Page 1
Op Ed: Is There a Future for Hardcore Sims?
By Douglas HelmerWe have just returned from E3 and all I can say is many of us hardcore sim lovers were wondering what the hell happened. Of the 2,400 PC and console game titles on display, only five were hardcore combat sims: B17 II, The Mighty 8th; Flanker 2.5; Destroyer Command; Combat Flight Simulator II; and IL-2 Sturmovik. In the iffy column we have SSI's Silent Hunter (SSI told us it is still on and every effort is being made to bring it to completion), and Jane's Attack Squadron, neither of which were even on display at E3. In the canceled column: Kesmai's Air Warrior: Vietnam. (More details on all these titles will appear over the next few days).
Compare this rather scant roll call of titles with the number of sim titles released since last year's E3: Armored Fist III, Jane's USAF, Jane's F/A-18, DI Super Hornet, Gunship!, Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum, Ka-52 Team Alligator, Flanker 2.0, MiG Alley, and Aces High. For the past three years, we combat simmers have been fed a constant stream of new and evermore exciting titles. From my personal standpoint, the party started in 1996 with DiD's EF2000. Prior to EF2K, I was playing the blocky, two-dimensional F15 Strike Eagle III to the exclusion of all other titles (I loved that sim). But then I saw the 3D cockpit of the Eurofighter and I was . . . bowled over, smitten, and obsessed like thousands of others.
Shortly after EF2K broke the mold, we had a stream of new and exciting 3D-accelerated beauties appear on the shelves in rapid succession. Each new offering beckoned us to partake of its graphical and gameplay enhanced pleasures. This steady flow of new combat sim titles coincided, naturally enough, with the equally rapid flow of improvements in CPU and graphics hardware. Tempering all this excitement, however, was the fact that new combat sim titles were just not coming out as polished and as stable as we would have liked. Considering the rate and variety of CPU and graphic card innovations, it's a wonder any of the games worked at all actually, but I digress.
The first whiffs of trouble came when Psygnosis cancelled Nations Fighter Command and SSI released the unbelievably buggy Luftwaffe Commander. Then Jane's A-10 was cancelled and we really got nervous. What was going on? What was going on was the combat simming equivalent of the 1969 Stones concert at Altamont: Falcon 4. Falcon 4, despite its crashes to desktop, was (and remains) a critical success; unfortunately, it was a financial disaster for MicroProse. The failure of Falcon 4.0 at the box office (so to speak) served to mark the end of the 3D accelerated love-in publishers had for combat sims. Combat sims, like Rock 'n' Roll, are here to stay, but the bubble had definitely burst with respect to hardcore military sims when Falcon 4 took a retail nose dive.
Photo-realistic graphics and complex AI, although impressive, were just not cutting the ol' return-on-investment-mustard for publishers: The bean counters counted their beans and even those who finished at the bottom of their accounting class could see that it would be better to make a Deer Hunter or a Pokemon title and actually make some money. When this reality set in, the writing was on the wall and the lights were flashing on and off in the combat simming tavern signalling last call was over and it was time to go. Luckily, for us, we've had a few redeyes since the Falcon 4.0 incident to ease the pain of the hangover: Flanker 2, Jane's USAF, F/A-18, DI Super Hornet, KA-52 Team Alligator, Gunship! (sort of), and for our European chums, Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum. Even so, none of these titles were unequivacal standouts that really captured our collective ardor.
So now what? Cut to the first day of E3 last week. We, the media, are sitting in a second-floor auditorium of the West Hall at the LA Convention Center. The event: the annual E3 Media Briefing by Douglas Lowenstein, President of IDSA (Interactive Digital Software Association). To set the mood for Lowenstein's speech a video montage of clips from last year's most popular video and console games was played on a giant screen. But guess what? There was not a single, solitary clip from a combat sim. Oh sure, there were clips from the blockbuster first person shooters: Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament; and then there was the obligatory shot of Lara Croft's magnificent bosom as she blew away a few baddies with her pistols; and, of course, a host of clips from Pokemon-esque titles I have never seen before. Did that sound churlish? Don't get me wrong, as Lowenstein went on to say in his speech, the future of interactive video game entertainment is bright indeed, but it appears that future (at least the near future) won't include quite so many combat sim titles of years past.
Where do we go from here? While doing the rounds at E3, I asked most all the publishers of past and soon-to-be released combat sims this very question. The collective response, I'm sorry to say, and with the exception of B17 II, The Mighty 8th, is that were going to have to get used to two things: few if any ultra-sophisticated sims for the next year or two, and more simulations that are geared toward fun. Fun!? Yes, fun. Seems the majority of the game buying public (and girls) just wanna have fun. The most prominent evidence of this is Microsoft's Crimson skies. When I asked Microsoft representative Erika (last name I've forgotten) who the target market for Crimson Skies was she said, and I quote, "The beer and peanuts crowd." Ack! I have to admit, however, that it is fun and I'll probably be playing it on the Zone just like a few hundred thousand other people who'll end up buying it.
But seriously, what's to become of hardcore military sims? Actually, I'm extremely optimistic. I believe we are entering into a shakeout that is only temporary. There's a vacuum now, yes; but as we all know, Mother Nature and Business hate a vacuum. I know for a fact that game programmers are mostly male, and males, for better or worse, like simulated mayhem. Kiddie games are profitable now and sims aren't at the moment so the developers will have to fill their war chests for a bit with profits from the sales of softer, more saleable titles. When the developers' coffers are full again, and there's a bit of a financial buffer, we'll see those new sims come back with a vengeance. I also know that in the not so distant future the convergence of the console, PC, broadband Internet connections, and TV is going to create new approaches to combat sims and strategy games of which we can't even begin to conceive.
For now, despite this apparent lull, we as a community are not going away. We are still combat simmers and we will have a few new titles and old title hexers to tide us over until the next tide of mold-breaking sims comes along. In the meantime, perhaps we should look inward and find ways we can grow our numbers so that combat sims become viable as a product sooner rather than later.
I spoke to several sim and strategy writers while at E3 and asked them what we should do to hasten the return of our game genre. The unanimous cry was that the competing sim and strategy sites should work together instead of at loggerheads to raise awareness of the value of combat sim and strategy games. Work together you say? Hmmm, fascinating. By golly, it just might work. How about an association of players, site owners, developers, and publishers? How does the International Association of Combat Simulation and Strategy Gamers (IACSSG) grab you? A bit long perhaps? As for promoting the value of combat simulations and strategy games, I've always believed that they could, and should, be used in schools to teach history. It shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility considering that Doug Lowenstein, in his Media Briefing speech, said he's spoken to several educators who already use games to teach history.
But what better way to learn about the history of the 20th century than through not just games, but combat sim and strategy games. What better way to learn about the Cold War than through combat sim and strategy games? All of human history, from recorded time, hinges on warfare. Should we, as a community of players, site owners, publishers, and developers be working toward creating sims that aren't just games but historical learning tools as well? Actually, I've already learned more about the twentieth century from playing combat sims than I ever would have known without them. But the games you and I have been playing include the history lesson as a bonus; as part of the immersion aspects or story line. What I'm talking about are combat sim and strategy games that are designed, from the outset, to be incorporated into educational curricula.
Or, how about we sponsor the development of a few portable, interactive sim and strategy game display booths that can be shipped to air shows, military base open houses, or even Nascar races. Local members of the association could then staff the booth and spread the gospel of simming and strategy games (maybe we could even hire a booth bunny or two). Or, how about we sponsor some events, prizes, and get some big banners hung at all these Quake Cons and Fragapaloozas? Better yet, we should hold our own multi-denominational sim and strategy LAN fests. The Air Warriors and WarBirders have been doing it for years, perhaps we should all take a cue from their example. These are just a couple suggestions, but I know there must be dozens of ways we can work together to promote combat sims and strategy games for the betterment of all. I'd be interested to hear your feedback regarding this initiative in our article feedback forum.
One final thought: Do I believe COMBATSIM should take a leadership role? Not necessarily, but I will throw the full support of our site toward any attempt to move forward in this regard. I don't want this to become a COMBATSIM thing, I want it to be a combat simulation and strategy game community thing.