
Rafiki wrote:Only time will tell how either game turns out, but I have every belief that there is room in the world for two games dealing with the Victorian era![]()
Thjan wrote:I'm sorry to say that somehow but I'll pass on Vainglory for sure as long as the map is in such a poor resolution. Seriously, this looks ugly like hell compared to AACW for example.
Talking about which game will crush who is a bit stupid, they have different focuses and both will be great.
Generalisimo wrote:I completelly agree... and we, wargamers, should support both so we have more options to choose from!![]()
![]()
Adlertag wrote:Exactly, but if there is a room to play or support both games, many players won't be able to buy both so in the end, having 2 nearly similar games on the same "niche" will obviously lower their own sale potential. And knowing the ever critical financial health of small game companies, the challenge to make an acclaimed game is even increased...
Generalisimo wrote:I don't think so, because even from the definition of each game, they are different. One is TURN BASED and the other one is REAL TIME... that's a HUGE difference on its own.
There are a LOT of people that just hate real time strategy games... and exactly the same happens in the other side.
Although they cover the same period, they are different games from the very foundations of them... its like comparing Pax Romana and Rome Total War and say "I can only play one of them because both are about Rome"...![]()
![]()
![]()
Adlertag wrote:And there is also a huge contingent of players who will accomodate themselves with a good game even if the gameplay system (TBS or RT) is at the opposite of their intimate preference and sometimes because the market has only one such game to offer.
I don't think the majority of wargamers won't forbid themselves to buy a good game even if based on the alternative system (at least for me, this won't prevent me to buy such game).
So if both "same-context" games are good and attractive, a logical dispersal of sales will occur because you won't prevent a competition between both games...again, if both are good
Now, hoping one of the 2 will be bad is not what I suggested.![]()
Generalisimo wrote:But IMHO, don't overstimate the "power" on the decision to buy a game or not when dealing with the epic battle "RT vs TB"![]()
I have met a lot of people that will just NOT play a game because it is TB... and exactly the other way around, people that will not play a game because it is RT...![]()
caranorn wrote:Absolutely. I tend to play so called RT games when there is no better (aka TB) alternative available.
Adlertag wrote:I still think that above the debate RT vs TB, the basic law of the market will be the same like on other sectors : more offers = more dispersal of sales.
Generalisimo wrote:Well, both games are already confirmed... so, there is nothing we can do about it... there will be two games about the Victorian period with different features each one.![]()
Nial wrote:Now I wonder? Will there even be a VGN?
Generalisimo wrote:You can count on that my friend.![]()
wulfhund wrote:I think it's great that you guys are now with Paradox, that being said, RoP is on their forums, where is VGN?![]()
wulfhund wrote:Hey, TBH I have played paradox games for quite awhile now, a couple of years ago I decided to try BoA2 and loved it, picked up AACW and loved it even more and can safely say although I picked up all the paradox games I still played the AGEOD games much more.
I think it's great that you guys are now with Paradox, that being said, RoP is on their forums, where is VGN?![]()
Ian Coote wrote:Doesn't Paradox have Victoria 2 coming out ? I'll put my money on VGN never sees the light of day.![]()
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests