Matrix "Bashing"

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Matrix "Bashing"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Matrix "Bashing"

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Matrix "Bashing" - 3/4/2003 11:53:35 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

Seems the current stance on not releasing a demo for Eric Young's upcoming "Squad Assault" has begun to generate quite a bit of Matrix "Bashing" around the net including on the Battlefront.com forums.

There was a link there to a very old thread on these forums regarding demos and it really got me thinking...

I bought Uncommon Valor just based on the positive reviews and loved it. In fact I was quite late to get it but upon reading some posts, coming across these forums, looking at a few screenshots.. I said "This is the game I've been waiting for". I had already made the decision to buy it. A demo could not have helped any further.

More importantly, after buying and playing UV, I would have bought Starships Unlimited Divided Galaxies based nearly solely on the game being a Matrix product. However, because there was a demo, I downloaded it first.

The game did NOT suck by any means, but was involved and complex like ANY good wargame or strategy game.. But because I hadnt actually BOUGHT the game it was hard to justify (or simply find time) to really get to learn it and play it as I had so many other games to play etc. So Im still ready to purchase the game, itll just be after im done with the demo which YEP will never happen. It would have been an "impulse" buy. Getting the demo satisfied my immediate further curiousity about the game and other things distracted me from finishing with it enough to move on to a purchase.

So I'm never buying a game I otherwise would have. All to the hobbies detriment. And at least one example that demos for wargames are bad. You cant compare them to mass market games. We are only a fixed number of people and everyone of us lost is a huge loss.

Im sure many of you have bought games that you ended up not playing much.. not necessarily because they sucked but maybe because soon after you got something even more interesting or simply "newer". SUDG might have ended up that way for me had I bought it, or I may have found the time, as I did after buying UV, to truly learn the game and love it...

I chose not to buy G.I. Combat due to all the negative reviews. That despite considering Close Combat my 2nd all-time favorite "wargame" just behind UV. I honestly never even downloaded the demo. I didn't need to after reading what I had. At the same time though, I was going to say it'll take a demo to convince me to do otherwise this time around.. but I got to thinking about it... And what difference would that really make in this case either?

Reviews aren't everything but it'll be fairly obvious throughout this forum very quickly if its a success or not.. And I have paid 50 bucks for a wargame a year+ after its released. And I wouldn't pay but 10 or 15 for any other game a year later regardless of how popular it was. Take one look on Ebay.. Close Combat 3, 4, 5 all still going for $40 plus.. A&A Iron Blitz $85.. nearly any good wargame title for a good amount. Yet most other games 6 months or older get you $15 at MOST on Ebay.

In short I think it was Paul who first posted about Matrix's reasons for not releasing a demo of an earlier product and while that might be a totally absurd thought for the publishers of the next Command & Conquer... I'm tending to think he was entirely correct in reference to wargames...

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 3/4/2003 1:51:40 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

I can recall an very long thread about the issue of "demos", but cannot recall which forum it was on. I know that I have never been swayed into buying a game based on the demo, in fact the TACOPS demo turned my off getting the game.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 2

- 3/4/2003 9:40:31 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

The Strategic Command demo sold me on the game.

Sure I had numerous complaints early on. Still do. It's unlikely you will ever find an A3R grognard willing to accept "no stacking" in a game at this scale. Especially when it was done in A3R.

And frankly if it worked in A3R, you might as well get used to it, we grognards won't let it go in your game.

I find it amusing though, that I have yet to see anyone get so agressively slagged like I have been. But then I suppose I made it fun to slag me heheh. For those wondering about that comment, my stance on HoI is reasonably well established here and there.

I have not yet percieved Matrix as being "slagged" though myself. I have even recently possibly (not sure) maybe been responsible for increasing our membership here, by constantly mentioning Matrix elsewhere.

While Matrix might not be the center of the universe, it's a fairly good site. And yet, while you might gasp in shock, there are no shortage of people out there, that don't even know Matrix exists.

Yep, if you spend all your time in here guys, you can hardly be talking about Matrix elsewhere. Which is probably why a lot of people don't know about Matrix.
Then again, it might also be, that a lot of people do the same thing elsewhere. They never venture off their own forums.

I have found that Battlefront has every right to be proud of their own forums. They are active.
Post a message on their General board, and if it's dull and uninteresting, it won't be on page one at the end of the day.

The SC forum is about the same pace as most of Matrix's game specific forums. And their posters are all fairly competent people.
They enforce a fairly game specific topic bias there though.
I am not a user of the Combat Mission forum, so I have no idea what they are like.

I have found that while Wargamer is sedate paced, the discussion matter is always grognard friendly. Don't go there if you can't chat intelligently and in a civil manner.
The audience has no Art of War equal at Wargamer Discussions, they are not interested in that sort of thing there.

Military Gamer thus far to my own observations, is about Close Combat. If you reeeeeally like CC, you might want to drop by if you haven't.
The other sub forums are kinda slow moving. The "Nobody Asked Me But" is just Art of War by another name. Their General Forum is just another General forum (how many can a person wish to indulge?).

I have found the Warfare HQ is a great place if you like The Operational Art of War. They also have Combat Mission there as well as some forums of games I am unfamiliar with (so won't comment on). Their "History Current Events and Opinion" is basically General forum by a longer name hehe. Its as active as most General forums get.

These of course are not the sum total of good sites out there, merely the ones I know of.

They all have one thing in common though that I have identified. They have posters that post incredibly interesting threads, and they have jerks that post incredibly annoying posts. I will assume you will make the choice of which is which on your own hehe:)

I have seen great threads on game commentary. And I have seen some interesting flames when the discussion involves whether a new or reasonably established wargame sucks or not.
The game doesn't even have to have anything to do with the site where the forum is located.

So in short, I don't think Matrix is being "singled out". It is possible, that it is currently connected by virtue of game or forum member that has been a hot topic.

The latest bit of news, that being EYSA is a good example. The designer is linked to GI Combat, and that game is linked to numerous threads on more than one forum. And there are people that really don't like that game.
Naturally this is going to generate forum traffic.
That traffic would be elsewhere, if EYSA had ended up elsewhere too.

I personally think the game has a potential future only because it came here.
I trust Matrix enough to assume the game will be done as right as is physically possible.

I think of Battlefront the same way. They gave us Combat Mission and Strategic Command as well as a few other titles that look like they have merit.

It is possible my list of cool sites is not longer, because no one else is doing as much.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 3

- 3/4/2003 11:26:20 PM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]The Strategic Command demo sold me on the game.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If I add the word "sooner" to your statement isn't that the real truth? "The Strategic Command demo sold me on the game (sooner)..than if there hadn't been one".

You mention all the forums and websites you visit. Isn't that what prompted you to check it out in the first place? If not, if the game was a good game, don't you think popular opinion and your interest in the topic, scope etc of the game along with the regular info on the website may still have prompted you to buy the game eventually?

Wargames have a longer shelf life... Demos only positive is to "rush" sales. Everything else about them is a negative. And since "rush" sales aren't really necessary in the wargaming world, no real requirement for a demo exists.

In my case, the Strategic Command demo prompted me NOT to buy the game. Again not because the game sucked, but because it wasn't really the grand strategy game I was looking for. It was fun to play and I had a blast with the demo, but my curiosity was satisfied enough that I was willing to just move on to something else. I guess maybe that sounds like the game should have been better... Perhaps... Maybe it just means I wasnt able to see the FULL "Depth of Play" in the very very limited demo and therefore missed out on the grand-strategy feel that is probably actually there but I just didnt experience. If I still end up buying it itll be because I keep reading about how great it is everywhere.

Imagine a WITP demo where you get to play around with a number of units say in the small Coral Sea scenario of UV. That would hardly do the game justice or convey the true scope and feel of the game. You also wouldn't have the ability or time to appreciate some of the more subtle behind the scenes magic that is going on.

The talk that is upsetting are the statements to the effect of "All their games must suck if they aren't going to make demos". Its really quite the opposite. Demos for games are like trailers for movies. The only time a wargame needs a demo is when it does suck. So you can grab your money and run. A good wargame needs no demo.

_____________________________

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 4

- 3/5/2003 2:28:25 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I will agree, Matrix going a "no demo" route might be seen as irrational to some of the online world.

But then again, I personally think wargamers going predominantly RTS mode is irrational.

I also am more than willing to say that forums laying claim to FPS games as being actual wargames, is also "irrational".

So in that light, I an unconcerned if some of the online world thinks Matrix's decision to not release demos is indicative of them wanting to "spring" games on an unwary public.

And of course anyone that gives a hoot about games from Matrix, can see that they are plainly being analysed openly here on the forums. And I can't help it if some will just assume Posts here are biased.

I know I do my part to say what I say about them here and outside of Matrix.

I think in all fairlness though, until several of the "in progress" titles hit the market, quantifying Matrix is a fools errand.
Their Uncommon Valour and mega Campaigns though are a good indication of what we can expect.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 5

- 3/5/2003 2:46:26 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]I think in all fairlness though, until several of the "in progress" titles hit the market, quantifying Matrix is a fools errand.
Their Uncommon Valour and mega Campaigns though are a good indication of what we can expect. [/B][/QUOTE]

That may be, right now not everyone has had the benefit of trying one of Matrix's products.

It is true that Squad Assault is going to have an appeal outside purely the "traditional" wargame community. Potentially to many players that don't play games like Uncommon Valor. And certainly players who don't know Matrix Games from anyone.

So ok who gives a crap about RTS players? Well you and everyone else here should if you want to see more of those upcoming titles from Matrix and titles beyond those. Those RTS players buying Squad Assault puts money into Matrix's pocket. Money to make the games you do like and will play that aren't RTS.

So when I see some RTS forum bashing Matrix for the decision, I speak up! When I see a wargaming forum bashing Matrix I speak up! So should everyone here as otherwise "Word of Mouth" doesn't work!

And another point on Wargame Demos... When was the last time you got a demo of a board wargame before buying it? Did they send you half a mapsheet, a ziplock full of two dozen counters, and a rulebook blank after page 10? I think not! Then it was as simple as being a fan of the publisher first and foremost, secondly like the genre of the game if even that. Then you simply based any further decision making on what limited box information or magazine info was available... Oh yeah and the word of mouth of all the people you played against telling you this or that game was great!

No one expected every game to be better than the last. It was enough that it was a new game from a publisher you loved and respected. Youd buy it anyway and if it sat on the shelf you wouldnt care and just as eagerly buy the next one, sight unseen.

Where did that kind of dedication get spoiled in the conversion to computer wargaming???

_____________________________

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 6