Tankerace
Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
|
Well, while I agree with your concerns (though I don't share them - mainly because I already bought it even though I don't play it), I don't think it is that bad.
I see everyone complaining about the limited demo, wanting to try it out more, etc. Before I myself would rush to judge them harshly, I would remember one thing: They didn't have to have a demo in the first place. SES was not obligated to provide you with a demo, nor should they be expected to let you have it indefinately (The demo is in reality the full game, though only one scenario is unlocked. If you can play it as long as you like, you could probably hack it). You want to use the demo to learn the interface, and learn the game. But is that what a demo is for? I have always been of the impression that a demo, especially a limited one, exists for the sole purpose of showing you the game, let you see it, and push you over the edge as to whether or not you will buy it. In that regard, it is a marketing tool, plain and simple. A tool that a company doesn't even have to use.
As to trying the demo with the latest patches - again, it is a marketing tool. It is not there to be played to check each incarnation of the game. In this regard I think SES should have done what every other game company does, in that the demo is never updated. I think the fact that if you have enough tries left you can check out how the game looks and runs with the patches is a perk. God knows you wouldn't see it anywhere else.
As to the price rising after release... that really isn't true. As I understood it before buying it, DG is a tactical game, one that you can also buy a campaign module for. How is this any different from the Combat Mission series and the upcoming Combat Mission Campaigns? With the massive scenarios, SES didn't even have to provide a campaign. Admittedly though, sales would be in the crapper if they didn't.
That said, I think DG is great.... the tactical game that is. I haven't fully tested the campaign, but when I did I was less than impressed at first (Port Arthur a resounding Russian victory???). However, considering that those of us who bought it now got the campaign for free, I don't think we can really complain. If we paid the full 90 we could go ape.
Do I think we are beta testers? Not so much for DG, but we are for the campaign game. But then again, we didn't pay for the campaign game, did we.
Finally, those who are compaining about having to buy the campaign separate in the future, I see two possible choices: Buy now and save, or wait and pay more. Not trying to be callous(sp), but I highly doubt SES is going to change this. I know that is why I bought it now, simply so as to have the campaign and not pay $90. Do I regret it? Nope. I haven't really played the campaign yet (too busy), I love the tactical game, and I would have bought the thing anyway. So at least for me, it wasn't money wasted even if the campaign is as bad as many feel.
In my personal opinion, the campaign should not be separate, and should not cost more. Moreover, for a fairly limited war, I feel that a end price of $90 is too much. However, given the fact there are no other RJW PC games out there (other than Tsushima), we don't have much of a choice in the end. I do feel the game was released way to early, and needed more than 2 beta testers not directly involved with the game. But I think the fact that SES gave a demo (even a limited one) which being the full game more or less lets you see the flaws in the game you can actually buy now if a pretty decent thing to do. Thus, I feel that criticizing them for a limited demo when most other wargame companies don't even release demos is wrong and not fair. As to complaining about the cost..... most of us paid 80 for War in the Pacific.... what's another 10 bucks for DG?
In my experience with the game (I think I've only put in a few hours), I find it enjoyable and immersing. The only bugs I encountered (back in the first release) where suicidal Japanese destroyers slamming into Port Arthur proper or playing catch with their own torpedoes.
One final commment, for people criticizing the 30 day demo lasting less than 30 days being a lie, this is directly from their site:
quote:
Distant Guns: The Russo-Japanese War at Sea
Distant Guns FULL VERSION -30 Day Trial - 1 Scenario Unlock - Click on one of the Mirror links below to download
This is the FULL VERSION with ONE (1) Scenario tha you can play for 30 Days or 30 Trys.
At any time you can simply choose to unlock the rest of the game by paying online.
Can be UNLOCKED to FULL GAME, including the CAMPAIGN that may also be unlocked.
Distant Guns FULL VERSION - 30 Day Trial - 1 Scenario Unlock - Download SItes -Click a mirror site below.
It specifically states 30 tries, so it isn't false advertisement. It is right there in black and white.
No, I'm not a DG or SES fanboy, I just think that they are getting criticized for things they did not do/say. I like the game, but I agree with you guys that the campaign, as interesting as the premise is, is crap at the moment.
< Message edited by Tankerace -- 8/20/2006 9:06:12 AM >
_____________________________
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
|
Printable Version
RE: Norm Koger's Distant Guns: Russo-Japanese War sets ... - 
Well, you'll know when the beta testing is done, when the price goes up! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread