UV review by Gamespot

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

UV review by Gamespot

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> UV review by Gamespot

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

UV review by Gamespot - 6/12/2002 10:22:03 PM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

Hello

An UV review by Gamespot :
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2870340,00.html

Spooky

Post #: 1

- 6/12/2002 10:28:24 PM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

BTW, GameSpot gives an "reader review" rating based on the reader vote (surprising !)

So if you enjoy UV, please vote for UV by clicking on "review this game" :)

Spooky

Edit : GameSpot is probably one of the computer game sites with the widest audience ... so if we want UV to be a success outside the grognard community - we need UV to get a "reader review" rating as good as the game is !

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 2

- 6/12/2002 10:49:15 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

You have to read the article, the guy who wrote it obviously is a bit shy on his knowledge of the Pacific War...hehe. That last paragraph kills me..ABCD...American, British, China....and DENMARK....lol:D I guess I better watch out for them Viking ships when I play the Japs again..

He brings up a few good points...but paying $30 to print off the manual...I think he better find a more efficient printer:)

Anyways...not too bad an article..I got a few good chuckles.

Andy

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 3

- 6/12/2002 10:56:28 PM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

I think he must have looked at some threads in the forum - all the points he raised (mousewheel, ASW planes, ...) were discussed quite a lot of times !

However, he likes the game ... so it is positive review :)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 4

A fair review... - 6/12/2002 10:59:59 PM

Erik Rutins

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

I just read through and thought the review itself was very fair and favorable. I notice that our rating got hammered in sound and graphics - the logic of that is beyond me, even though we've gotten this kind of split before.

UV has, in my opinion, some of the best graphics and sound in any operational wargame ever. If we are being weighed against 3D graphics and Surround Sound, I can't figure out how that makes sense. What would you use 3D graphics and Surround Sound for in an operational wargame?

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 Spooky)

Post #: 5

- 6/12/2002 11:07:47 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi Erik

I think people have got spoiled with the graphics and sound that are now available in most genre's of gaming...and somehow come to expect it even in wargaming. Us old diehards know better though....the gameplay is what is important for a wargame (although I would probably even complain if I saw old 8 bit graphics)...and for an operational level game..what kind of sound can you expext...maybe the theme to "Victory at Sea" playing in the background would be cool...you know...mood music..hehe...but I don't need this game to do that:)

Andy

PS When you guys gonna add the Viking ships:)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 6

A 5/10 for Graphics! - 6/12/2002 11:40:09 PM

IChristie

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

That's cold, that's really cold...

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 7

- 6/13/2002 12:08:41 AM

IMJennifer

Posts: 28
Joined: 6/4/2002
From: Rural Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]BTW, GameSpot gives an "reader review" rating based on the reader vote (surprising !)

So if you enjoy UV, please vote for UV by clicking on "review this game" :)

Spooky

Edit : GameSpot is probably one of the computer game sites with the widest audience ... so if we want UV to be a success outside the grognard community - we need UV to get a "reader review" rating as good as the game is ! [/B][/QUOTE]

As of this moment, there were 28 reviews -- score of 8.0
My review (10s across the board, of course) raised the score to 8.1

By the way, I thought the carping about the pdf manual, the sound and the graphics were sillly and anyone smart enough to play UV will see that.
:)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 8

- 6/13/2002 12:19:26 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IMJennifer
[B]

As of this moment, there were 28 reviews -- score of 8.0
My review (10s across the board, of course) raised the score to 8.1

By the way, I thought the carping about the pdf manual, the sound and the graphics were sillly and anyone smart enough to play UV will see that.
:) [/B][/QUOTE]

The unfortunate part is that 90% of the readership over there probably aren't smart enough to understand that =(

While I think the review is favorable overall, I do think that the deathnell for the game is the lack of positive review for graphics/sound. While most of us have no problems with it, the largest buying block of game players do.

I also rated it with 10's accross the board being and hope other's here will do the same to hopefully boost sales through readership reviews.

Reiryc

_____________________________

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 9

Re: A 5/10 for Graphics! - 6/13/2002 12:19:51 AM

82nd Airborne

Posts: 2484
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Coquitlam, B.C., Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IChristie
[B]That's cold, that's really cold... [/B][/QUOTE]

heh,heh. Well that is a tough category for a game like this.
I gave it an 8.

The map is beautiful, and the pop ups are great with the ships and plane pix.

My gripes (small ones) would include having bigger buttons, having better info on the pop up you get when simply holding the cursor over a base/TF. (I don't really need the victory points I don't think). Destination would be good(TF).
Personally , I have a bit of trouble distinguishing the ship icons and would like them to be more distinct. I would also like to see by colour code or something if their supply situation was bad rather than having to click on the base/tf. An at a glance thing.

Anyway , I did my part for raising the ratings, and I love the game.

I think the reviewer could have done a better job of articulating his problem with the graphics.

_____________________________

"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." - Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 10

Danes? - 6/13/2002 12:22:11 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I dont recall clearly, but didnt three Danish transports make it out
of Copenhagen when the germans came marching in?
(transports == merchant ships)

I could be wrong but I recall that grabbing the merchant fleet
was one of the goals.

Probably moot.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 11

- 6/13/2002 12:32:44 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21
[B]...but paying $30 to print off the manual...I think he better find a more efficient printer:)
Andy [/B][/QUOTE]
Sounds like he went to an Office Store of some sort or a short-notice print shop.

I just took about 70 sheets of paper, printed odd pages on one side, flipped it over, and printed, even on the other. Granted, I do own an HP LJ5MP...:D

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 12

- 6/13/2002 1:05:27 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Erik and IChristie :

I love your game.

However, ;) I do think you could have, with a minimum of effort, done a slightly better job with the graphics. Specifically, I'm talking about the battle graphics : task force and carrier combat.

If you have planes attacking individual ships in groups of no more than 4, why not have 4 (or however many their are) plane icons in the box, so we can see the result of each plane's efforts? You know, whether the plane hits anything with its ordnance and whether it gets damaged or destroyed? Instead we have the "x4" scheme with little text messages that are hard to follow. Wouldn't it be great to also see the pilots name above each plane and their current experience rating? You could do that couldn't you? With air to air combat you couldn't do this because of the number, but with the critical carrier attacks you could do this.

Why not have dive bombers at an angle where its clear that they are dive bombing, torp bombers at an even angle when they are launching torps, same for level bombers. Instead, all of the graphics there look like they are falling directly on the target.

Torp launches during task force combat could be much more dramatic if torp trails were going across the box and given some .5 second delay or something. Also, the sounds of the guns firing could be improved with the big guns sounding really devastating. Don't get me wrong, I think you did a good job here, I just want more better dammit ;)

With just a little effort and some inspirational re-use of existing stuff, you could make the battle sequences much more interesting than they are currently. I'd be more than happy to provide what I think is a more detailed scheme here, with all recommendations looking for code re-use or efficient object development in case something new is needed.

The battle graphics is the part where most players really are paying attention to the graphics. Had this part been given a little more thought and code, your rating would assuredly have skyrocketed into the 9 + category by even the Game Spot reviewer.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 13

- 6/13/2002 1:08:53 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

P.S.: GameSpot charges for things like downloads and posting text reviews, so don't waste your time trying to do more than rate UV if you're not willing to pay.

The guy who wrote that obviously didn't play it very much, otherwise he might have better understood some of the nuances of the game (i.e., the reason you need to set a destination for a convoy because it is already at its destination. So, if the transports finish loading in mid-turn, the TF would think it has arrived at its destination, and commence unloading...)

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 14

Thanks - 6/13/2002 1:33:31 AM

IChristie

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Dgaad,

Thanks for the constructive advice. I know that a number of different approaches to the air combat screens were tried (I was not directly involved but I did prepare some graphics that, in the end, were not used).

It's a tough choice because, as per usual, you can easily spend much more time on the interface and graphics which are supposed to be there to support the gameplay (not the other way 'round as is typical of many game genres) than you do on getting the "under the hood" stuff right.

I'm not really upset at the graphics rating on gamespot - it could hardly have been otherwise when you consider the source. I should emphasize that I had only a [I]really small[/I] part of the UV grahics (Marc and George are the real talent - I just lucked out alphabetically in the credits) but I am proud to have been a part of the team and I think the graphics do a good job of providing an attractive environment without getting in the way of the game (which is their proper role in this kind of game, after all).

Still, there's always room for improvement. I'm not sure what changes are planned for the combat graphics in WITP but I'm sure these comments will be considered.

Thanks again

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 15

- 6/13/2002 2:01:15 AM

Mark W Carver

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: South-central PA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
The battle graphics is the part where most players really are paying attention to the graphics.... [/QUOTE]

It would be interesting to know how many players are using the battle graphics. I personally have turned them off after 2 days of playing... they consume too much time for me.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 16

- 6/13/2002 2:12:46 AM

legio

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/19/2002
Status: offline

Great game. I just submitted my review and saw the rating go from 8.3 to 8.4 Some pay back for all the hard work Matrix and GG etc put in. Thanks.

I am very pleased with UV.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 17

- 6/13/2002 2:13:43 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

IChristie : Let me emphasize that I do think you guys did both a good job overall on the graphics, and you are certainly right to say they are among the best in an operational level wargame (Though I think the SSI Campaign series is probably the best - but thats more of a tactical game even though you can control up to a Corps).

I'm not advocating spending a huge amount of time here, or creating a veritable Smithsonian Catalog of new art. Just from what I see of the stuff that already exists, it could be used in a way that is somewhat more dramatic and graphic, and would actually add a bit to the gameplay aspect. :cool:

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 18

- 6/13/2002 2:17:20 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark W Carver
[B]

It would be interesting to know how many players are using the battle graphics. I personally have turned them off after 2 days of playing... they consume too much time for me. [/B][/QUOTE]

Probably most. However, for the really important battles I do leave them on. I like the second to second drama of strikes coming in in Midway style. But, can you see that this is the part that could be improved, which would not only add to the graphic aspect but also add to the gameplay aspect in that

1) you would more easily see the detail of what each plane does on its way in and out (AA hits as you go in, ordnance targetting success, and AA on the egress).

2) you could see each pilot's individual performance on target if we had the names over each strike plane with the current exp rating.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 19

Your wish... - 6/13/2002 2:22:04 AM

IChristie

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE]It would be interesting to know how many players are using the battle graphics. [/QUOTE]

...is my command.

Started a new poll to answer just this question. Thanks for suggesting it.

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 20

Gamespot review - 6/13/2002 2:56:21 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

Having just read the review it�s obvious that the reviewer is a mouse twiddler with very little knowledge of WW2 or wargaming. Denmark indeed! He has probable seen ABDA written on a map somewhere.

Who else thinks the interface is somewhat complicated? Oh I see; more than five fingers worth of places to click the mouse does make it complicated.

Is the learning curve steep? Yes it is, buts its one of the reasons wargamers play wargames like this. To think.

Did he take a look at scenario #16. Couldn�t have done otherwise he wouldn�t have written this.
�But strangely enough, the setup for Decision in the Pacific, the game's grandest campaign, does not incorporate the results of that battle (sic. Midway): It's a hypothetical scenario that assumes that the Japanese did not suffer the devastating losses in carriers and pilots that forever changed the course of the war.�

Why is mousewheel support essential?

Map graphics and pics in the game are very good. Sounds all appear to be accurate and convey a sense of combat. As Erik Rutins said �some of the best graphics and sound in any operational wargame ever.�

Having said all that the review was mostly favourable, pity about his WW2 knowledge.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 21

- 6/13/2002 3:00:07 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

I thought that was a very fair review, and clearly either the reviewer read the forums or actually had the same issues. Got to agree with him on the Manual., but that has be debated to death.

I gave the game on 8 for graphics. Not comparing it to a FPS, or an RPG game, but rather to a strategy game like Civ3. Sorry the animation etcs just aren't up to 2002 levels.

One day I'll learn to proofread my own posts

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 22

- 6/13/2002 3:15:39 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B]I thought that was a very very review [/B][/QUOTE]

What's a very very review?

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 23

- 6/13/2002 3:16:22 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Just a note from the development side. Originally David had some grand plans regarding the combat animations. As programming started it dragged on and on. Eventually 2 different programmers ended up spending at least 5 man months on the animations. It was one of the major reasons that the game was released later than planned. I think David did the best that he could given the resources available and the difficulty of doing the animations in the system. Yes they could be better (and my understanding is that Mike and David have improved on some of them in the patch), but since we live in a world of limited resources, there's always a trade off between getting the game working better, getting the AI to work better, and getting the fun eye-candy to look and feel better.

My guess is that the low graphics rating came as much from the fact that most of the game is spent on a 2D map with small icons and no animation and that spicing up the combat animations wouldn't have done much to improve the rating (unless of course we had the battles playing in real time 3D). I'm certainly happy with the gameplay and tilt ratings.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 24

- 6/13/2002 3:21:23 AM

WW2'er

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline

IChristie,

You may want to wait on that poll question.

Now that the combat sequences are being redone in the patch to give a lot more information, it may significantly change the number of people who view the animations. If people don't receive all the new text messages about "Crossing the T" and "Climbing to Intercept" etc. without having the animations on, they may be willing to keep them on much more often. I know I would!

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." � Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 25

- 6/13/2002 3:44:32 AM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

Methinks they have been reading the forum. :p

All in all, a rather fair review.

Iain,

They're not exactly thumping your graphics, it's more due to the fact that they use the same system to rate all the Quake-based shooters, and games like Empire Earth. Go look at how they rated the graphics of some other wargames and give yourself a pat on the back. :)

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 26

Deja Vu - 6/13/2002 10:24:00 AM

Paul Dyer

Posts: 60
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

For those of you who like a bit of nostalgia, you might like to compare the UV review with one about Pacific War from many years ago

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/june/pacwar.html

It is startling how similar these two are.

David Kurtz, reviewing pacwar, wrote "it is an enormous and sometimes daunting proposition to attempt to manage a war covering so much area. But if you are willing to stick with Pacific War and surmount the steep learning curve, you will discover one of the best war/resource management games ever released. "

Both reviews emphasise the complex interface and that graphics and sound are not the emphasis. They also stress that although the games is complex, the underlying gameplay is absorbing and that one mastered the game becomes utterly addictive.

Fortunately, some things never change.

_____________________________

"It is also possible that blondes prefer gentlemen"

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 27

Yep..... - 6/13/2002 10:59:41 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]
Sounds like he went to an Office Store of some sort or a short-notice print shop.

I just took about 70 sheets of paper, printed odd pages on one side, flipped it over, and printed, even on the other. Granted, I do own an HP LJ5MP...:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Did the same thing on a Lexmark Z52. Used up about 3/4 of a new color cartridge. :)

Von Frag

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 28

Re: Deja Vu - 6/13/2002 11:23:14 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Dyer
[B]For those of you who like a bit of nostalgia, you might like to compare the UV review with one about Pacific War from many years ago

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/june/pacwar.html

It is startling how similar these two are.

David Kurtz, reviewing pacwar, wrote "it is an enormous and sometimes daunting proposition to attempt to manage a war covering so much area. But if you are willing to stick with Pacific War and surmount the steep learning curve, you will discover one of the best war/resource management games ever released. "

Both reviews emphasise the complex interface and that graphics and sound are not the emphasis. They also stress that although the games is complex, the underlying gameplay is absorbing and that one mastered the game becomes utterly addictive.

Fortunately, some things never change. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Funny but I used to think PacWar was large. But after 10 years of playing I no longer view it as a monster. (I can do turns in 5-10 minutes PBEM games covering 150+ turns in 3-4 weeks) I really liked the part of his review where he said in order to win as Japanese you would need to take the help options on highest settings (LOL) I'm not going to comment on the UV review.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 29

- 6/13/2002 11:34:08 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Iain, Marc, et al... the UV maps are THE most beautiful maps ever created for a pacific theatre game, period (be it computer or board). At least that's my opinion, having played all of them over the last thirty years or so...

As far as the manual printing costs are concerned, Kinkos quoted me $0.89US/page... that's way over the price he quoted in the review. It took my ancient HP deskjet over 8 hours to complete the job!!

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 30