Unfortunately their goal is a little high ($350,000), and the kickstarter is going to end in 9 days, with currently only 10% funded.
I have fond memories of Cinemaware's Amiga games, and Wings was one of their best. It's a shame this one went completely under the radar. I hope that if it fails they generate some more buzz and try again.
Amiga
Wings is also a good game. I backed it early on, but unfortunately to what looks like no avail... I can't see it getting near its requested amount. Pity, most of the games I back seem to make it, too.
They Were Our Gods - a blog documenting my progress while writing the book They Were Our Gods - dedicated to British computer gaming in the Eighties.
Friendly... I can't believe it... One more instant where I have to agree with you! This game was pure awesomeness and a modern re-boot of it would be great.
Unfortunately I'm short of funds atm, so no ksing from me atm...
I wonder why there are so few games about the aircraft of that era, underused in WWI perhaps (a good thing I guess), but fascinating nonetheless.
The only other game using that settings known to me is Wings of Honour. Nice enough graphics, but something about the controls rubbed me the wrong way (maybe it was using the mouse that felt wrong, like a bike with a steering wheel or something).
Or indeed why so few games since the beginning of this century got the "flight sim light" vibe right. Sky Odyssey and Crimson Skies (the first one, for the PC) are twelve year old now for goodness' sake. Both rather playable with basic analogue joypads, and yet neither felt like a space shooter above Earth (that's Secret Weapons Over Normandy for you).
Since then we've seen two decent "space combat light" games (Rogue Squadron II and Freelancer), but has any game got the balance between flight simulation and arcade fun right? Maybe, just maybe IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey, but I wouldn't know.
The rear gate is closed down
The way out is cut off
The point I was trying to make is that it's a shallow, casual "mommy game" like Bejeweled. It tries to distract you from the fact it doesn't require any skill at all (level completion is decided by random factors almost as much as in Angry Birds) by showering your screen with lurid rainbow colors and Pavlovian audiovisual feedback. That's how people who appreciate games like shmups can be fooled into thinking it's any good.
I personally know a disabled mom who plays way too much Farmville and Peggle (even after I tried to direct her to better games), so I didn't just pull that out of my ass.
I was just winding you up, I think peggle is an ok game but it's nothing special and I'm not going to waste a lot of time defending it - especially not from spurious criticisms. But now you've said something that's simply untrue even on the face of it and is easily corrected: That it doesn't require any skill. Of course it does - only an imbecile would claim that an experienced, skilled player would do no better than an inexperienced, unskilled player. Further, it's a pinball/pachinko style game - a few carefully placed random elements enhance the game. If there weren't any, it would barely even qualify as a game. You just have to understand how they work and play the odds - it's no different from Tetris or or Robotron or Asteroids or Poker or other similar games. The 'random' element (probably better-described as pseudorandom) is the equivalent of there being another player you have to outguess.
Also, 'requires skill' is not really in opposition to 'shallow'. There are a lot of games that require skill but are pretty shallow. Rhythm games, obviously - most shmups, being honest here. Including X-Multiply, which is a game I really like. You could probably get away with calling it surprisingly deep, and deeper than a lot of similar-looking games, but not in relation to most other games that'd reasonably qualify as 'deep'.
