RE: Impression

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Impression

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] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat - Cross of Iron >> RE: Impression

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Impression - 2/18/2007 9:04:32 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Monkeys Brain,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
OK, let's calm down. I didn't come here to start a fight or something. Your right is your right, and my right is my right to not confuse things. You get your feedback and move along. It is not me that will bring you troubles, you can ban me anytime I wouldn't care.

You know, I'm fine with having a calm discussion, but it would help if you stopped making assumptions that have no basis. We've banned less than ten people in the six years these forums have been up and NEVER for disagreeing with us.

quote:

So no problem at all. I will relocate me and stirr no trouble no more. I will certanly not build golden statues because I worship Matrix. And I don't. It's kind of funny when Eric say that Close Combat: Cross of Iron should have cost even more. Well, maybe those who bought it can donate 50$ more as a thank you sign. (irony).

Here's the thing. You comment, we reply, that's a discussion. It seems like when we disagree with you, you have to cast it in this other light where if one does not disagree with everything we do, the only other choice is to worship a golden statue of us. You do realize that there's room between those extremes, right? Using these kinds of argumentative methods doesn't really help you make your point.

quote:

And one more thing about the game, market will say last word. And as entertainment is so strong with PS3, PS2 games, Xbox360, Wii, other PC games, this of course will stay on the margine. Yes, even at 20 $ will be on the margine but at least some customers would not feel that they are paying over the top.

Sure, go ahead and pay more for one of those games, no problem. It is not news to us that the customer has all these options, but the options for real wargaming are far fewer. We decided to go in on a project with CSO, based on community demand, to re-engineer old code to work on modern systems. Also, to add quite a few new features as well as a new campaign. We then presented it as exactly what it was, stated our price and left it at that.

The disagreement comes when people say there's "nothing new" or "it should have been priced at $20". That's certainly every gamer's right to make their own decision, but please don't expect us to agree with it. We know how much work went into this, so we know there is a lot that's new and improved. We know it was marketed as exactly what it was, not as a brand new release, but an improved re-release with new multiplayer campaign support. We also know that it needs to be priced at around $40 for us to be able to justify future development - this is based on past sales experience, not on numbers pulled out of thin air.

quote:

What's wrong with Paradox? Now I start to respect those guys. I give them 40$ but I get new game. And that is a difference. And EU 3 is not so big game like those of Activisions, they also have their download hube so comparable to Matrix Games.

Here's another one of these assumptions. We've released several brand new games (i.e. new engines, never before seen, etc.) in the last year and every year. You can find them in our store. This project was specifically take up to re-release an older game due to community demand and see if the community would be willing and able to fund ongoing development and improvement. CC is not the newest game on the market, but its gameplay remains outstanding, in some areas unsurpassed and the engine has not been abandoned by the military as a training tool for that reason. A lot of folks wanted to see this title have another chance at ongoing development and improvement.

I would of course love to sell you a copy, but we've priced it as low as we can and stated clearly what it contains. If that's too high for now, no problem. Hopefully development will continue and in the future the mix of features vs. cost will be more in your ballpark.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 31

RE: Impression - 2/18/2007 9:04:55 PM

Motomouse

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Hi,
I have both EU3 and CoI
so far palying time EU3 : CoI = 10% : 90%
And I dont want to start a EU3 CoI Discussion! (I like both games)
I just felt the urge to mention it.
Have fun with your games, and buy the games you want to buy.
Regards

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 32

RE: Impression - 2/18/2007 9:33:46 PM

jmkas

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: Sparks MD
Status: offline

I have spent 100s of hours playing the CC series, but due to faster machines and new operating systems most of my favorites are unplayable. I have tried and determined that modding my machine or software to play a game is not worth my time. If an updated / new version of one of my favorites comes out that is playable on modern equipment, then I will buy it. The bottom line is what I get out of my entertainment dollar. If I spend $50 for a game and put 100 hours into it then I am paying 50 cents an hour to have fun. That's money well spent in my eyes...and I know I will put more than 100 hours into CC:CoI

Thanks Matrix,
jmkas

(in reply to Motomouse)

Post #: 33

RE: Impression - 2/18/2007 9:47:35 PM

Monkeys Brain

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

You know, I'm fine with having a calm discussion, but it would help if you stopped making assumptions that have no basis. We've banned less than ten people in the six years these forums have been up and NEVER for disagreeing with us.

OK, I will apologize - I cannot be nasty when someone is kind to me

quote:

Here's the thing. You comment, we reply, that's a discussion. It seems like when we disagree with you, you have to cast it in this other light where if one does not disagree with everything we do, the only other choice is to worship a golden statue of us. You do realize that there's room between those extremes, right? Using these kinds of argumentative methods doesn't really help you make your point.

I agree here completely.

quote:

Sure, go ahead and pay more for one of those games, no problem. It is not news to us that the customer has all these options, but the options for real wargaming are far fewer. We decided to go in on a project with CSO, based on community demand, to re-engineer old code to work on modern systems. Also, to add quite a few new features as well as a new campaign. We then presented it as exactly what it was, stated our price and left it at that.

The disagreement comes when people say there's "nothing new" or "it should have been priced at $20". That's certainly every gamer's right to make their own decision, but please don't expect us to agree with it. We know how much work went into this, so we know there is a lot that's new and improved. We know it was marketed as exactly what it was, not as a brand new release, but an improved re-release with new multiplayer campaign support. We also know that it needs to be priced at around $40 for us to be able to justify future development - this is based on past sales experience, not on numbers pulled out of thin air.

OK, that is your side of story. First don't think that I don't appreciate that you brought back CC: CoI, that would be not true. I appreciate it. In fact the most desirable thing for me was that multiplayer option. Beside that, I admit, I played only vanilla CC3 without mods so another plus on this release is easy to use mods etc...that is really a plus. I don't expect that you agree with me or vice versa. And there is no free lunch, I have hundreds of games. Maybe in the end I will even buy this game. If I don't resist this temptations ...
Numbers are on your end - so I cannot argue them because you didn't disclose them.
But just as I said Erik, it would be not me that will ask the questions about the price again and again. People don't know what you know and many will act by their instincts or with the fact that they know from their experience. So until you clear that up completely they will know few facts:

1. They don't know your prediction of sales, and mostly they don't care. Many will just jump over this game and say "there is not much for me for 40$ as this or that game offer this or that". Customer menthality plays role here as well. Gamers are spoiled kids. They were spoiled by whole game industry. They were used to bigger, better, new, added, etc...
For most times they don't care if you would sell 5 copies or 5 million.
So this question will hang in the air all the time.

quote:

Here's another one of these assumptions. We've released several brand new games (i.e. new engines, never before seen, etc.) in the last year and every year. You can find them in our store. This project was specifically take up to re-release an older game due to community demand and see if the community would be willing and able to fund ongoing development and improvement. CC is not the newest game on the market, but its gameplay remains outstanding, in some areas unsurpassed and the engine has not been abandoned by the military as a training tool for that reason. A lot of folks wanted to see this title have another chance at ongoing development and improvement.

I would of course love to sell you a copy, but we've priced it as low as we can and stated clearly what it contains. If that's too high for now, no problem. Hopefully development will continue and in the future the mix of features vs. cost will be more in your ballpark.

OK, cannot counterargue this. I am just saying that no matter how much your loyal customer trust you some of them will still think that this or that price is much bigger than what they accept to pay. I know also that is not good when some company get a reputation of pricing their products too high. You may be right 100% from your point of view but average Joe Gamer doesn't nececary share that view. They stil think in the terms of new games, new shiny interface and animation, new engines that took 2 years to develop and still expect of developers to reinvent the wheel every time they develop their new game. If you are satisfied with small circle of diehard grognards that will support you, great for you. But just don't think that it is good way to follow. Some middle ground is maybe better.
Nobody expect from you that you put UT 3 engine into CC: CoI but some will not look nicely toward remakes that use dinosaur graphics but have a price tag of 40$. That is just way things work. If you are satisfied with that small circle ok, but we will see how in the end that will give ongoing support for future development. Human nature is just like that. So it is a question will those higher prices get enough revenues like sales of modestly prized games. There is also a matter of reputation etc...
Even new games many times not sell enough to cover development costs and what publishers need to sell next game for 99$ to cover losses? They cannot do that.
I just stay with my opinion that remakes should be priced lower. Matrix Games just needs to find a way to sell more quantities, pumping up the price will not do you good. But, of course feel free to disagree.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 34

RE: Impression - 2/18/2007 10:25:09 PM

Shaun Wallace

Posts: 819
Joined: 3/23/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

See, I am not part of the problem. With or without Matrix Games I have plenty of entertainment. So, you don't need me, and I don't need you

So no problem at all. I will relocate me and stirr no trouble no more. I will certanly not build golden statues because I worship Matrix. And I don't. It's kind of funny when Eric say that Close Combat: Cross of Iron should have cost even more. Well, maybe those who bought it can donate 50$ more as a thank you sign. (irony).

And one more thing about the game, market will say last word. And as entertainment is so strong with PS3, PS2 games, Xbox360, Wii, other PC games, this of course will stay on the margine. Yes, even at 20 $ will be on the margine but at least some customers would not feel that they are paying over the top.

What's wrong with Paradox? Now I start to respect those guys. I give them 40$ but I get new game. And that is a difference. And EU 3 is not so big game like those of Activisions, they also have their download hube so comparable to Matrix Games.

Hia MB (now there IS Irony!)

As the developers of CC now that Atomic Games are no more than a brand name, Simtek chose to re-release CC while at the same time developing the next generation CC. (CC6) As has been pointed out there are many here who would have never played CC before and many who wanted the enhancements. This does not mean you have to buy the game or agree with the price etc. We set the price with the publisher and are happy that it is in the correct area. We know how much work went into it and how much work is going into CC6. As Erik has pointed out very cogently this is a discussion and everyone will have differing opinions.

Many people here have played CC before and some I even remember from the CC Gaming Zone on MS, who recognise the chnages made and the flexibility we have built into CoI to make the mods much more accessible to a much large audience. Those who have played CC alot can see the changes made to the game. PC wargames developers and publishers are small and getting few and far between. It needs companies like Matrix and Paradox to publish these games as if it was down to Ubi/EA/Atari you can be sure they would never see the light of day. Simple ecenomics dicates that.

Also as Erik points out we at Simtek have done a large amount of work for the military utililising the CC engine (even earning a commendation from the Commandant of the USMC) which has made a large part of what we aim to do with CC possible. The military are now using a brand new (we only finished it this month) version of CC that is for use as an AT trainer for their FAST teams. This is because the tactical engine within CC is so good. Just because something is old does not automatically make it bad. The AK47 is an old Assault Rifle, but still holds its own against much newer weapons (ok no tangent guys! <G>), the same goes for the CC engine. If it aint broke don't fix it, but build on what is good and solid to make it better, which is what we are trying to do ;)

Many out there will I know have fun with the game, both old and new players, but there will always be those that do not agree or are not in agreement with you, as has been said thats fine, its discussion and points of view.

Cheers

Sulla

_____________________________

Nec amicus officium nec hostis iniuriam mihi intulit, quo in toto non reddidi. - Sulla
----------------------
http://www.closecombat.org/csoforums/portal.php

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 35

RE: Impression - 2/18/2007 10:54:13 PM

Monkeys Brain

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace

quote:

See, I am not part of the problem. With or without Matrix Games I have plenty of entertainment. So, you don't need me, and I don't need you

So no problem at all. I will relocate me and stirr no trouble no more. I will certanly not build golden statues because I worship Matrix. And I don't. It's kind of funny when Eric say that Close Combat: Cross of Iron should have cost even more. Well, maybe those who bought it can donate 50$ more as a thank you sign. (irony).

And one more thing about the game, market will say last word. And as entertainment is so strong with PS3, PS2 games, Xbox360, Wii, other PC games, this of course will stay on the margine. Yes, even at 20 $ will be on the margine but at least some customers would not feel that they are paying over the top.

What's wrong with Paradox? Now I start to respect those guys. I give them 40$ but I get new game. And that is a difference. And EU 3 is not so big game like those of Activisions, they also have their download hube so comparable to Matrix Games.

Hia MB (now there IS Irony!)

As the developers of CC now that Atomic Games are no more than a brand name, Simtek chose to re-release CC while at the same time developing the next generation CC. (CC6) As has been pointed out there are many here who would have never played CC before and many who wanted the enhancements. This does not mean you have to buy the game or agree with the price etc. We set the price with the publisher and are happy that it is in the correct area. We know how much work went into it and how much work is going into CC6. As Erik has pointed out very cogently this is a discussion and everyone will have differing opinions.

Many people here have played CC before and some I even remember from the CC Gaming Zone on MS, who recognise the chnages made and the flexibility we have built into CoI to make the mods much more accessible to a much large audience. Those who have played CC alot can see the changes made to the game. PC wargames developers and publishers are small and getting few and far between. It needs companies like Matrix and Paradox to publish these games as if it was down to Ubi/EA/Atari you can be sure they would never see the light of day. Simple ecenomics dicates that.

Also as Erik points out we at Simtek have done a large amount of work for the military utililising the CC engine (even earning a commendation from the Commandant of the USMC) which has made a large part of what we aim to do with CC possible. The military are now using a brand new (we only finished it this month) version of CC that is for use as an AT trainer for their FAST teams. This is because the tactical engine within CC is so good. Just because something is old does not automatically make it bad. The AK47 is an old Assault Rifle, but still holds its own against much newer weapons (ok no tangent guys! <G>), the same goes for the CC engine. If it aint broke don't fix it, but build on what is good and solid to make it better, which is what we are trying to do ;)

Many out there will I know have fun with the game, both old and new players, but there will always be those that do not agree or are not in agreement with you, as has been said thats fine, its discussion and points of view.

Cheers

Sulla

Hehehe, Hia Sulla,

I am doing this rarely and put a ashes on my head.

After a meditetion tomorrow I will decide will I buy this game but I know that it will be hard to resist. I am sorry. But, on some things I am staying with my principle however wrong they may be.

But, as a sign of respect toward you I will bury tomahawk toward Matrix hehe even for a while. lol

I didn't know that you are developing CC6? What's happened with Red Phoenix that Atomic Games worked on? I know that it was based in North Korea (I did read your forums, plenty of fun there!)

I am big fan of CC, played 3, 4 and 5 and 2 (a little less). Liked 3 mostly.

Monkey Brain (if i buy the game that would be no nick for multiplayer as many would want to kill me hehe)

(in reply to Shaun Wallace)

Post #: 36

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 1:26:28 AM

undercovergeek

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

its not a re-release for me - its a new game - i missed it first time round and CAW, and as such i expect to pay for a new game - besides which exchange rate makes it just over �20 -bargain.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 37

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:00:58 AM

old man of the sea

Posts: 454
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: Waynesboro, PA
Status: offline

undercovergeek has it, this game was released 10 years ago. The average gamer is between 22 and 38 years old. That means that the average 28 and under gamer most likely never saw CC3. Half the market. It makes it a great idea to re-release it.

E

_____________________________

"Point me to a 'civilised' part of the General Forum and I'll steer way clear of it." - Soddball

Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I never have been able to make out the numbers.

(in reply to undercovergeek)

Post #: 38

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:26:33 AM

Llyranor

Posts: 217
Joined: 4/29/2006
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

I don't see how paying a meager 10$ extra to support a franchise (including CC6 down the line) featuring a rare breed of gameplay is compromising any sort of principle.

If that 10$ means I can play something other than just another mainstream RTS, I'm in.

(in reply to old man of the sea)

Post #: 39

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:30:52 AM

Beeblebrox

Posts: 200
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

this game was released 10 years ago. The average gamer is between 22 and 38 years old. That means that the average 28 and under gamer most likely never saw CC3. Half the market. It makes it a great idea to re-release it.

This was EXACTLY my original strategy.

Despite all the hoo haa about features and presentation and value for money and blah blah blah, it is my opinion that re-releasing the "Classic" Game around a decade after original release is enough Merit on its own. This is not just any old game, niche market though it may be. This is a class production and a Classic Game, winning some major awards, and still holds it head up with ANYTHING else out there, despite it's dated graphics.

Whether ot not a Grog will buy a re-release is not the most significant item on the commercial agenda. To be honest what they (Grogs) really want is a *new* release. However, we took the opportunity to complement CC3 with additonal features and services. Whilst this has gone down quite well with some (as seen by posts on this and CSO Forums), I am not convinced that this will make as much difference to potential new players as some would have us believe. To a new player, CC3 is new game, so what's the difference? In fact you could argue that what has been done has effectively seperated 2 sets of gamers. The CC3 and the CoI Players. CoI will not H2H with CC3. So all new players are not going to be able to fit in seamlessly with the established Community. Take MMCCIII. Because the Battles are actually fought by H2H in the nromal way, that means plaers with CC3 cannot join in the CoI Campaigns, and vice versa.

Sure, we would like all CC3 players to buy CoI, but they won't, and I have nothing to say against them for that. I wonder whether the 'extra' sales to established CC3 owners will be anything more than nominal. Maybe I'm wrong, but either way, re-releasing CoI as basically a tech upgrade to CC3 would have perfectly valid in my opinion. Just goes to show that we do not always get what we want... c'est la vie! It's now out there, and I am happy about that!

(in reply to old man of the sea)

Post #: 40

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:34:55 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

What's planned for CC6?

Honestly, yes, I belong to the "slightly disappointed" club here - not so much because of price, but because this *might* have been the wasted opportunity to *really* revitalize and refresh this fantastic engine (graphics, UI, sounds, usability...)

Now, I said "might have been the wasted opportunity". Perhaps the opportunity is not entirely wasted, yet. If this CC:CoI, meagre as it is, is just a stepping stone towards CC6 I am all ears

_____________________________

(in reply to Llyranor)

Post #: 41

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:46:05 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea
undercovergeek has it, this game was released 10 years ago. The average gamer is between 22 and 38 years old. That means that the average 28 and under gamer most likely never saw CC3. Half the market. It makes it a great idea to re-release it.

Sorry mate but whoever thinks this re-release will get any new players to the genre/series is smoking some strong stuff... For any new player this game has "dated!" written accross it's forehead. CC:CoI is aimed at old CC players and this is in a way cashing on nostalgia. Hey, nothing wrong with that - it's a perfecly legitimate business model, as long as we all know what we're in for.

Also, I have personally seen bazillion posts on various boards to the tune of "please god just give us the old CC3, 100% same, just make it work under XP". As they say be careful what you wish for, you might get it

Anyhow, just wanted to say what I think/hope/want:

a) CC:CoI will not bring more than 12 new players to the genre/series. Whoever thinks otherwise needs to play more games.
b) If that's the end of the CC line - let us know.
c) If it's a stepping stone towards *really* new CC6 - I am sure many of us here would like to know more

_____________________________

(in reply to old man of the sea)

Post #: 42

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:48:00 AM

Beeblebrox

Posts: 200
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

There is no shortage of intention, just a massive shortage of resources ($$$). I believe Close Combat does NEED a facelift, but that is not necessarily the biggest issue in terms of a new release. It is far more important that the AI foundations of CC are taken forwards to the next generation, and that is a time intensive, costly, and high risk initiative. Why high risk? If you spend man years of work building a behavioural and psychological system based on complex interactions, there is no way you are going to be able to gurantee if the result will work, not just as a simulator, but as a game. What if you spend 5 man years work on the AI, and find it does not actually deliver to the standard you need? Big gamble. Who's going to front up tons of spondoolicks to resource that?

Through this and other releases, we are going to try and mobilise some serious work on CC. That is our intention and hope. Real life may have other plans, but all we can do is bang the rocks together until it happens, or doesn't as the case may be.... oh, and hope that luck is on our side...

You have no idea how important all your support is, and has been over the years. It is part of why we are still here, and even have the remotest hope of taking it on further.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 43

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:57:20 AM

Beeblebrox

Posts: 200
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

CC:CoI is aimed at old CC players and this is in a way cashing on nostalgia.

We have to differ. before CC came out, there was a world of peolpe who never played anything like it.

A decade on, there is another generation of players who have never played anything like it. I don't buy the 'dated graphics' excuse. It's not the graphics that 'pulls' is it? Once that gets around, I am sure that there will be plenty of new players coming on board. It was and never will be a preferred 'wargame' to those who are committed FPS players.

Game play is everything. There is no competition to CC at the moment IMO. I use a very simple perspective:

Drop dead gorgeous graphics, crap game play - crap game, possible short term sales, but no longevity.
Crap graphics, drop dead gorgeous game play - great game, less short terms sales, much longevity

But I have absolutely no objection at all to taking CC into drop dead gorgeous graphics. What a great complement to a great game!

(in reply to Beeblebrox)

Post #: 44

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 4:02:04 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beeblebrox

There is no shortage of intention, just a massive shortage of resources ($$$).� I believe Close Combat does NEED a facelift, but that is not necessarily the biggest issue in terms of a new release.�

You're one of the guys on this project? A developer? So I take it that your answer on "what's planned for CC6" may be summed up as "I don't have a clue!"

_____________________________

(in reply to Beeblebrox)

Post #: 45

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 4:10:40 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beeblebrox

quote:

CC:CoI is aimed at old CC players and this is in a way cashing on nostalgia.
We have to differ.� before CC came out, there was a world of peolpe who never played anything like it.

A decade on, there is another generation of players who have never played anything like it.� .

And they most probably never will. At least not in CC:CoI's current form.

They will read the press release (if it appears on Gamespot, and I haven't seen it so far), see the screenshots and say "so *this* is what granpa's Company of Heros looked like??? well poor granpa" and go back to their Blitzkrieg and CoH shallow RTS bullsh1t, never realising beyond terrible UI and aging graphics exists one of the best tactical engines ever. I mean, it's not like you actually *helped* them, by updating the UI and graphics haven't you?

quote:

I don't buy the 'dated graphics' excuse. It's not the graphics that 'pulls' is it?

Yea we CC veterans know it, but young guys don't.

However, I would not even completely agree with this assesment. When it was first released CC3 was graphically quite capable game. Now would it hurt devs if they implemented, say, proper zoom (mouse wheel), with proper scaling and interpolation today's 2D graphics engines are well capable of? Instead, we still have 4x enlarged pixels, which to be honest is totally unacceptable for 2007s graph and UI standards.

quote:

Drop dead gorgeous graphics, crap game play - crap game, possible short term sales, but no longevity.
Crap graphics, drop dead gorgeous game play - great game, less short terms sales, much longevity

Nothing new here - it's an age old mantra of developers that are unable to make their game look acceptable

Any customer failing to see how great their game might be, behind atrocious UI and bad graphics, must be stupid, right? Well it isn't always like that....

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 2/19/2007 4:25:47 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Beeblebrox)

Post #: 46

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 4:50:39 AM

Shaun Wallace

Posts: 819
Joined: 3/23/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

You're one of the guys on this project? A developer? So I take it that your answer on "what's planned for CC6" may be summed up as "I don't have a clue!"

Not sure where you get that idea really! Do not forget that we have been working on military CC projects, some not even finishished that will have a huge impact on CC6. There are many things that will come out with CC6 that we know of and that are already underway. The limitary products have led development in many directions.

Imagine CC with:

5 on 5 MP Play
4 X or more larger maps
Pre-deploy fortifications
Scripting to allow for other Victory Conditions and in game options, set up via scenario editor
Complete AAR of any game
Civilians
Mount and dismount of units onto and off vehicles
Major AI improvments
Dig In / Fortification commands
A raft of new menu options in game
New unit types

This is just a part of what could already be completed ;) or Not .... CC6 is well on the way and we have major plans for it. We have even bigger plans for CC7.

CC: CoI is a release to serve 3 main purposes.
To give back something back to the grogs who have been around for a long time waiting for something from CC.
Wanting to get new players into both CC and the modding scene by making things much easier and far more widely accesssible.
Last but not least, to help fund the development of said CC6 and CC7.

We are all at Simtek CC nuts and wargamers and love what we do. Unlike mainstream game develoment its not huge bucks and sometimes its tough, but we all want to bring the next generation of CC to fruition and to the gaming public. Many of you know me from CSO and know that its not always been easy keeping such a huge download site going, but things ahve changed and we have the opportunity to bring CC back to life with a bang. Thats really the long and short of where we are and what we want for the future ;)

Sulla

_____________________________

Nec amicus officium nec hostis iniuriam mihi intulit, quo in toto non reddidi. - Sulla
----------------------
http://www.closecombat.org/csoforums/portal.php

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 47

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 4:58:34 AM

Shaun Wallace

Posts: 819
Joined: 3/23/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Actually, Oleg, thats not strictly true. CC that looked like SS or Blitz etc, but still played like CC would be nice yes, but the game play is where its at.

With CC7, there will be major graphic overhaul to bring it into line with more modern games, but top down and maybe isometric are still where CC will be at. Its simply the most efficient use of the GUI for a tactical game of this scope. Now Strat layer, thats a totally different story and major plans are in the works for this ;)

Sulla

_____________________________

Nec amicus officium nec hostis iniuriam mihi intulit, quo in toto non reddidi. - Sulla
----------------------
http://www.closecombat.org/csoforums/portal.php

(in reply to Shaun Wallace)

Post #: 48

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 5:26:49 AM

old man of the sea

Posts: 454
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: Waynesboro, PA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Sorry mate but whoever thinks this re-release will get any new players to the genre/series is smoking some strong stuff... For any new player this game has "dated!" written accross it's forehead. CC:CoI is aimed at old CC players and this is in a way cashing on nostalgia. Hey, nothing wrong with that - it's a perfecly legitimate business model, as long as we all know what we're in for.

There are lots of games out there that prove that game play is more important than graphics in the wargame theatre. Hell, GI Combat sold 30,000 units retail and is still bringing in big bucks off of digital download. Its a butt ugly game with marginal game play. If CoI does half that SimTek will be doing great for development money.

E

_____________________________

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 49

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 5:51:10 AM

Prince of Eckm�hl

Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Since Eric has spoken about G.I.Combat, let me respectfully chime in.

I believe that a lot of people took it for a given that the next step in the evolution of Close Combat should be to take the concept 3-D. GIC was the result. For a host of reasons, it never measured up to CC in terms of gameplay. And I don't believe that any game engine ever has, at least not on this unit scale. For that reason, I think that folks grousing about the graphics in CC3 or CoI is kinda silly. Simply put, what do you want, a pretty screen-saver running wide-open on your desktop, or a great game?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to old man of the sea)

Post #: 50

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 6:25:40 AM

Llyranor

Posts: 217
Joined: 4/29/2006
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beeblebrox
However, we took the opportunity to complement CC3 with additonal features and services. Whilst this has gone down quite well with some (as seen by posts on this and CSO Forums), I am not convinced that this will make as much difference to potential new players as some would have us believe. To a new player, CC3 is new game, so what's the difference?

Don't think for a moment that the new content isn't appreciated. CC3 may be new for me, but having 26 new maps and changes for more realism and improvements to AI are all things I can completely support.

(in reply to Beeblebrox)

Post #: 51

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 7:08:11 AM

spadman

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Colorado, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Oleg said Sorry mate but whoever thinks this re-release will get any new players to the genre/series is smoking some strong stuff... For any new player this game has "dated!" written accross it's forehead. CC:CoI is aimed at old CC players and this is in a way cashing on nostalgia. Hey, nothing wrong with that - it's a perfecly legitimate business model, as long as we all know what we're in for.

I am definitely one of those that are a new player to CC. $40 didnt seem so bad to me because it was a new game to me. I cant imagine that I am one of a very few that are going to be drawn into this game as a release that seems quite interesting.

(in reply to Llyranor)

Post #: 52

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 8:21:41 AM

Adam Parker

Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline

Just a general reply to the group here - no one in particular - as it's moved rapidly! But I've probably learned more about the game here - shortcomings and strengths than in all other threads put together and any marketing support material.

I think there is definitely a basis for some to be cynical about Matrix of late as being focused on charging "full prices" for re-releases. But there's nothing wrong with that. As Erik alluded to, Matrix is simply exploring and answering market demand. Hell, if they reprinted the full AH catalogue complete with mounted boards, I'd take out an equity loan to buy it up full price!

But in the arena of PC war gaming, only if I see a huge improvement to gameplay or I've never owned an original will I now invest in such a beast (Carriers at War will be an example of the latter for me). So, if someone say's "don't buy a game if you already own it because the changes are minimal", as has been posted here, then I'll say "thanks for the heads up".

That said, though, there really seems to be a very odd conflict of opinions here - some say CC:CoI has no worthy improvements to gameplay whilst others say it does. I'm thoroughly confused (and I did read the release notes).

As for CC as series, I love CC5 (Normandy) - picked it up for $10AUD new off the retail shelf (published by Red Ant Games). CC4 which I believe covered the Ardennes absolutely appalled me for its brain dead AI. Hence, remembering the controversy over the CC3 Russia's AI (the basis for CC:CoI), I really am looking to see 10-20 posters in a row say to me here - "the AI is vastly improved and a blast to play - buy it"! Till then I'll have to rely on threads like this for the game's debate.

(in reply to spadman)

Post #: 53

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 11:34:45 AM

Monkeys Brain

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Oleg came up with all guns blazing a cavarly arrived lol
Just joking, nice thread.

About CC6, if you plan to make game of exporting american democracy to iraq, you will not do well in europe, I guarantee you.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 54

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 11:55:09 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

First of all Sulla thanks for the informative reply! Sounds good, I am sure many here will agree......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckm�hl
I believe that a lot of people took it for a given that the next step in the evolution of Close Combat should be to take the concept 3-D. GIC was the result.

Way I understood only Eric Young thought CC oughta go 3D, so being the main game designer for CC series he did it (and I think we'll all agree - failed). Most of us here would be OK with CC staying 2D in presentation (I know I will).

However, staying in the realm of 2D does not have to mean "never changing a thing". Many many things can and should be improved graphic, and UI wise. Just take a look at the COTA series UI! Fully zoomable map, yay!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Prince of Eckm�hl)

Post #: 55

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 1:53:41 PM

Udi

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/21/2006
Status: offline

Interesting points from all and thanks for the answers!
Also thanks to Marc for deciding for me if I buy or not the game: after those arrogant answers I am really not going to give anything to Matrix.

Back to CCIII + RR. I was really waiting for this one.

< Message edited by Udi -- 2/19/2007 2:09:25 PM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 56

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 2:16:24 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Udi

Interesting points from all and thanks for the answers!
Also thanks to Marc for deciding for me if I buy or not the game: after those arrogant answers I am really not going to give anything to Matrix.

Oh come on, Marc is German-Italian, he has to be arrogant

I guess it's from too much parma cheese + beer.

He's cool guy most of the time though.....

_____________________________

(in reply to Udi)

Post #: 57

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 2:23:16 PM

dobeln

Posts: 311
Joined: 3/28/2005
Status: offline

Funnily enough, this thread sold me on CoI - A modern, supported CC with Multiplayer is something I've wanted for a long time :)

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 58

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 2:59:53 PM

bink

Posts: 149
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Why is there no retail distribution of this game? e.g. Best Buy, CompUSA, etc?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 59

RE: Impression - 2/19/2007 3:04:23 PM

Beeblebrox

Posts: 200
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

"what's planned for CC6" may be summed up as "I don't have a clue!"

We have plenty of clues grasshopper, even you do!

but not the dosh. It's a mean mad tricksy world out there, but no generous patrons falling over themselves to be first in line to put the money in. Look see what does attract the serious money... it ain't CC! Could CC ever become a top selling global game? I doubt it.

I could no more play Motor Smashup Madness Thing Type Game than drill a hole in my head, well unless I was out of my skull at the time, and I probably would regret it afterwards...

(in reply to dobeln)

Post #: 60