I completely agree - there are so many computer, board and tabletop wargames that have not been covered I'd much rather see them than FPS reviews. 

Not interested...

Wargaming/Strategy site...we can always discuss FPS in the Computer Gaming section of the forum, keep the articles on wargaming/strategy I say.

Originally Posted By Iain McNeil (27 JUL 2012 8:03am)

I completely agree - there are so many computer, board and tabletop wargames that have not been covered I'd much rather see them than FPS reviews. 

Wow coming from a developer/publisher I'm impressed.

No interest in FPS, war related or not...they get plenty of coverage elsewhere.

I play FPS games every day, but I have no desire to read about them here.

Originally Posted By jomni (24 JUL 2012 3:08am)

No harm in reviewing FPS.  Just review them with a wargamer's mindset.  How close or how far is it from reality?  Which real life tactics work? How historically accurate is the game?

I agree with Jomni. A game reviewed by someone whose main interest is FPS genre type games will be different than someone who is more methodical and more interested in tactics and realism. I would welcome Wargamer type of review of FPS games. But as someone else mentioned I would not want to see wargamer shift to making those types of games a priority but games like RO2 would be appropriate.

Wargaming is broader than some may want but guys it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Maybe a compromise factor of say

80% to 20% may be a good idea for wargame reviews.

80% for hardcore wargame turnbase, wego yougo, hex, nato symboled, pc/board/tabletop games

20% for the quality fps, rts, rpg, etc.

Maybe this approach will be more satisfactory to some.

I'm wondering...are cockpit view flight sims considered first person shooters? Are tail view flight sims considered third person shooters?

Just some thoughts.

I would think it would be pretty informative. I use FPS alot for entertainment, RO2, darkest hour, and Arma2 and it's mods.

Wayne

I've created a forum account just to respond to this thread.

I completely disagree with the perception that FPS games from a wargamer's take can't be reviewed on occasion. I think that would be a very unique perspective that no other site takes on. These older generations need to move aside a bit and let the future take hold. Wargaming isn't what it used to be back in the 60's. It's a different organism now. As long as it doesn't get in the way of publishing material of "traditional" wargames.

It also does not have to take any time away from writing about hex wargames at all.

I don't think many hex writers would play FPS.

FPS games I would have liked to see reviewed here from a wargaming perspective:

Red Orchestra 2

Mount and Blade series especially napoleonic... I think their was a mini review here of this

Americas Army

WW2 Online

ARMA2

Wars of the Roses

I see no problem with reviewing first person shooters as long as they are military/historically based (e.g. Red Orchestra etc.). For me I like a small break from pushing counters and ordering my panzers forward and like the smell of cordite from my M4 with the ACOG site.Only problem is someone usually sneaks up behind me and sticks a shiv in my back before I go full auto. LOL        

No interest in FPS.

So shoot me.

Originally Posted By junk2drive (23 JUL 2012 8:29pm)

10 or so years ago when I started coming here this place was about wargames.

 

I don't concider FPS, RPG, Space or city builders, or most of the other stuff talked about as wargames. Sorry.

 

Same thing happened with Warfare HQ that became gamesquad.

What junk2drive said is true for me. There was a time when this site, including the forums, was about wargames. To be completely fair, the frontpage is now back to kickass wargame content. Kudos!

FPS? Which ones? There is a great difference between Call of Duty and ArmA 2.

I'm playing an ArmA 2 mission right now and I am commanding a whole British platoon. Haven't fired a single shot yet because I'm too busy plotting indirect fire, trying to get some of my men to clear a LZ for a MEDEVAC Chinook (casualties are high), and blocking insurgents from flanking our position. First person? Yes. Shooter? Nah! Wargame? I don't know ...

Me I have a perference that news and reviews do not resemble a copy / paste from the developers press release- and a number of recent articles resemble that. This is disappointing and it does not matter if it's a fps or a wargame. Independant from market forces is my motto.

That and the quality of some of the reviews that get written here would be a great subject for its own thread.

And the copy and paste question touches the core of my complaint about first person shooter reviews.

It's not that I wouldn't enjoy reading an inteligent discussion of what goes on in a given FPS from time to time, it's just that seeing one of the moderators pose the question feels symptomatic of creeping sloth. 

If I want to read a company's propaganda broadsheet about a game, I can just go to their website.  Swallowing the 'For Immediate Release' copy hook line and sinker (or rather, copying and pasting it) does absolutely nothing to inform me about a game apart from the simple fact of its existence.

Somebody should open a thread to discuss editorial policy.

(And since this is the Delenda Est Carthago edition, I'm still getting every recent post in the From the Forums section replaced by Press Releases every time I log in.  IT department, fix or do sumfink!)

I have no interest on FPS, just for PC wargames, sorry. 

Yeah don't let the Wargamer turn into what the History channel did.....Pawn shops and Ice Road Truckers.

Let's stay on topic.

Originally Posted By Philippe (27 JUL 2012 7:38am)

The thing that was really striking about voting for the Charles S. Roberts awards was noticing just how many wargames were produced in 2011. 

 

It was a surprisingly big number.

 

And almost none of those wargames were reviewed in the Wargamer.

 

Those unwritten reviews were the ones I want to read.

 

The Wargamer doesn't give wargaming enough coverage as it is.

 

If it dilutes the wargaming content even further by adding in more tangentially related material, I can't see that as a good thing.

 

If there were more and better quality reviews of wargames I wouldn't mind and would actually welcome the occasional departure from the main topic. 

 

But as it is I'm concerned that the Wargamer is losing touch and losing focus. 

I couldn't disagree more. I think the Wargamer has been on the ball more now than ever before. Compared to it's past, the site seems to be on steroids. I really enjoy the additional focus on board games and miniatures. I'm liking what I'm seeing.

Sounds like you need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

Having read this tread again, you know wht is missing?

We get an AAR from a wargame that was realeasd yesterday but we rarely get an AAR from a wargame that was released 3 years ago.

The good wargames remain popular for years.

.

.

Well as long as the "wargamer" doesn't stray too far from history, realism or good old fashioned military RPGs, I am OK with it. 

A game like Mount and Blade is a great wargame in my opinion....plenty of battle tactics.

But start spending too much time on eye candy, explosion rail-shooters, and you will send me elsewhere.  Unfortunately some of these games pretend to be "military" or "wargames".   

IMHO there are plenty of places to get information on the twitch-fests, so I would prefer the "wargamer" spend time on what is knows best 

It all about focus - doing these other subjects leads to a loss of focus. The History Channel is actually a good example in my opinion.  

Well, I think the question is a bit loaded:

Yes, I would mildly enjoy reading articles about realistic, military-focused first-person shooters.

I would much, much rather read more articles about wargames: PC, board and miniatures.

I also agree that one area of missed opportunity is older games.  When a new game is coming out we get maybe a preview or first impressions, a review and a maybe an AAR.  I think one of the most useful review types is the kind that looks at a game a year later to see how it's held up over time, how it's changed with patching and upgrades, etc. - once all the new game hype is gone.

Originally Posted By Iain McNeil (30 JUL 2012 2:39am)

It all about focus - doing these other subjects leads to a loss of focus. The History Channel is actually a good example in my opinion.  

Funny you say that because Blockbuster and Borders did that same thing you suggest. Look at them now. Their stubborness to broaden their focus led to their downfall.

"Broadening focus" isn't the same as "loosing focus." This is adaptating to market forces and ensuring one is among the survival of the fitest. If some companies don't change with the times, they will end up being nothing but a memory. Keeping focus and broadening focus can often coexist.