Shogun wins Strategy Game of the Year

[Matsudaira Motoyasu]

Hi guys.
Just checked out Gamespot. Shogun won Strategy Game of the Year. It was also nominated for Best Sound and Game of the Year.
Congratulations to Creative Assembly.
After all, these things look good on their portfolio.

[Ronin]

That´s nice to hear they really deserve it for all their hard work!
that´s all the complements now get back to work on the warlord edition NOW!
And by the way Matsudaira Motoyasu it´s nice to see another portuguese around here i´m from lisbon.here you from?

------------------
"yama yama tani tani"- Oda Nobunaga.
on every montain and in every valley!

[Dark Phoenix]

Shogun also won Strategy game of the year at Gamespot UK.

I would just like to know how The Sims got game of the year at Gamespot.

------------------
DoragonPhoenix of the Clan Doragon

Guys,

Shogun pushes the limits that Half-Life brought in. It is the best game ever!

[johnmcd]

IMHO its still a couple of patches away from being the best game ever, but if they keep giving it the kind of support that Half Life still gets, then it could give it a run for its money. There is always Civ II though, I'm not about to transfer all my strategy love to STW yet....

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Yes. STW is without doubt the most deserving recipient for the award... At least if we are willing to accept that Gamespot is what it is. After all, Combat Mission is known only to professionals...

------------------
"If you start a fight, you must win it. Fighting, however, is not your objective. The most important thing is to win without fighting."
- Risuke Otake Sensei

[Matsudaira Motoyasu]

I'm from Viseu, Ronin. Glad I'm not the only portuguese here.
About the Sims, I agree with you, Dark Phoenix. I've played it and didn't think it that interesting. It actually bored me.

[Shiro]

Shogun deserves Game of the Year!

[katwomansz]

And Best Buy has STW on sale this week
Dec 31 on for only $20...
So tell all your friends...buy them a belated
present....buy one for the Boss..maybe she/he will put it on the LAN...
Have fun!

[Magyar Khan]

would it seem strange if i disagree with the topic?
for me shogun costed more than $500 on telephonebills

------------------
http://home-4.worldonline.nl/%7Et543201/web-mongol/mongol-images/mongolsmiley.gif Quote Although the enemy moves fast, a mongol arrow will kill him at last[/QUOTE]

[Tenchimuyo]

LOL http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Good point, but I have no doubt it is the best I've played.

[solypsist]

hmmm..yeah, game of the year works form me, it was at least the most ambitious. I had fun with lots of games (Zeus, Sims, C&C Tiberium Dawn) but most worked off some sort of existing game engine and so weren't nearly as original as STW.

The Sims won game of the year because it aslo was the year's best selling pc game!
At least in Uk..(I live in Malta though)

It stayed up in the charts months. Shogun TW is a greatest strategy game ever for me though. Better than CivII and StarCraft put together.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
Honour to Clan No Fear.

Visit my resource centre at:

http://terazawa_tokugawa.tripod.com/terazawatokugawa/

[katwomansz]

Quote Originally posted by Magyar Khan:
would it seem strange if i disagree with the topic?
for me shogun costed more than $500 on telephonebills

[/QUOTE]

My goodness Magyar Khan don't they have cable or DSL in the Netherlands? To get around the cost of the telephone call?

[Buccaneer]

(grumble) (grumble) Tokugawa puts CivII and (cough) Starcraft (gag) in the same sentence (gumble) (grumble). http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

As I was playing last night (trying to kamikaze my large army straight into the 2 remaining clan castles), I wished there were more diplomatic/espionage options. If I'm sitting on several thousands of spare koku, I would love to be able to use them to incite revolts, bribe units, commit sabotage and barter with another clan/rebel daimyo. I guess this is why many of the reviews talk about the strategy portion not being as deep as the battle portion. But, STW, does deserve Strategy Game of the Year, imo. (I just wish some of the press would stop rewarding the awful Sims.)

[nodachiwarrior]

shogun is great but i just can`t decide if it`s better than sid meier`s antietam or sm`s gettysburg???

i would have to say shogun and antietam are the best real time war simulators ever made!

if you haven`t played antietam you are missing out on a great war game!!!

i subscribe to pc gamer magazine and i read the desk top general section every month, and i can`t believe the guy that writes in this column hasn`t said anything about these 2 games?? all the guy talks about are turnbased
wargames? their are some good realtime wargames that deserve some attention too!!

anyways, i would like to see more realtime wargames like shogun and sm`s antietam!!!

[Magyar Khan]

i liked sid meiers gettysburg, also the battlerecorder was very good

[Hosakawa Tito]

Hey nodachiwarrior I was thinking of getting
that Antietam game.Is it similar to Civil War Generals 2? Is it just the Antietam battle or is it a campaign?
Tito

[nodachiwarrior]

hosakawa-

it is just a battle sim- no campaign but you can fight the entire battle of antietam or you can play a scenario.

such a great game.. at babbages they`re selling antietam and gettysburg in one package for like 20 or 30 bucks.. if you need more info go to www.firaxis.com (http://www.firaxis.com)

[solypsist]

Yeah I saw that $500 phone bill thing and I had to wonder....

The last time I ran up a bill that high I didn't bother to pay it and moved out of the state instead. Jesus. $500...that's a months rent for me.

[Spin Doctor]

Well, Shogun is pretty good, forgiving it's obvious flaws, but IMO anyone who thinks Shogun is the greatest strategy game ever made has never played Combat Mission by Big Time Software. Its battles have a level of tension Shogun will never attain. It's a pseudo-rts where each side will sets up the moves in advance and the result is result is resolved in a 60 sec movie with a VCR type control so you can watch it as much as you need to. Once the moves have been resolved, they are etched in stone. All you can do is watch. And sometimes pray. You can play viz TCP/IP or e-mail. E-mail is cool because you don't have to be a slave to your machine. If you don't have time to play a 3 hr game, you don't have to.

I gave up on Shogun long ago, while waiting for a patch to clear up the dumb stuff, but since Combat Mission came along, I can't say that I miss it. If you want to use real-world tactics with realworld units, (i.e. the ones your fathers and grandfathers had to use) then you owe it to yourself to check it out. I think it eclipses everything else that has come before, gameplay wise. It has been graphicly modified to high heaven by third party users and has total support from the developer. (Unlike some other games we know) Also it has a huge following. The current message board has over 160,000 total posts with several threads with over 1000 posts. That my friends, is a following. www.battlefront.com (http://www.battlefront.com) Get onboard. You won't be sorry.

[Buccaneer]

Spin Doctor, my CM comrade, you can't be counting the Peng threads as legitamate, can you? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Steve "Buccaneer" Clark

[ElmarkOFear]

To answer a post about the Antietam game by Sid Meier. You will find that Sid Meier's Geettysburg and Antietam! are very similar to Shogun Total War, learning to play Shogun after playing Gettys, was very easy. All three game are very good, but what put Shogun above the other two was that you can purchase the troops you want in Shogun.
The nice thing about Gettys and Antietam is (as Magya mentioned) the battle recorder, it was invaluable as a team trainer. The BIG thing I liked about Sid Meier's games is that when your partner drops you get to lead his troops, that would make drops in 2v2 and 3v3 a little less painful in STW. Overall if you like Shogun you will probably like Gettys and Antietam and vice versa. Cya on the battlefield, Elmarko

[Spin Doctor]

Quote Originally posted by Buccaneer:
Spin Doctor, my CM comrade, you can't be counting the Peng threads as legitamate, can you? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Steve "Buccaneer" Clark[/QUOTE]

Peng threads are the illegitamate children of the CM patriarch, but they are still ours, lol.

[Kurando]

Heh, I'm a CM patron too! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Actually, I offered to help them set-up a ranking system similar to ours on their message board, but they didn't seem interested. I like the content over there, but I find the board a little lack-luster.

In any event, we'd better endeavour to keep this discussion on track, (i.e. about STW), otherwise the thread will be headed for the Off Topic forum.

If one of you chaps wants to engender a thread in OT about Combat Mission I'd be more than happy to discuss that game and it's intricacies with you. Or, barring that: do a search for "Combat Mission" and pull up one of the older threads in which the .org patrons have already talked about that game, (there have been more than a few...)

[Spin Doctor]

Sorry to drag the subject off topic. This humble Ronin apologizes http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Jackson]

Quote Originally posted by Spin Doctor:
...IMO anyone who thinks Shogun is the greatest strategy game ever made has never played Combat Mission by Big Time Software...[/QUOTE]

The problem is, Gamespot doesn't have a "Wargame of the Year" catagory. I don't think CM fits into the "stategy" genre very well. It is all tactics. Shogun has a true strategic layer. But IMO, these two games are the best thing to hit the PC since AOE, and the most addictive.

[Spin Doctor]

Quote Originally posted by Jackson:
The problem is, Gamespot doesn't have a "Wargame of the Year" catagory. I don't think CM fits into the "stategy" genre very well. It is all tactics. Shogun has a true strategic layer. But IMO, these two games are the best thing to hit the PC since AOE, and the most addictive.[/QUOTE]

This is true, CM isn't a strategy game in the true sense. But IMO Shogun's strategy layer is extremely weak. No real diplomacy, no real alliances, no secret deals, etc. Romance of the Three Kingdom's strategy section totally dominates Shogun's strategy component in terms of depth, complexity and usefulness and the ENTIRE Romance game will zip nicely onto two floppy discs. Shogun's strategy section is simply a vechicle to get to the battles, which is what I think the reviewers are actually looking at when they give the game those high marks. I really don't think that anyone can honestly say that Shogun is a good strategy game, in the true sense, but as I say that is only my opinion.

[Jackson]

Can’t argue with you there. The strategy layer is weak. Unless I start a campaign in the middle of the map, I don’t even bother with diplomacy. I’m going to conquer everyone anyway, so why bother unless I have a decent chance to pick up some free units. In fact, from what little I’ve played of the game so far, an alliance is almost an open invitation for your new “ally” to attack you! However, it would be cool to develop a high honor Ninja.

I also agree that if Gamespot chose STW over CM because of the tactical battles, then they got it wrong. CM’s tactics are incredibly deep, and the number and variety of units make STW look a little skimpy. I’ve played CM in demo, beta and final form for well over a year now. I hope I get as much enjoyment and replayability out of STW. So far, so good.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

We have to keep in mind that Gamespot is, despite all its merits, a mainstream source. Therefore:

a) They cannot be excpected to know the difference between strategy and tactics, given all the deliberate mislabeling that has been going on in the games business for the past decade

and

b) They cannot be excpected to know about anything that doesn't appear in retail stores, especially not if it's a good strategy game published by a small, independent company.

Keeping these limitations in mind, Gamespot made the correct choice.

------------------
"Crystal clear, / Sharp and bright, / The sacred sword / Allows no opening / For evil to roost."
- Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

[This message has been edited by Anssi Hakkinen (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Spin Doctor]

Quote Originally posted by Anssi Hakkinen:
We have to keep in mind that Gamespot is, despite all its merits, a mainstream source. Therefore:

a) They cannot be excpected to know the difference between strategy and tactics, given all the deliberate mislabeling that has been going on in the games business for the past decade

and
[/QUOTE]

Now surely the gamespot reviewers HAVE to know the difference between strategy and tactics in order to know what to name a strategy game of the year, or am I just fooling myself? At some point, someone handing out the prizes would have to have played the game in order to say it's good enough to be considered for the award. I mean, how do you determine what is the strategy game of the year if you don't know what strategy is?



[This message has been edited by Spin Doctor (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Alex Scherr]

I'm new to the game and to this board, and have appreciated this thread, and many others on the board. I am also becoming deeply engaged with STW, and was happy to see it recognized with its award.

I agree (based on the limited experience I've had) that Shogun's purely strategic layer would be weak if it were a free standing strategy game. Moreover, I also agree that (compared to Combat Mission, another favorite), the tactical layer would seem less deep, standing alone. But what I find fascinating and delightful is the integration of the two, which no currently marketed war game provides (to my knowledge).

I think the integration works at least in two ways:

1) Unlike CMBO, the 'strategic' layer allows me to create, organize, supply and upgrade my troops, and not only their individual characteristics, but also their formations and combinations. I find I must also arrnage for transport options between various zones of battle, in a way that CMBO does not. In this sense, it might be more accurate to describe the 'strategic' layer as a 'logistical' layer, with decisions about upgrade, the use of supply zones around ports, the handling of personnel and the delivery of force to the right geographical locations as critical decisions. I have a strong sense of anticipation and engagment when I enter the tactical layer and begin to use the troops I have tried to make available for that geography, season and opponent.

2) To the extent, the STW's top layer IS 'strategic', it lies in its most Risk-like feature: the use of geography and particularly of borders and defensive / offensive lines to sweep around, through and over other daimyos. I have spent a lot of time in this part of the game thinking through which provinces merit the most development, and which I can pass through or cede. I have an intense awareness of the regional significance of the tactical battle map when I enter it, which adds a layer of seriousness and purpose to the effort. This sense extends not just to victory or defeat, but also to attrition. Even knowing I can't win, I may still find tactics to bleed my opponent, knowing that I have other troops coming from other provinces, hopefully a bit ahead of the nick of time.

Both of these pleasures/features really rest neither in the strategic or the tactical layer of the game, but in the integration of the two. I have yet to use the 'diplomatic' features of the game (although I do use diplomacy for intelligence purposes), and really don't miss the diplomacy. It would be fund to have it, but the point is to create and manage armies and to fight those armies' battles, getting resources delivered where they're needed.

I like that a lot. I think CMBO would be a better game if they added such a feature, although it would distort the intentions of the creators. But to compare CMBO and STW makes no sense otherwise: it's like saying that Tiger Woods is really, really bad as a running back, or Randy Moss has a miserable putting game.

Just my two cents . . .

Alex

Alex

[Spin Doctor]

Well stated! Your different point of view has made me realize I really was comparing apples and oranges initially. But sometimes I just get caught up in argument for arguments sake, lol.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Originally posted by Spin Doctor-san:
Quote Now surely the gamespot reviewers HAVE to know the difference between strategy and tactics in order to know what to name a strategy game of the year, or am I just fooling myself?[/QUOTE]Logically, this may be correct, but I'm pretty sure STW was actually nominated & awarded based on its tactical aspect more than its strategy aspect. Furthermore, if you look at the other nominees (I haven't), I predict they will be mostly purely tactical games, such as Red Alert 2. So, it appears Gamespot has accomplished the impossible http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Crystal clear, / Sharp and bright, / The sacred sword / Allows no opening / For evil to roost."
- Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

[Anssi Hakkinen]

(No, I'm not artificially inflating my post count just because I post twice in a row)
Whoops! I just visited www.gamespot.com (http://www.gamespot.com) and it seems my previous arguments were partially without foundation.

You see, Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord was nominated for Strategy Game of the Year by Gamespot. It lost to STW. I think I managed to isolate the reason in these two key sentences:

"Both the tactical and strategic components of the game are equally successful..."

and

"... Shogun stands out as the only strategy game this year to create something entirely new that appealed to a wide-ranging audience."

The first one is something very few of us seem to agree with, but maybe it's their honest opinion. The second one is downright suspicious: CM:BO was also nominated in the "Best Game No One Played" category, even though its sales many times exceeded the developers' estimates. So, it seems that in order to be considered good by Gamespot, a game must be good *and* mass-market... *Now* I'm worried.

------------------
"Understood the Sword his meaning, / Understood the hero's question, / And it answered him as follows: / 'Wherefore at thy heart's desire / Should I not thy flesh devour, / And drink up thy blood so evil? / I who guiltless flesh have eaten, / Drank the blood of those who sinned not?'"
-The Kalevala, Poem XXXVI, verses 327-334

[Matsudaira Motoyasu]

You guys need to relax.
You see, different people have different opinions about things and also different reasons for the way they think. I, for instance, unlike many of you, like the way the strategic map section of the game is working. Sure, it would be nice to have all those options like arranged marriedges(sorry for any spelling mistakes), being able to march with one army through an allys' land, etc, but hey, they have to leave some things to improve on the add-on packs. Besides, is the strategic side of the game that bad?
Also, you can't expect a mainstream online magazine to have such a clinical view of the game, as we in the players' community have.
As for selling well, I think if that was a factor, then Red Alert 2 would have won.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Matsudaira Motoyasu (edited 01-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Matsudaira Motoyasu (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Matsudaira Motoyasu]

Sorry, Anssi-san.
I misunderstood your "mass-market" comment.
I thought you meant that a game would have to sell well.
As it stands, no matter how specific a game is about gameplay, historical accuracy or whatever, I think what they mean is that it's good that a game based on real history can appeal to most people without being considered boring(as it might be by some less "educated" people). Some people consider games like this, fun and educational at the same time, to be the most horrible and boring games to be created, so quite frankly, I'm not worried by their comment.