Thursday, April 15, 2010

Carriers at War

From about the mid '80s through the late '90s, my main hobby was, hands down, computer gaming.  No other pastime or interest came close.  I started on the Commodore 64 -- Pool of Radiance, Gunship, and Red Storm Rising remain among my all-time favorites to this day.  When I moved on to the PC, my favorites were generally the usual suspects: the Civilization games, Master of What-have-you, X-Com.

As much as I loved "strategy" games, for some reason I tended to pass on the full-fledged war games.  There were certainly exceptions to that tendency; the original Harpoon and Steel Panthers being two of the most notable.  In general, though, I had a strong preference for fantasy- or SF-themed games.

So, overall, it's not too surprising that I missed out on one of the big war game series of that era, Carriers at War by SSG.  It's too bad, in a way.  Looking back, it seems like it would have been a natural for me.  Naval + WWII = Win.

Sometimes, though, you get second chances -- of sorts.  Back in '07, SSG released a shiny new installment to this venerable (by industry standards) series.  I was completely out of the hobby at that point, so the new release entirely escaped my notice.  It has only been in the last year or so that I've found my interest in computer wargaming to be perking up.  And, to make a long story (slightly) shorter, it was about a month ago that I decided to pull the trigger and download it from Matrix Games.

This was not an inconsequential decision for me.  Fifty bucks is past my impulse buy threshold (usually) -- so I mulled this one over for quite a while.  I ended up giving it a try because I've been itching to find a computer war game that I can sink my teeth into, and I figured this one might fit the bill, especially since I've been on a Midway kick lately.  My bottom-line reaction:  I'm sorry to say that I'm having quite a bit of "buyer's remorse."

Not that it's a bad game; in fact it's a well-done product.  It has, however, almost completely failed to "grab" me.

It is an extremely understated game.  There's not an ounce of anything you might consider calling "flash" associated with this title.  In a vacuum, that is not at all a problem.  It becomes something of an issue, however, when I consider that I paid $50 in 2010 for a game that looks like this.  If it had been $35, I wouldn't even be mentioning it.  If I had gotten a nice printed manual, I might not be mentioning it.  But, in fact, it was $50 for a no-physical-product download, so that's how it has to be judged.

OK, so there's no (or very little) sizzle, so the product has to live or die completely on its steak.  And that's fine; that's more or less what I expected, and after all, it was the anticipation of said steak that got me punching my credit card number into Matrix's site.  The game could have blown me away with its content, and I would have been delighted to have gotten it at the price.  Sad to say, that absolutely hasn't happened.

I don't know if I can put my finger on the problem, exactly.  The basic issue, I think, arises from the fact that I just feel too far removed somehow from the events unfolding on my monitor.  It's partly due, I'm sure, to the level of detail the game presents me with.  A lot of things feel too glossed over or abstracted.  (I usually have no idea of exactly what's going on with my CAP, for example.)  On a closely related note, the gameplay decisions feel so broad brushed that I never feel like I have real control over what's happening.

I do not want to micromanage the firing of every AA gun in my TFs, but it does seem like there should be a middle ground between that level of silliness and what CaW is giving me.  I'm not going to give up on it just now, but unless things turn around dramatically, I don't think I'll be sinking too many more hours into it.

I'm glad companies like SSG exist.  I'm glad games like CaW can still be made.  Unfortunately, this particular one hasn't gone over too well with me, particularly given its price point.  I'm feeling a little burned by it.

No comments:

Post a Comment