This game was bad the 1st time

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

This game was bad the 1st time

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> This game was bad the 1st time

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

This game was bad the 1st time - 7/24/2006 8:40:32 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

I got my $$$ back at GameStop by telling them my computer lacked the system requirements. Gary really dropped the ball on this the 1st time, I am not interested in seeing him make a crappy product worse.

Post #: 1

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 7/24/2006 8:51:43 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

I'll bet chess sucks for you too ? not every game is for everyone, thanks for sharing. Next time you might want to back up you opinion with a reason!

I'd ask why you dont like it but it matters not. I'm a WW2 enthusiast that happens to enjoy the grand strategy games and this one is one of the greatest beer and pretzel war games you could ever hope to play.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 2

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 7/24/2006 8:16:51 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

Lest Murat's comments discourage any new players, I'd encourage them to check out gamespot's review and user comments. Taking a quick look at it now, 198 user reviewers gave WAW an average of 7.6 (good) - and the reviewer gave it an even higher rating of 8.4 (great).

Of course there are some people that really didn't like the game. But, I for one, would have to say this is one of my favorite games in the last couple years.

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 3

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 7/25/2006 3:14:09 AM

PanzerKampfwagen

Posts: 323
Joined: 7/1/2006
Status: offline

I just loved GG's WaW I, too, and I know from game testing that I'm going to like AWD even more.

If this Murat guy thinks WaW I was a terrible game, I'd at least like to know why. I don't like people who make statements and then don't back them up with information to prove their point.

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 4

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 7/26/2006 12:32:22 PM

Petiloup

Posts: 505
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PanzerKampfwagen

I just loved GG's WaW I, too, and I know from game testing that I'm going to like AWD even more.

If this Murat guy thinks WaW I was a terrible game, I'd at least like to know why. I don't like people who make statements and then don't back them up with information to prove their point.

I think Murat message was bad the first time and I am not interested in seeing him make a crappy reply worse

(in reply to PanzerKampfwagen)

Post #: 5

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 7/30/2006 8:15:21 AM

jpinard

Posts: 500
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline

Murat, that is just terrible. If you're not interested why'd you take the time to post the fact you're not interested? For myself this is exciting news and hopefully some of the things I didn't care for with the original WaW (which I still liked) will be addressed since there's a new design on the table. So far all the things being added to the game look phenomenal.

(in reply to Petiloup)

Post #: 6

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 7/30/2006 8:25:49 AM

Arnir

Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline

It does seem to me that there are people around here that appear to believe either that their opinion is eagerly sought out by all or that just popping in and dumping in a thread is cute and cool.

_____________________________

(in reply to jpinard)

Post #: 7

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 8/1/2006 6:58:23 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Actually I have stated the problems I saw with this in several other threads throughout this forum if you wish to read them. Gary's games are not usually of the 'beer and pretzel' genre and he is not, in my opinion, good at making one. China was not a major power in WWII and should not be here (those miltia should not even pop up - China was simply not able to defend itself against the Japanese Army, garrisoning is what kept Japan from overwhelming China, not battles). US and Britain should not have been united into one player. Supply requires more effort that battles do (unless you are doing auto supply and not worried about it). In short he simplified the wrong parts of the game and overly complicated the wrong parts. If you want beer and pretzels - A&A was made years ago, if you want a good Gary game, War in the Pacific.

AND looking at the AAR on this version of the game, Russia is relieved of a LOT of garrisoning they would have been required to do, and indeed DID do to keep the peoples of Eastern Europe subjugated at this time (hopefully this error is not compunded on the Allies side who also have some significant garrison requirements).

< Message edited by Murat -- 8/1/2006 7:08:08 PM >

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 8

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 8/1/2006 8:01:13 PM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

First of all - I do not agree that WaW / AWD is a beer and pretzel game - far from it. Sure, its not a monster game but its certainly alot more complex than what I would consider a beer and pretzel game.

Secondly, the details you nitpick about mostly show that you havent played the game. China is pretty easy for Japan to take - garrisoning and paying the cost in supply is what keeps the Japanese player from doing so. Having the US and UK be one nation does indeed look odd when you first start out but as you play the game you realise that in this particular game it actually makes sense. You also complain about the supply system - and here I really have to disagree. Not only is advanced supply possibly the best thought out part of the game because I really adds alot of interesting decision making but you can also decide to play with simple supply instead if advanced supply is too much for you.

Finally, starting a new thread by bragging about lying through your teeth to cheat a software retailer is not the best way to get credibility with me. Shame on you.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 9

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 8/1/2006 8:06:19 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, Murat. I don't see GGWaW as a beer-and-pretzels game; its considerably more complex than Axis & Allies, and plays much more realistically. I have friends who had the same beer-and-pretzels reaction when they looked at the graphics -- and changed their minds once they actually play. (In this connection, I'm glad to see that the new game will include NATO symbols, which will help persuade grognards that there's a serious game here.)

Supply is one example of the depth of the game. An emphasis on logistics is quite welcome in this genre, if you ask me, and it's consistent with Gary's design philosophy in games like UV and WITP. Yes, you have to be careful with supply -- one reason this isn't a beer-and-pretzels game. But the rules are easy to learn, and I don't spend more time on logistics than on operations.

I disagree with your assertion that China wasn't a significant power, or that it "wasn't able to defend itself" against Japan. Its massive manpower reserves are precisely why it did defend itself against Japan for more than a decade; garrisoning is only part of the answer. Sure, Japan garrisoned some major cities with a regiment or even a division, but Japan also had many divisions in the field against the massive Chinese army. In any case, the Allied player can usually do a China turn in a couple minutes, so I don't see any harm from the decision to include China. And playing as Japan, you really do have a decision to make: do you penetrate China, attack the USSR, or conduct a war in the Pacific?

I personally do agree that it'd have been better to make the US separate, but the new game marks a step in that direction with greater attention to conditions for US entry. I'd have included Italy too. But to me these are minor issues. In effect Italy and the US are modeled, as they have separate entry and surrender conditions, and even separate icons now. Doesn't strike me as a big deal.

What I really like about the game is that it models the entire conflict in a turn-based system that is amenable to PBEM. There is no map edge, and a map edge always creates distortions in wargames. I have played a number of PBEMs, none lasting more than a couple weeks, and each played differently and yet plausibly. Did you ever try a PBEM? The game really shines that way.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, but I for one can't wait for this new game.

< Message edited by Grotius -- 8/1/2006 8:10:20 PM >

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 10

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 8/2/2006 12:58:40 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Lol I find this thread rather funny, picking on someone else besides me for a change are yah boys? haha I think he had an honest opinion, glad he got his money back because many times we are ripped off by publishers for craptastic products that many places won't give a refund on. Bravo Murat I salute you ;)

(ok so I don't have a salute smiley) ;)

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 11

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 8/3/2006 11:15:58 PM

PanzerKampfwagen

Posts: 323
Joined: 7/1/2006
Status: offline

As a note to everybody, just make sure to place both Ravinhood and Murat on your mental list of people you definitely don't want to play or trust in any way.

If they think ripping off people is funny, then they probably don't have any qualms about cheating, either. When part of the apple is rotten, you might as well throw the whole thing out. They are entitled to their opinions, of course, but that doesn't mean we have to go along with them when it's apparent that they are attempting to promote dishonesty.
As far as I'm concerned, both of them aren't contributing much to this forum if all they can do is make statements that show their own ignorance and/or approval of cheating other people.

Why don't you two try posting something constructive and worthwhile instead? As it is now, all you're doing is senselessly shooting yourselves in the foot, and that doesn't help anyone, least of all you. There's no point

to doing it.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 12

RE: This game was bad the 1st time - 8/4/2006 12:31:31 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

I think it's time to lock this thread before things get more personal.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC