair enough - Thank you for your candour. I’m sorry we can’t serve your needs.
Yeah, I’m not talking about some strange methodology used to review French Symbolists, I mean things like simple compare/contrast between different games in medium and even, games in different mediums that share similar genre qualities (say comparing a Board Historical Wargame on Guadalcanal to a Computer Wargame on Guadalcanal). Discussions of Historicity, accuracy in how units a echelons are modeled, etc.
You’re Welcome (I think?), but you did ask my opinion. :)
No I know, I was being a tad facetious - I do try and encourage that kind of stuff but it’s purely down to how much subject matter expertise the reviewer as and whether they end up doing it.
I never allow anyone to review a game they’re not familiar with on some level - whether it be developer, historical period, type of game etc… but again, I can only have so much input. Sometimes a reviewer hasn’t played the similar games, but loves the time-period or visa-versa, and all in cases, sometimes they don’t feel the need to compare and contrast like that.
I wouldn’t say it’s necessary as standard for reviews. It can help, but I don’t think it devalues a piece if it’s not present. But I also wouldn’t tell anyone like yourself who looks for that kind of stuff that they’re wrong either. It’s just one of those things.
Don’t worry I was being genuine - I wasn’t expecting your answer but it made me reflect a bit and tbh I thought you were making a “they’re owned by Slitherine so they’re going to be positive” barb. Nine months on and some people still haven’t gotten the memo.
Where DO you go for criticism on computer wargames, out of professional interest?
That leads to love letters. Completely uncritical thinking. The term “review” implies some rigor. if every game rates a 7-10…well…
Here and, at times, Boardgamegeek. Honestly, there is no rigor elsewhere. I am not suggesting wargame reviews everywhere start emulating Polgon or Kotaku. Just…less fan-boyism and more rigor.
The hobby deserves better and deserves better conversation about its games, which can be driven by intelligent commentary about them. It’s robust enough to handle Critique.
Wargame reviews have always been problematic. I did board wargame reviews back in the early 80s (Fire & Movement), though not many, and of course a bajillion over the years back when I was first a freelancer and then a full-time computer game writer/editor (CGW at first, then Strategy +/CGM for the rest of the time, though once on staff I moved to doing other genres mostly as the most excellent Scott Udell had grog duties well in hand). I remember there being essentially two types of wargame reviews. One was what I call the “unboxing” review. These consist mostly of exhaustive (and exhausting) descriptions of every component/feature, unit, table, booklet, whatever the game includes, combined usually with a cursory discussion of what the game actually does or doesn’t do.
The other is the critique, often super focused on a few very specific issues for good or ill. This type of review can be fair and well-targeted, or (often) wind up being someone’s obsessive rant about something very few really care about.The critique reviews often miss the overall experience of the game because they are focused on eviscerating certain bits of it.
For too many years, there has been little in the middle ground. Wargames attract obsessive and compulsive players, and they are often not blessed with the budgets and development teams that other genres of games (talking mostly computer games now) are blessed with. Consequently, pretty much every single one can be raked over the coals for something, in some way. I think that often is why we get a lot of softball reviews, one step up from the unboxing reports. People understand the limitations of the genre’s business model, and don’t want to seem like they are expecting too much. The best reviewers, though, manage to still deliver honest, accurate critique while also acknowledging the broader value and context of the game.
Honestly our own @Brooski is one of the best critical analysts of historical and wargames around. And it’s not a knock on others to say that few can match up to what he writes, or podcasts.
But I think one reason that the discussions here are so good is because there’s is back and forth between many intelligent and well read/ played people. Which a genre like wargaming benefits from more than most, especially compared to AAA games. CoD doesn’t require, not really lend itself, to the type of deep systematic analysis wargames require.
It’s one of those ‘realities of the market’ versus ‘requirements of the genre’ issues. Reviews tend to push for quick turn around, and generally don’t allow for percolating for months/ over multiple play throughs. But the genre kind of demand it. Sometimes it takes time to discover flaws, degenerate strategies, or outright non functional options.
@TheWombat that is excellent points as well. What’s interesting to me is that component and design quality has been steadily improving in the physical space (see: GMT) and stagnating/ declining in most computer versions.
It’s why I love Unity of Command so much. It’s a tactically interesting game with an interface and design look that was miles better than the rehashed Tiller games of the day.
Agree 100%.
Personally, I’ve tried to do more of that, and am working on that EoTS critique, for instance, but we all get spread thin. I have a website all paid up and humming with no content because projectz.
I think the Hobby gets short-sighted. Having intelligent discourse about the games, makes the hobby more interesting. Good for the hobby in the long run and holistically. Beyond the next title.
Critique is invaluable for that. And the hobby is robust enough. Mark Herman and GMT are gonna be just fine after a Critique-based in-depth look at EoTS. Heck, more people are gonna be talking about them. Instead of the billionth Card are Kewl! Gamez are Kewl. HIstorry 4 Eva! “review”, which lasts as long in the memory as the dew on a summer morning does on the front lawn.
Well, yes, which is the point of what I said–some folks get too concerned about ruffling feathers or strangling the baby in the crib, and fail to do due diligence.
We need a return to the days of F&M, Command, etc. Even the General, which was downright critical of AH games at times. Same for S&T and SPI back in the day. They didn’t do love letters and they were in-house organs! :)
The fear of the baby getting strangled in the crib is just a misdirection tactic, IMO. That is what I think when I see it. Someone, for other reasons, wants to not do critique/wants inforeviews in the hobby and talks about fragility of the hobby. Usually publishers. :) The baby is now a strapping 12 year old boy.
Ruffling feathers is usually about “do I get any more free stuff?” There are many “reviewers” in the Board Wargame sphere who just want free stuff for their collection IMO. Getting free stuff or purely relying on volunteers who own games (like @AGameOfJoes was talking about) inevitably lead to a selection bias, and a positive review bias one as well.
Loved that magazine.
This has always been an issue with the enthusiast press, regardless of industry. I used to like what we did in game journalism to what people did in automotive journalism. Both groups rely on manufacturers (publishers) for the stuff they review, and more importantly, for access to in-development products, interviews, behind the scenes info, etc. Both groups also have audiences who expect both early pre-release info and hard-hitting, honest reviews, something that is occasionally tough to balance. In general, during the print era, both groups of journalists managed to strike a good balance, largely because the balance of power was more equal. Journalists could push back because there were comparatively few outlets, and manufacturers/publishers needed mags for publicity.The cost of goods, too, prohibited (and still prohibits, for the most part) any real thought of going it alone. Consumer Reports buys the cars the test, but their financial model is way different.Car companies couldn’t really fail to provide vehicles to reputable mags without stirring up more trouble than it was worth. Game publishers, though, could easily and with a clear conscience not send out copies, knowing the mags would just buy a copy anyhow.
Today, things are different. The Internet means there are virtually unlimited outlets for game info, reviews, streams, what have you. While this is also true in automotive journalism, I’m reasonably confident that reviews in enthusiast magazines (or on websites, YouTube channels, etc.) don’t impact car sales as much as reviews do game sales. There’s very little downside to a manufacturer providing access to a car reviewer these days, given that most cars are pretty damn good anyhow; the trick is making sure you get the right reviewer for the right segment of car (don’t send a minivan to the street racer channel). And the big three auto mags–Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track–have long standing relationships and pretty established (and quantified) evaluation methodologies that make it pretty easy for manufacturers to ride out the occasional negative review. And cars, assuming the car actually works as a car, which all of them do these days, will always appeal to someone, no matter the strengths or weaknesses of a particular model.
For games, though, oy vey. The cost of goods is nil, so companies can provide as many copies for review as they want (back in the day we actually got crates of boxed games, whee!). So many people want to get free stuff that there is no shortage of people willing to, ahem, provide services in return for free stuff, that it’s a seller’s (or giver’s) market. Most of the reviewers out there are not part of established publications with at least a modicum of a tradition and culture of responsible journalism. Some end up being very responsible and reliable, but others, not so much. There’s likely some pressure to give publishers what they want so the free stuff (and publicity, and likes, and viewers, and subscribers, etc. ) keep coming, I imagine, and not much upside to raking a game over the coals if it deserves it. Some reviewers do develop reps and followings that allow them to tell it like it is, but that is often somewhat rare. And that’s not even considering the phenomenon of people who feel compelled to destroy everything they review–something that in the old days we saw with neophyte reviewers but which we beat out of the quickly.
Surely @tomchick has some notes to share on this.
Really what you said, but I would say freestuffism as you describe it has been around for quite a while. So I am not sure that the power imbalance you describe is an Internet thing, maybe it was just less evident back in the day? The movie industry handles this a bit better imo, as festivals are essentially big fairs where negative feedback (wooing at screenings for instance) finds safety in numbers.
It certainly killed the “institutional” music press over a decade ago for me. These days I only check blogs, mags like The Wire and some critics that still write edgy stuff from time to time.