Unbelievable price !!!

[IainMcNeil]

There is a vocal minority who keep talking about the price but a silent majority who don't get involved and just buy the game and enjoy it. Sales are in the hundreds of thousands. Value for money is entirely subjective so everyone has to make their own decision. If you don't think it's worth the price then don't buy and no hard feelings

[KeldorKatarn]

Can someone please explain to me why PzC is considered to have "old" graphics? Old compared to what? It is 2D instead of 3D, that is a design choice that doesn't make it old. They have sprites of a huge amount of units tha all had to be modeled in 3D, then rendered to 2D for the game and the units seem to be pretty detailed for the size they appear on the map. The terrain looks cool, I get all the information I need immediately and the map still looks nice when looking at it zoomed out.

So what exactly is the issue here? Do people look at screenshots and are disappointed there are no post screen enhanced bullet time nuclear explosions or what?

Why on earth would a game that is based 99% on the fact that the player can grasp all necessary information about units, terrain and weather at first glance add unnecessary effects and full 3D when all that does it get you better screenshots for the magazine while worsening gameplay because it distracts the player?

I seriously don't get this argument. has gaming eally come down to penis comparison about how hot your game can cook your graphics chip? I mean seriously. I'm a gamer AND have worked for years as a game developer and I've never understood why people critisize 2D games. I mean the remake of Monkey Island was still 2D and it lookeed fantastic. But all it did was draw the stuff again, using the higher color count and resolution we get nowadays. But as one game developer once mentioned: We now have highr esolutions that make single pixels nearly impossible to see and we have a color count that is as high as anything the human eye can even distinguish... and at such a technical level, what exactly do people want to improve on?

It's not good or bad graphics is graphics design. And PzC has great graphics design because it's designed to look cool while not distracting from what#s important. Have you ever played a board game that used a satilite picture for the map? Of course not, because that would have way too much detail to be playable. ("Is that a forest or just an ocean with algae blooming?")

Some players really seem to think if a game doesnt look photorealistic (which I highly argue with considering how modern 3d games and movis throw postscreen effects in your face just to say "hey look what we can do". The Hobbit e.g. did NOT look realistic, it looked like crap is some places, but maybe thats just me) and throws particle effects at you like crazy (has anybody seen any modern MMO or RPG like starwars or diablo 3? I nearly get an epileptic attack when I watch someone play that crap. Colorful explosion here, particle there. Whenever I watch a lets play I dont understand at all whats going on because I neither see the enemies or the player chars andymore, all I see is blue green red and pink particles and pew pew boom bang sounds that is louder than the dialogue. And that's supposed to be good graphics and modern game design?

But ah well maybe at 33 I'm already an old **** [Keep it clean please: Ed] when it comes to that and should just shut up?

Anyway, just my 222 cents

[MrsWargamer]

KeldorKatarn you will NEVER get that explanation, as there is NO reason for fancy schmancy graphics at all.

The kids are simply too used to new equaling more.

I am unsure who is dumber, the gamer thinking that fancy graphics equals better game, or the people making the game thinking fancy graphics is an actual improvement to a game that was never about the graphics.

They still make board game wargames, and they still make them the same way and for a reason. There's a limit to how much information is required, and more is not always better and may well be too much.

It's the same as the term 'dummying down'. And frankly I think half the people using the term are only half my IQ as far as I am concerned. A game is neither easier to play, nor simpler to win at if the game's graphics are less complicated. But add a lot of complicated fancy graphics and you might have made the experience more prone to tedium.

Battle Academy and Panzer Corps are NOT dummied down versions of anything. And unless a person can demonstrate they have no trouble beating ANY person (human that is not the AI) they play, then I don't want to listen to them talking about how a game has been 'dummied down' according to them.

The right tool for the job basically, and if basic graphics are the best tool, then fancy pointless graphics are more of an intrusion than a benefit.

Of all the Panzer General releases, I thought PG 3D was the most pointless. Oh yippee friggin hurrah the units are 3d and drive around the map all cute like. It didn't add to the game, and forced the guy making it to spend time on the pretty angle and thus it took away from them making the actual program function.

I'd rather not play any opponent that is so dim, as to think graphics make a game better. If they really believe that, then they are not bright enough to be a decent cerebral challenge.

The only place graphics matters, is in movies where you are trying to make me think something you drew, is actually something that really exists and was filmed live. Or in the case of shooters where you are trying to make it look like the view of your 'person' is real life. Otherwise, I prefer games to focus on being more like a game of chess.

[KeldorKatarn]

The only place graphics matters, is in movies where you are trying to make me think something you drew, is actually something that really exists and was filmed live. Or in the case of shooters where you are trying to make it look like the view of your 'person' is real life. Otherwise, I prefer games to focus on being more like a game of chess.

[rant]
Going slightly offtopic here but this is another quarel I have with certain modern shooters. They don't look like real life, nor do they play like it. They look and play like a hollywood movie. I guess that's why I will look into Arma 3 once it goes out of Alpha, since I loved operation flashpoint back in the day. Sure its graphics weren't photorealistic or as good as Arma IIIs but they gad believable color palettes and they focused on making the terrain and the stuff that was combat relevant to look realistic enough. No oevrdone blooms, no crazy tone mapping, it looked like real terrain on a normal day on planet earth. I've played that game while I was in the military and I was amazed that I could actually play it and feel like I did as a soldier, not as a character in a movie. Sure the bushes were ugly back in the day, but they served the purpose, forests looked like real forests not like some kind of theme park and the sky was boring (so is the real sky usually) but I could actually find my way by using the stars! I so loved that game.

Not that it's not fun "playing" and action movie and feel like goddamn ridiculous Bruce Willis in Die Hard and kick ass with huge explosions... but there's a time for that and after doing it for the 100th time you've god enough for the popcorn shit for a while.

But I guess it's the same with everything, once someone notices "oh you can make money with this" it starts turning into an industry and soon after it gets marketted to death and only stuff is produced that is the most flashy, sells the best (potentially only though!) and that stuff is mass produced to flood the market with it. It happened to movies, it happend to games, it even happened to sports.

one reason why I love indie games and publishers like Slitherine who give a crap about mass market but have a clear target audience and support developers who focus on gameplay instead of mass media crap. I loved Duke Nukem and Doom back in the day, also Far Cry 1, but when they throw 1000 of those games at you per year... it gets ridiculously boring. there's so many genres that could be developed further with todays much better understanding of game design. but nearly nobody does it.
[/rant]

[VPaulus]

[Off-topic]
@KeldorKatarn
Perhaps you shouldn't compare ArmA series with the FPS games. ArmA is a unique sandbox milsim while the others are basically just corridor shooters.
I agree, OFP was the best computer game I have ever played.
[/Off-topic]

[Aloo]

My point of view is a little on OP side because Ive had the same question if the game (original not the DLC) is worth it. Keep in mind that where I live PC games dont cost more than 25-30€ for a new title so the price was really high. But once I purchased I didnt regret it. The DLC are cheap if you buy them one at a time but if you jumped on right now and would like all of them at once the price might look a bit crazy, and since you dont really know whats in them you might think that its an "Unbelievable price!!!".

[KeldorKatarn]

and since you dont really know whats in them you might think that its an "Unbelievable price!!!".

If one doesnt really know what's in them one should read stuff to find out and not make a thread on a forum complaining about the price. That would then be a totally uninformed statement.

[Aloo]

and since you dont really know whats in them you might think that its an "Unbelievable price!!!".

If one doesnt really know what's in them one should read stuff to find out and not make a thread on a forum complaining about the price. That would then be a totally uninformed statement.

Well you assume that people using steam and judging everything by price vs graphics are willing to spend a few minutes reading the forums. Please think what an average DLC offers to people using steam a few new skins for their units? maybe a new feature or two and nothing more. Paying for the GC the price thats listed might look unreasonable.

[VPaulus]

Well I suppose that they will read at least the Mega Pack features:

Huge mega campaign with 10 linked campaigns covering the entire European theatre, taking your core force from one campaign to the next, through the entire war.

Over 150 scenarios covering all the major battles from the ETO of WWII, and even some that allow you to change the course of the war.

Mold your troops into your unique fighting force as they gain experience, awards, heroes and new equipment

Realistic recreation of many pivotal battles such as Warsaw, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Normandy

Many diverse and engaging objectives, which can change dynamically and no 2 scenarios play the same.

Over 800 units including tanks, aircraft, artillery, naval and more

150 scenarios... that seems to be a lot of content. If they have played the original campaign, they surely know what 150 scenarios means at least 150 hours.
If this don't appeal them, then they can buy each DLC separately.

[Aloo]

... If they have played the original campaign,...

Just been sent the latest Slitherine email and was quite interested in Panzer Corps because it looks like a very old game I used to play called Panzer General - until I saw the price! Who are you trying to kid? Ive got to buy the original game at £28 and then an expansion at £28? That is absolutely ridiculous.

When you get real and price it realistically for the whole thing (ie around £15) give me a call.

I think that the OP didn't play the original campaign

[VPaulus]

I think that the OP didn't play the original campaign

Then he should play first the original game before considering in purchasing any expansion. Personally, I never buy expansions/DLCs before trying the main game.
But in the end it's like Iain said, If you don't think it's worth the price then don't buy and no hard feelings.

[KeldorKatarn]

@VPaulus: Without wanting to say that the OP is like that, even when people don't buy, some will bitch around. Remember I told you that I developed/co-prodiced WC Saga with a small team? The free space sim that took 5 years main campaign development alone and 10 years project duration? And that cost the player nothing? Yep... while the overwhelming majority loved it and commended us, there were people that came to the forums to demand! gameplay changes (that we commented were not ppssible for a freetime team to accomplish) or I quote "I won't play the game"

I couldn't help myself and answered "And you honestly expect me to give any other answer but 'So what?'"

Nowadays there are people around that seem to think they have a right to complain no matter what. Look at F2P games. most of the people bitching about the game are those who never spend a dime on it, and people that DO pay and therefore finance the fun for everyone else are openly attached for being "gold players". Another reason why I usually stay away from F2P games. I don't like the business model and I don't like the communities they attract so I feel you get the worst deal on both sides of the table and I hope that business model will go away fast (unlikely though since it seems to make a shitton of money)

[VPaulus]

@VPaulus: Without wanting to say that the OP is like that, even when people don't buy, some will bitch around. Remember I told you that I developed/co-prodiced WC Saga with a small team? The free space sim that took 5 years main campaign development alone and 10 years project duration? And that cost the player nothing? Yep... while the overwhelming majority loved it and commended us, there were people that came to the forums to demand! gameplay changes (that we commented were not ppssible for a freetime team to accomplish) or I quote "I won't play the game"

I couldn't help myself and answered "And you honestly expect me to give any other answer but 'So what?'"

Yes, I remember have seen some people bitching about WC Saga and... voice acting.
I can only imagine how it was in your forums.
Usually it's only a small vocal minority.

[KeldorKatarn]

It was. The majority (even in our forums) was full of praises. Some single individuals thought however that even after receiving 25h of gameplay for free they still were somehow entitled but as it is in the internet, you never know who those people are. Could have been a kid for all I know.

[tripecac]

The kids are simply too used to new equaling more.

Not all of us who enjoy modern gaming are "kids". Some of us were pushing cardboard counters in the 80s along with the luddites.

When I mentioned Close Combat, Combat Mission, Call of Duty, Company of Heroes, Total War I wasn't talking about "fancy" graphics. I was talking about 3D. These days, we are accustomed to being able to view battle from the perspective of individual soldiers or from a viewpoint above the battlefield. Close Combat might not have been true 3D (I'm not sure if the camera could rotate), but it at least tried to depict a realistic battlefield.

As much as I enjoyed Panzer General (and before that, cardboard wargames), I don't think the hex-based games elicited the same degree of emotional response (excitement, tension, exhilaration, satisfaction) as some of the more modern games.

Don't get me wrong: I still like abstract games. I love the Lord of the Rings LCG (living card game), which is much more abstract than Panzer General. And I enjoy the chess-like mechanics of HoMM/King's Bounty.

However, modern games, with the "fancy" graphics, also often bring with them careful sound design, cut scenes, and writing. There are lots of duds, but also lots of truly great game-playing experiences. Actually not just game-playing experiences, but cinematic/artistic experiences as well.

The only place graphics matters, is in movies where you are trying to make me think something you drew, is actually something that really exists and was filmed live. Or in the case of shooters where you are trying to make it look like the view of your 'person' is real life. Otherwise, I prefer games to focus on being more like a game of chess.

You sound like Ebert. He didn't "get" it, because he didn't spent enough time trying to understand the gaming medium.

For example, the Grand Theft Auto series (particularly San Andreas and IV) is popular with "kids" (and some of us old farts) for a reason: it feels like a movie, or TV series. The voice-acting is great, the graphics are surprising, the fun-factor is cranked up to the max. It's better than a movie, because you don't just sit there and watch: you participate. Panzer General can't even come close to that level of emotional involvement.

If Ebert didn't "get it", we can't expect less media-oriented people to get it either.

I might not be a "kid", but at least I have an open mind when it comes to gaming. I think it's better to appreciate more things than to appreciate fewer things. Restricting yourself to chess-like mechanics just seems so... boring.

Do you really want a life full of grey?

(Well, I have met people who don't play games AT ALL, so I suppose it's all a matter of degree)

[MrsWargamer]

I usually play my wargames with a war movie playing in the back ground, thus I have great music to go with my dull looking wargame. And I have simply read too much non fiction military history and seen too many documentaries (which I might be playing if not a movie), such that I have all sorts of 'glitz' present while staring at my dull looking graphics hehe.

I KNOW what the counters represent, and I can actually 'feel' the battlefield through them.

I don't mind the kids playing the shooters and pretending they actually have any resemblance to military action beyond a game of silly bugger
But they and the adults that say it as well, need to remember, some of us simply do NOT want all that darned icing on our cake.

[dan_hnnng]

I think for the money , we all can say Panzer Corps is worth every penny and that's not even including all the homemade Mods that add to the value of this great game. I got into Panzer General plus the others in the series and when I came to find out about Panzer Corps I was very excited. And I was not disappointed but thrilled by the game. Now for Steel Panthers redux.

And yes I still love all my board war games. I'll be pushing counters and rolling dice until I die.

[KeldorKatarn]

I still dont get what 3d has to do with modern? Would you turn MS Word 3D just to make it more modern? Or Excel? No? because it would server no purpose and just be stupid? Yeah well then why on earth is a 2D hex game less modern? Why is a 2D global strategy game like the ones from paradox (as buggy as they are) less modern? Why is a 2D drawn graphics adventure less modern? I just don't get this sorry. This entire 3D equals modern debate destroyed Panzer general back in the day because more budget went into making it 3D to "appeal to a mass audience" instead of concentrating on clear graphics and good gameplay to keep the base audience interested. budgets went up, income and saled didn't and the series ended because it had graphically "improved" (I actually didn't get them because they were butt ugly) but the design got worse.

Why on earth would I want a soldier's view of the battlefield when one of my units represents roughly an entire bataillon? That's 1000 men stretch over kilometers. what purpose could that possibly serve?

In Combat mission I have individual squads and platoons on the field. That IS playing on a single soldier's level so there it makes sense. Also to have 3D because line of sight and hull down positions for tanks are important. But on a grand strategy game where I command entire Army Corps? Why on earth would I want that? Why would I want to see an abstract infantry unit on a 3D moutain chain? I can clearly see that it is a mountain. Have you ever heard anyone complain that navigation software for cars is not "modern" because it doesnt have 3D graphics for the map?

I've seen so many games that were looking beautiful with great 2D art being pushed the 3D route ending up with crap gameplay, unusabel interface and crappy looking graphics, just to be able to print the "now in 3D" message on the box art. I've seen entire franchises die on the 3D cancer, so sorry if I have to say: Thank god this game is 2D. And I hope the devs never EVER turn it 3D but concentrate on what makes the game good instead.

[Standup]

First post...so hello.

Like the original poster I found the price for what seemed to be an established (by that I mean not a new release) quite steep so didn't buy for a while. The main influence in not buying it wasn't the graphics or gameplay but more what else I could buy - in this instance Panzer General 2 on GOG for $5 vs £28 for a game that looks very similar (I'll let someone else do the exchange rate maths). That's possibly the main obstacle to casual purchases. Funnily enough it was a post in the GOG forum that persuaded me to look again at Panzer Corp.

I eventually bought it for £21 (sale?) and I think it is good value. It's the sort of game I'll revisit, try a few mods and so on. The graphics I imagine will date a lot less than a lot of other games - I still find games like Baldurs Gate, Railroad Tycoon 2 still very playable whereas a lot of the 3D games (Railroad Tycoon 3?) I'm unlikely to return to.

[tripecac]

Thank god this game is 2D. And I hope the devs never EVER turn it 3D

I never suggested that Panzer General should be 3D. I agree that strategic-level games do not need 3D. Likewise, strategic-level games do not need real time. I don't think I have ever seen a good 3D real-time strategic-level game.

I was simply stating that these days we're accustomed to 3D, which is used to depict smaller-unit, more "personal" warfare. Pushing counters on a [virtual or cardboard] hex grid is not as emotionally engaging as a motion-captured, voice-acted 3D "soldier". Even Total War feels more "personal" than a hex grid. We're accustomed to a personal, movie-like depiction of warfare.

I used to play Ambush (the solitaire cardboard wargame) a lot. At the time, it was the most personal/cinematic depiction of warfare that I'd encountered. For a long time I longed for a computer version of it, so that I could play other people's scenarios.

However, along came X-Com, and then Soldiers at War, and those sort of satisfied my Ambush fix. And then there was Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and Brothers in Arms, culminating in the excellent Hell's Highway, which did a great job of combining tactics and drama. Close Combat, Combat Mission, Company of Heroes, Day of Defeat... They all introduce various levels of realism and emotional engagement. 3D, real-time, and other "fancy" computing technology has given us tremendous options.

Meanwhile, Ambush is all but forgotten. I still have it, dutifully carrying it from house to house as I move. Maybe some day I'll sell it to a collector. Or maybe I'll just donate it. But I seriously doubt I will ever play it again. It is just easier, and more satisfying, to play one of those "fancy" 3D/real-time wargames.

What is the point of my saying all this?

Well, my point is: some of us old-timers have doubts about whether our interest in a hex-based game will be sustainable through the many, many hours of content that Panzer Corps offers us. We used to be able to handle it in the old days, but are not so sure now.

Obviously, the "sensible" thing to do is to buy the core game or AK and give it a whirl.

However, some of us are completionists and collectors. When we get into a game series (or musician or author or tv show or director), we want the WHOLE EXPERIENCE, not just the first part. So it's hard to contemplate the price of the core game (or AK) alone. We see Panzer Corps only as a whole, which mean core + AK + DLC. And right now the price of the whole is pretty intimidating, at least to those of us who are uncertain whether our appreciation of hex-based gaming is a thing of the past.