You described the graphics and sounds as "repulsive". The first time I've played this game is now, in 2013, the graphics and sounds are just fine, nothing "repulsive" about them. The animation quality also is not a problem. Eador: Genesis had no battle animations, I suppose that makes it a mediocre game as well? Granted, its artwork was simply sublime, however, I will reiterate that I find absolutely nothing wrong with Great Battles' aesthetics, they serve their purpose and that is all I expected of them to begin with.

You said the mechanics are not as advanced as they could be on PC citing its origin as a tabletop game as a reason. First, in a turn-based game that is really much less of an issue, a lot of people purchasing these games probably are looking for that tabletop feel in an easy-to-set-up setting, myself included, especially in context of wargaming. In addition, if originating from a tabletop game "naturally" makes a game less complex then I suppose all those lauded D&D games might as well concede their obvious inferiority to titles like Diablo. Diablo was built as a PC game first and foremost so obviously its mechanics must be superior to Neverwinter Nights'.

You say there are better options. Where? Looking through my collection I have a total of one game that allows me to recreate Alexander the Great's battles in a turn-based setting or even real-time for that matter. Take a guess which title that is. All my other turn-based strategy games are based on fantasy settings or periods of history beyond the ancient one.
Total War is:
1)Real-time (so right off the bat we see we're not even talking about the same style of game)
2)More expensive
3)Not a historical recreation
4)Not offered here (I don't use Steam)
and 5)If you do have other suggestions of turn-based war games based on an ancient historical setting that are relatively cheap and on a DRM-free platform I do welcome the offer (tall order, I know, there's a reason I appreciated this release)

The problem I have, and I seriously doubt I am alone, is your patronizing tone. The fact that you have gone on a lengthy tirade just to say "no one has proven my opinion is wrong" when really they are trying to tell you "you're being an ass about your opinion" just proves how conceited you are. Even worse is that you use the contemporary ratings to bolster your own argument. I've already indicated that I think ratings are stupid. I don't bother to say "Oh, this game only offers me 75 points of fun on a 100 point-fun-scale? Count me out" I say, "this game looks like something I would very much enjoy" and so far I have been right on the money.

You've made your point, Selderij of Finland, and so far it has had no bearing on my own experience. My day is not ruined because of your opinion but I do feel an obligation to point out that a little politeness goes a long way. Now let us both be on our merry ways; no hard feelings.

That you have no shame is what is really amusing to me. You've acted like a pompous ass at great length now. You are a naughty, naughty boy and should be quite ashamed of yourself but you aren't because in your world you are always right and the rest of the world can either learn from you or go through their sorry lives ignorant.

I am not impressed by your vain efforts above to justify your rantings. I'll tell you what though, since this has gone well beyond ridiculous at this point - whatever supposed argument we were having? You win! Okay? All better now? You win. Now, can this hopefully be over please?

I do have to tell you though before I go, that I am going to buy these games, eventually get around to playing these games and I am going to have my six bucks worth of fun playing them, ugly graphics, lousy sound, less than impressive computation going on that i can't see and don't care about, etc. because I get to decide what is fun around here - NOT YOU!!!

Thank you GOG for bringing these excellent games! Truly made my day.

Keep it up!

Of course, not everyone is turned away by such things, and neither was I, although it certainly helped make the game feel bleak and uninviting.

As for Eador's lack of animations, the way combat is presented in that game is much nicer than Great Battles' copypaste guys who skip from one animation frame to another not a second looking like they're actually fighting. Like I said, I think Great Battles would have done much better looking more like the actual board game.

You're right that some people want board game mechanics for their PC games. I don't for the reasons I explained to you earlier.

D&D is an interesting example because in its tabletop form it has a daunting amount of rules and die rolls to take into account at any given moment. As an RPG system it's very detailed and non-D&D role playing video games are not that different from it at any rate, making it go hand in hand with PC games in the first place. My main comparison was board games such as Great Battles of Alexander which doesn't go into that much detail so as to not bore the players, which would be a non-issue in a computer game that does all the calculations for you. If Panzer General had to conform to board game mechanics, it wouldn't be as versatile and detailed as it is. Civilization: the board game: the video game would also be much less entertaining as the one we know from Sid Meier.

Total War is about ancient warfare with both strategic and tactical gameplay, and as such is a valid competitor by virtue of setting. You can play Alexander and House Julii in Rome: Total War, and there is a mod for Hannibal as well. It costs around the same as Great Battles when it's on sale, if price really is that much of an issue when determining how good a game is.

If you want a specific setting with specific gameplay, you're lucky to have Great Battles available then.

Any "lengthy tirade" here is all because nobody except for yourself could stick to the point. Only three of my posts have been about the game itself, the rest have been a futile effort to pry substance from psychological allegations that had been drawn from a grand total of two posts of mine.

Nobody implied that reviews are an objective science with quantifiable results. However, a game that consistently gets mediocre to average ratings at time of release is not indicative of any sort of classic material, and there's no reason why it would be better now than fifteen years prior. What I was trying to get across with all that was that people would do well to not get too excited about an old game that was never lauded as amazing to begin with.

What you see as me being a pompous ass is me replying to pompous asses in kind, including yourself. Initially I had no problem with you or anybody.

Indeed, it's you who is the self-important and self-styled forum deputy that tells someone to stuff it two messages in and is so deeply hurt by a retort to his own disrespectful post that he's still talking about it. Talk about petty and shameless.

Oh no, my plan is foiled. :(

Oh, no, not hardly. You love this. Who do you think you are fooling? Maybe you are fooling yourself.

Nothing you've said has hurt me at all. You must think you have powers that in reality you do not.

You keep mentioning reviews for the games being mediocre or worse? Here are the Gamespot numbers where something in the 5.x range is considered mediocre. These reviews differ from your overall assessment of the games and they go into considerably more detail in making their respective cases than you have yet.

Great Battles of Alexander: 6.2 (Fair)
Great Battles of Hannibal: 7.5 (Good)
Great Battles of Caesar: 7.3 (Good)

As always, there's variance among reviewers as a group but this simply shows that at least one leading review site didn't think they were bad games. In fact, two of the three they rated as good games. I've had pretty good luck overall with Gamespot's reviews over the course of more than a decade now primarily because they contain plenty of objective information, not just opinion such as telling me a game is clinical or soulless as you have for example which doesn't really tell me anything useful other than you didn't like the graphics or sound I guess.

Here's the view from IGN:

Great Battles of Alexander: 7.4 (Good)
Great Battles of Hannibal: 7.3 (Good)
Great Battles of Caesar: 7.2 (Good)

So, another leading site thought they were all good too. What do you know? This does not exactly give one the impression that the consensus at the time was that these games sucked as you assert.

Oh, here is another review from Allgame for the Collector's Edition being sold on GOG where they give the package 4.5 stars out of a possible 5 stars. It seems they like these games too and even find them good:

http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=15779&tab=review

So, two of the largest and longest running games review sites rate the games good. Allgame rates the package great. People in this thread have positive things to say who have played them in the past and one person who's playing them now and then we have you, on your lonely crusade. Hmm.

Like I was saying earlier, thanks for sharing. :D

I laughed out loud at your triumphant tone, sorry about that. It's precious that you googled a few reviews and identified them as the crushing evidence you needed in order to show your effortless and total dominance in your little war against me when you so desire. I must have really annoyed you by defying your holy command of silence with the same attitude you gave me. The funniest part is that you probably feel that your indignation is justified.

Those review sites may give labels such as "fair" and "good" to the 6.0-7.5 score range, but the hard fact is that that's the score they give to games that failed to impress in any real manner and are just sort of there, not technically worthless but nothing to write home about either. Mediocre games, so to say, unless you really think that a 5.0-5.9 "mediocre" game is something between good and bad, because it's not: it's generally not worth your time nor money in any way. I admit that my decision to drive a point with review success was a bit shoddy, but it was the best I could think of to help illustrate what I was trying to say about games generally not becoming any better with age and Great Battles not having been that great to begin with.

I hope that you realized I wasn't trying to "prove" that the games are bad (if you didn't – oops?). I was arguing that they were nothing special when they were released and that they're nothing special now, even though the nostalgia-driven comments and reviews saturating the site would have new players believe otherwise. Sure, I don't like the Great Battles series but surely you don't mean to prove a subjective view wrong, because that would be just silly?

Huh? I just pointed to a good number of reviews that rate the game as good, not mediocre. Did you even read the post above the one you just made??? I have never stated the games are mediocre and from all I have read, I do not think that they are. Basically, everything I read here and elsewhere EXCEPT for this guy's complaints has been positive.

I don't think his comments about the games were offensive either. He's entitled to his opinion of them. What became offensive was pissing in the new release thread a second time. Once was enough along with the review he wrote, which last I checked was also the only negative review for the games so far here from people who have played them.

As for the other comments, yeah, I agree with you completely there.

I don't intend to enter into the discussion on Great Battles, but if you are looking for a turn-based wargame set in that period, you can try either AJE or Rise of Rome from Ageod. The level of interaction is strategic, rather than tactical, so you won't directly control your troops, but for everything rest, you should have your needs covered. Their games are around $20 and DRM-free (you get a serial code when you buy the game, but that is all).

P.S.: I do not wish to enter a discussion of whether or not serial codes are DRM or not. I personally consider such games to be DRM-free, as you enter them during installation and that is it. I will concede however that losing the code may constitute a DRM-esque mechanism.

This game is "just" a digital board games. The kind of game my generation enjoyed before computers were able to provide acceptable graphics. That is before we got our hands on UMS , on SSI's wargames and the like...

If I were to advise better solutions, I would recommend to give a try at Slitherine's Fields of Glory or at the "tin soldiers" series ( Matrix games ) . Or would even dare to suggest a good old-fashionned boardgame from GMT. But any of these would cost much ( as in several multiples of ) more than 6 dollars.