Rather disappointed

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Rather disappointed

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] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Tech Support >> Rather disappointed

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Rather disappointed - 12/22/2009 8:49:02 AM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

I don't usually like to complain much, but I feel I have to.

I bought the game to have something to do in the boring holliday season, but there is no way I'll be able to play this game. There are some issues which make me consider this game to be an alpha-release, definitely not a beta or a commercial release. Please bear in mind that I've tried v1.60 - I don't even want to think how unfinnished the first released version was.

The very first time I ran the game, it seemed to think I had screen resolution of 2500*1500 or something like that, instead of 1440*900 - browsing through the forums helped me to make a small edit to the configuration file with a text editor. Very bad sign.
Then I noticed that the user interface is not too good. Too many clicks needed to do simple things like deploying a unit. Scrolling doesn't really work (erratic and jumpy), especially hard to scroll up (windowed mode).
CPU use is very high all the time, yet the interface is s l u g g i s h .
I have yet not managed to exit without a crash.

I am sure there is much more than this I could complain as there is no way I am trying anything serious with something that is clearly an unffinnished product - I am not a beta-, or an alphatester, but a customer who did expect to get a game that is actually ready for release, which this game clearly is not. (And not, it is not my machine's configuration (which is rathel normal) - all other software, games, applications, lightweight, heavyweight, they all run flawlessly.)

I do realize that there is a 1.7 version coming up, but I am not hoping too much from it - simply, there is so much work left to be done with this game.

I do hope this message is not demoralizing, but I did feel I needed to let my opinion out.

Post #: 1

RE: Rather disappointed - 12/22/2009 1:50:15 PM

TexHorns

Posts: 243
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

I think you are giving up way too easily. My desktop computer is several years old and laptop is 2 years old, so I am not running with anything fancy. I have never had a crash using 1.6. I have never had to reconfigure any files. The game isn't perfect, but the developers are available to help and continue to make updates to improve the game.

I don't get people who have any experience playing and buying computer games these day's who expect a perfectly clean game. I don't know that I have ever bought a computer game that didn't require patches. It is the nature of the beast that computer games will be imperfect, in my opinion. Anytime I purchase a computer game, the first thing I do is look for a patch or update. Just because a game requires updating and cleaning up doesn't mean it isn't good. Perkyle, you'll be missing a fun grand strategic experience if you pack it in now. Go look at any of the message boards on this site and you will find eerily similar posts. All the games will have developers, modders and players discussing updates and improvements to all the games. If you aren't ready for that then you might need to find another source of entertainment. I hope though you will give the game a shot, seek assitance from the community here. These guys, dev's and modders are quite creative and helpful. Godd luck.

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 2

RE: Rather disappointed - 12/22/2009 3:29:00 PM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

I am not giving up, but I won't touch the game until it has been improved severely. This game is clearly not ready yet, and should not had been published.

I have been playing computer games since the early 1980's, so I've tried several of them. Patches have been a necessary evil since the games became very complicated, but never before I've purchased a game this unready for use - and this is after it's been patched already. Ridicilous. At the moment the game is unplayable, period. Hopefully someday it won't be, but considering the work needed to be done, I am not holding my breath.

Next time I try the game is after the next batch is realeased. Hopefully it won't be the last one.

(in reply to TexHorns)

Post #: 3

RE: Rather disappointed - 12/22/2009 3:52:56 PM

Max 86

Posts: 699
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline

I can't say that I have had the same problems but agree with some of your points.

I thought it strange that I had to set the resolution the first time I fired the game up but that is a one time thing.
Yes, user interface could use some interfacin', thats for sure. Way too much clicking. Never had any scrolling problems but have had a few CTDs. These are rare and I haven't ID'd any particular trigger for the crash.

Don't have the high CPU usage and Exit crashes.

The naval model leaves a lot to be desired and the air war could use some tweaking. The AI simply can't compete on the high seas, not hard for the Axis to control the north sea or Med. In the air war, it would be nice to have bombers continue with the same target each turn until new orders are given instead of having to select each bomber each turn and choose the same targets over and over. Fighters should have distinct orders so that you feel there is a point to having them in the game. They should have a right-click menu where you could choose between Air Superiority, Bmb Escort, Interdiction, etc...

Which brings me to the land combat portion...simply outstanding! Supply, Leaders, upgrades, hex map...its all good. So I would ask you give it a try, this where the game shines. This game gives a good feel for assemblying an army from different divisions and corps and moving them toward an objective. I think it also captures, with the hex grid map, how massive the Russia grows the further east you march. It captures very well how entire divisions and corps simply evaporated on the eastern front. Give it another try.

_____________________________

No problem Chief!

(in reply to TexHorns)

Post #: 4

RE: Rather disappointed + ideas - 12/22/2009 6:43:19 PM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

Land warfare is quite similar, though improved, to "Commander: Europe at War", though I hate the resolution window that pops up after combat. Well, at least it clicks away easily.

I upgraded to the 1.70 beta version - ran it and kaboom, the whole system crashed. That hasn't happened for a year or more I am sure. Well, at least 1.70 is officially a beta :-)

After a reboot I ran the game and this time it launches properly and at least functions to a degree. I even played the tutorial (which is implemented in very awkward way), which I could not do in 1.60.

CPU use is still extremely high - almost as if there were an emptly loop running there doing nothing but slowing the whole game down to a crawl. Probably the scrolling jumpiness (and unusability) is due to this. Operating on the map is very slow, truly painful.

There are a couple of ideas/issues I think of now I'd like to be added/changed. First, I'd like the right mouse button to either center the screen (when no unit is selected), or perform a dragging operation, like left mouse button does on Acrobat Reader. Second, I just hate the icons - they all look alike and should be changed into simple and colourful ones.

Oh, and I hate the dice-images. All that should be invisible to the user - it is hard to "live" in the game when one sees dice rolls.

I'll try the game a bit more, but since the CPU-use and scrolling make it impossible to play the game, I'm not doing other than finding out stuff to critizise :)

And I have no idea what the "column" number is supposed to be. Probably something that should be hidden, I guess ;)

(in reply to Max 86)

Post #: 5

RE: Rather disappointed + ideas - 12/22/2009 7:56:00 PM

micheljq

Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

What CPU and how much memory your system have? I do not have issues running the game with an Athlon X2, 4 Gig or RAM, Windows XP SP3. It's not chrashing on any of the 2 PCs I have, the other PC has 2Gig. I must say I did try on a PC with only 512Mo. and it was painful.

What graphic card, how much memory on the graphic card.

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 6

RE: Rather disappointed + ideas - 12/22/2009 9:02:14 PM

Bleck

Posts: 741
Joined: 3/8/2009
From: Poland
Status: offline

Regarding high CPU usage, please try this:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2172397
I know, I know, another text file to edit using notepad... if only we could figure out some other way to change game parameters without running the game...

We would be also thankful if you could specify your PC configuration (dxdiag log file will be fine, here is how to get it http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2168733). Unfortunately we are unable to test games on every configuration we would want to, that is why we are glad you guys keep informing us if something is wrong.

_____________________________

Wastelands Interactive member (Programmer)

(in reply to micheljq)

Post #: 7

RE: Rather disappointed - 12/22/2009 9:58:46 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: perkyle

I am not giving up, but I won't touch the game until it has been improved severely. This game is clearly not ready yet, and should not had been published.

Wow. Then I guess I've been deluding myself all this last 12 months or so, playing the war through entirely about 5 or 6 times, solo and PBEM. Having a blast the whole time. I may have had two CTDs the entire 12 months of almost daily play.

I also have been playing computer war games for about 15 years now, and this game is/was ready for prime time. I play it on a $400 laptop and a desktop PC. One at 1440x900, the other at 1650xwhatever, no problems. No scrolling problem on either system.

By the way, on the options screen there's a screen resolution setup.

Ok, you've had some problems, but read the forums! Lots of players doing quite well with the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 8

RE: Rather disappointed - 12/22/2009 11:25:17 PM

Texashorns

Posts: 46
Joined: 11/23/2009
Status: offline

What I don't understand is the comment about being unplayable and not ready to be published. I can think of a dozen games that were less playable and less ready for publication than this game. I never had a CTD until 1.7. Haven't had any with 1.7 since the first 2 games I loaded with it. The game is immensely playable at 1.6 as far as I'm concerned. I'm in summer of 43 in a 1.6 game (lap top),while I have started a couple games on desk top using 1.7. Are there things I would like to see changed or different? Sure, but that is just my subjective preferances. They surely don't make the game unplayable. I guess the OP seems a little harsh in his judegement. But hey to each his own.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 9

RE: Rather disappointed - 12/23/2009 7:32:46 AM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texashorns

What I don't understand is the comment about being unplayable and not ready to be published. I can think of a dozen games that were less playable and less ready for publication than this game.

I don't see the point of this statement. I'll make a similar statement: "there is great poverty in Tanzania, but since there is even greater poverty in Somalia and Kenya, that's all right". Now, is it all right?

(in reply to Texashorns)

Post #: 10

RE: Rather disappointed + ideas - 12/23/2009 1:38:01 PM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bleck

Regarding high CPU usage, please try this:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2172397
I know, I know, another text file to edit using notepad... if only we could figure out some other way to change game parameters without running the game...

We would be also thankful if you could specify your PC configuration (dxdiag log file will be fine, here is how to get it http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2168733). Unfortunately we are unable to test games on every configuration we would want to, that is why we are glad you guys keep informing us if something is wrong.

I have no problems with editing text files, but games should function acceptably without such actions.

Anyhow, thank you for your help - I edited the file and now scrolling etc. works and CPU use is low (even during AI thinking, it seems, though not sure).

Now, some experiences and suggestions based on my first quick game:

Too many unit-counters look alike - Inf, Motorized inf, Airborne are almost identical - impossible to quickly see which is which. Maybe infantry should be X without a square around it, motorized X with a square, and airbone something else. All the air-units look way too similar too. (And no, I won't touch the sprites :) ).
Hard to see which units have moved etc.
Flag-counters are ugly and IMHO make the zoom scales they are used pretty much useless.
Any difference between counter styles 1 and 2?
Cities look ugly, hard to find on the map, especially if a unit on top of them.
Traditional skin is horrible :)
Seawarfare: better to remove it totally, than have the horror that it is now...
Have a look at "Commander" and steal the good ideas :)
Minimap should have cities marked, and optinally units etc.
The cloud-symbols could be a little fainter.

There is good potential in the game, but it is still very raw. But with your help it actually became playable.

(in reply to Bleck)

Post #: 11

RE: Rather disappointed + ideas - 12/23/2009 1:46:57 PM

micheljq

Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: perkyle

Now, some experiences and suggestions based on my first quick game:

Too many unit-counters look alike - Inf, Motorized inf, Airborne are almost identical - impossible to quickly see which is which. Maybe infantry should be X without a square around it, motorized X with a square, and airbone something else. All the air-units look way too similar too. (And no, I won't touch the sprites :) ).

Hard to see which units have moved etc.

You have a counter mod where the land units have a NATO symbol, MOT have little wheels, airbornes have another symbol to differenciate them, etc.

I think that the units that can still move have a little green light below them.

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 12

RE: Rather disappointed + ideas - 12/23/2009 5:34:52 PM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq
You have a counter mod where the land units have a NATO symbol, MOT have little wheels, airbornes have another symbol to differenciate them, etc.

I think that the units that can still move have a little green light below them.

Yes, but the symbols look so similar, it takes plenty of effort to try to distinguish them one from other.

(in reply to micheljq)

Post #: 13

Grrrrr... - 12/23/2009 5:49:20 PM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

After the successfull playthrough of the smallest scenario, I decided to try to big one. Ouch. Zooming out to "flag" levels (where counters turn into flags) and things started to slow down again while CPU usage up. If I want to see the strategic situation, it is hopeless as the game becomes totally unplayable. In practise this meas that only the smalles scenario can actually be played - trying the bigger ones makes no sense whatsoever.

For what it's worth, my machine is Sempron 3100+ with ATI Radeon Xpress 200M-series graphics card - in BIOS I've set it to be a 64MB card (shared memory only) - I have 1280 MB of memory (1024+256 minus the 64MB for GFX). My screen is 1440*900, but only the small window is actually usable - full screen modes crash the system, and the 1440*900-mode opens in somewhat smaller window which hides some buttons etc. unless I resize the window which again causes problems....aaaaaaa... (yes, I yelled).

What I just don't understand, is why the minimum requirements included for example 64MB of graphics memory. Seriously, a strategy game like this should not really use any (or much at all) graphics memory. Requirements like this indicate that some corners have been cut during the implementation of the game. (And yes, I used to be a programmer.) Honestly, the web browser I'm running now (Firefox) should use more graphics memory...

Ah well, enough of my complains. I'll probably try the game again after a few more patches should they arrive, until that it's just not worth the pain. Luckily the game was inexpensive, though still waste of money and time.

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 14

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/23/2009 9:39:33 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

.

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 12/23/2009 11:08:41 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 15

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/24/2009 12:32:04 AM

Texashorns

Posts: 46
Joined: 11/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

.

LOL gwgardner......I have stopped taking him seriously. I have no idea why he has the problems he has, but Ihighly doubt it is the game. I continue to have very fewissues and love playing it, almost to the point of excess.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 16

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/24/2009 3:03:02 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texashorns

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

.

LOL gwgardner......I have stopped taking him seriously.

You said it well.

_____________________________

(in reply to Texashorns)

Post #: 17

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/25/2009 10:05:39 PM

McHarg

Posts: 16
Joined: 11/18/2008
Status: offline

I guess I have to agree with Perkyle. I have played PC games since they came out, and Matrix games since Steel Panthers (which I still play). I found the original release of TOW buggy to say the least. I updated to 1.6, and it became unplayable due to numerous CTD. I uploaded my dxdiag, made sure I had all the most recent upgrades to drivers, had several interchanges with Bleck, and it was still unplayable. I decided to wait it out, and just updated to 1.7. The game has CTD twice in the first 30 minutes. As close as I can tell, the problem seems to be associated with errant right clicks when in the fleet screen. I admit the game I play most these days uses a right click for everything, and TOW seems not to use them. I can live with that. I do wish however when I make a mistake and right click, the game would not crash.

I also admit it looks like the CTD problem seems extremely PC dependent. Several players on this forum seem to have little problems, and several have had the problems. Not sure what this means except that you want to consider how much time you are willing to get the game to run on your system.

In general I will say this. If I am a beta tester, then I expect to have problems. If however I buy the game, I expect it to at least be playable upon purchase. This simply has not been my experience with TOW. I now think long and hard before buying a new game from Matrix. I hate to say it, but I think the traditional PC game has become such a small market, that the companies that make them simply cannot meet the expectations of gamers from outside the traditional community. The grognards have become used to putting up with buggy software simply because they love that type of game. I also really like traditional games, but am unwilling to buy them if they won't play. Guess that makes me not a grognard, fine. Can Matrix games and the folks that design their software live only by selling to grognards? I think the long term answer to that question is seen in the traditional "box" wargame. That market simply became to small, and priced itself out of existence for the majority of gamers. I would hate to see that happen here.

Anyway, this is just one guys opinion. I will fiddle around a few more time and see if I can make the game play. If not, I will wait for the next release:-)

cheers

Grahcm

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 18

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/27/2009 8:57:24 AM

perkyle

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texashorns

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

.

LOL gwgardner......I have stopped taking him seriously.

You said it well.

The two of you are immature and rude.

If the game works fine in your system, and some people's systems, but not on other systems which however do run pretty much everything else flawlessly, it is still in your opinion the flaw of the other systems, not the software which you treat as somekind of holy artifact because you have it and like it.

Fact is, that the game is underdeveloped, and was released way too early. I do understand, that the developement team probably is lacking resources and needs the money for the bussiness to survive, but it does not make it acceptable to sell faulty products. I am of course happy that the developers do try to fix the problems and continue developing the game, but considering fiscal realities this can not go on forever, and it is likely that the game will never be playable on my computer.

I was wondering, how much CPU power the game consumes during the player turn? It should not really use any, yet on my system it does use lots and only kludging with that one text file it goes down some - too 30% neighbourhood, but this is still silly - after all the game is just waiting for user interaction.

Regarding complexity the code of turn based strategy games, other than the AI, they are similar in complexity level to a typical text-editor (not word processor). Having massive problems (outside of AI) in absolutely not acceptable in a product that is relatively simple programming task (other than the AI, which is a massive challenge to program well and debug, and problems there I could accept easily).

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 19

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/27/2009 3:16:17 PM

vonRocko

Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: perkyle

Regarding complexity the code of turn based strategy games, other than the AI, they are similar in complexity level to a typical text-editor (not word processor). Having massive problems (outside of AI) in absolutely not acceptable in a product that is relatively simple programming task (other than the AI, which is a massive challenge to program well and debug, and problems there I could accept easily).

I agree, I have a CTD on almost every other turn with 1.07. Thank God for autosave.

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 20

RE: Grrrrr... - 12/27/2009 8:46:55 PM

Rmars

Posts: 6
Joined: 12/17/2009
Status: offline

Time to chime in and let the developers know what is going on.

For 30 dollars we need a game that plays or gets an update that fixes a majority of the issues the first go around. I like the game quite a bit. I have no issues with anything except the repeated crashes. I find myself playing the game and trying to avoid events or situations that lead to a crash. I hope the project gets all the neccessary updates and makes it easy to get those updates. I bought the game off of Impulse and can't get the latest patch (yet), and from what I see on the forums that patch doesn't neccessarily fix the problems people have been encountering.

I understand these games tend to be a labor of love, but those of us encountering repeated crashes spent money and want it justified if we are to buy further products.

To those who have no issues and have played a campaign straight through. I am jealous!

(in reply to vonRocko)

Post #: 21

RE: Rather disappointed - 1/7/2010 7:11:02 PM

Happycat

Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: perkyle

I don't usually like to complain much, but I feel I have to.

I bought the game to have something to do in the boring holliday season, but there is no way I'll be able to play this game. There are some issues which make me consider this game to be an alpha-release, definitely not a beta or a commercial release. Please bear in mind that I've tried v1.60 - I don't even want to think how unfinnished the first released version was.

The very first time I ran the game, it seemed to think I had screen resolution of 2500*1500 or something like that, instead of 1440*900 - browsing through the forums helped me to make a small edit to the configuration file with a text editor. Very bad sign.

Then I noticed that the user interface is not too good. Too many clicks needed to do simple things like deploying a unit. Scrolling doesn't really work (erratic and jumpy), especially hard to scroll up (windowed mode).

CPU use is very high all the time, yet the interface is s l u g g i s h .

I have yet not managed to exit without a crash.

I am sure there is much more than this I could complain as there is no way I am trying anything serious with something that is clearly an unffinnished product - I am not a beta-, or an alphatester, but a customer who did expect to get a game that is actually ready for release, which this game clearly is not. (And not, it is not my machine's configuration (which is rathel normal) - all other software, games, applications, lightweight, heavyweight, they all run flawlessly.)

I do realize that there is a 1.7 version coming up, but I am not hoping too much from it - simply, there is so much work left to be done with this game.

I do hope this message is not demoralizing, but I did feel I needed to let my opinion out.

Back in October I complained about the "rough edges" this game had; much rougher than a release version should be. I have played it intermittently since then, but it's hard to fall in love with this thing. In fact, it's hard to fall into "like".

I quite agree with you Perkyle, that when you pay your money, it should be for a finished product, not an alpha or beta version. TOW is a travesty in my opinion, for all of the reasons that you have set out in your posts, and more.

However, a word of advice. There is not much point in engaging with the people on this forum who seem to think this game is very good. They don't really listen.

Erik Rutins offered me a refund in late October. In retrospect, I should have taken it.
Another game that will sit on my drive for six months, won't get played, and eventually be deleted.

_____________________________

Chance favours the prepared mind

(in reply to perkyle)

Post #: 22

RE: Rather disappointed - 1/7/2010 9:03:03 PM

Harbinger

Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

There is not much point in engaging with the people on this forum who seem to think this game is very good. They don't really listen.

Just what, exactly, do you expect "the people on this forum" to say in response to your unhappiness, Happycat? Hmm?

Thanks for coming in and disaparaging a product some of us enjoy, and also the people who like it?

Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you might have noticed that some of "the people on this forum" did in fact read (listen) to perkyle and make attempts to help him out.

Nope, I don't think so. Instead, I'll say Thanks for taking the low road by insulting the game designers and any who happen to like this product developed by them. I would expect no less from the perpetual and widespread use of internet anonymity to spew garbage one would otherwise not have the courage to do.

I wonder, but don't really care, which it is: Do you have such a high opinion of yourself, or just a low opinion of eveyone else?

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

(in reply to Happycat)

Post #: 23

RE: Rather disappointed - 1/11/2010 12:27:15 AM

Happycat

Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harbinger

quote:

There is not much point in engaging with the people on this forum who seem to think this game is very good. They don't really listen.

Just what, exactly, do you expect "the people on this forum" to say in response to your unhappiness, Happycat? Hmm?

Thanks for coming in and disaparaging a product some of us enjoy, and also the people who like it?

Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you might have noticed that some of "the people on this forum" did in fact read (listen) to perkyle and make attempts to help him out.

Nope, I don't think so. Instead, I'll say Thanks for taking the low road by insulting the game designers and any who happen to like this product developed by them. I would expect no less from the perpetual and widespread use of internet anonymity to spew garbage one would otherwise not have the courage to do.

I wonder, but don't really care, which it is: Do you have such a high opinion of yourself, or just a low opinion of eveyone else?

It doesn't come down to my opinion of myself or of anyone else. The issue is my opinion of the game. And as for spewing garbage and hiding behind internet anonymity, why don't you go and visit the Slitherine website or the Battlefront website, and you will find "happycat" there too. If you take the time to go through all of the posts involving me, you will find that my real name is occasionally mentioned and that I am just as outspoken there as anywhere else (including real life).

I am one of the developers of the just released "Grand Strategy" expansion for CEAW---so I do, in fact, know the difference between a finished game and a not-so-finished one. In addition, I have beta tested many games, and had I been a tester for TOW, would have been quite unhappy to see it "roll out the door" when it did. It was NOT ready.

Yes I can see that some people tried to help Perkyle. The suggestion to go in and start editing a text file was particularly useful; I'm sure that's what most purchasers of games want to do, finish programming an unfinished product. In my opinion, Texashorns and Gardner were particularly unhelpful and condescending to Perkyle, who in my opinion presented himself quite politely. I think their snide response was uncalled for, but not surprising. As you so aptly pointed out, it's the "internet anonymity" syndrome.

The developers of this game are probably well intentioned, and nice guys, but the fact is I think the game was rough in October, and here we are in January and it isn't appreciably better. Some might say that the CTD makes it worse.

As for disparaging a product that you and others like, so what? You're defending a product that I dislike, and I'm not getting my shorts in a knot about it. If you can't handle opinions that differ from your own, good luck with the rest of your life

< Message edited by Happycat -- 1/11/2010 12:28:00 AM >

_____________________________

Chance favours the prepared mind

(in reply to Harbinger)

Post #: 24

RE: Rather disappointed - 1/11/2010 7:31:46 AM

Anraz

Posts: 785
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Happycat

I am one of the developers of the just released "Grand Strategy" expansion for CEAW

Heh that�s good! A developer of rival game came and just said "this game is at very bad condition".... Don`t you think that your you credibility just has gone away?

_____________________________

(in reply to Happycat)

Post #: 25

RE: Rather disappointed - 1/11/2010 1:09:11 PM

Happycat

Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anraz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Happycat

I am one of the developers of the just released "Grand Strategy" expansion for CEAW

Heh that�s good! A developer of rival game came and just said "this game is at very bad condition".... Don`t you think that your you credibility just has gone away?

I'm constantly amazed at the human capacity for leaping to conclusions, although I suppose I could have been clearer in my previous post: I, together with some other dedicated gamers, worked on developing an expansion CEAW. It started life as a "mod", and we spent TWO years of our own time refining it. None of us has asked for or received a penny for our efforts; it was done to make a good game better.

TOW could have benefitted from spending more time in development and testing. Instead, it was released, imo, too early and suffers because ot that.

I am retired, I do not now and never did work in anything remotely connected to the gaming or software industry. Like most of us here, I am a hobbyist. And you know, I don't really give a crap about your, or anyone's perception of my credibility. I'm not trying to convert anyone to my point of view.

This current dialogue all started because I empathized with the original poster's plight. And in reading the thread, including advice from developers of TOW, it showed me that in three months, nothing has changed. TOW is flawed and needs some real fixes, not work arounds such as having purchasers tinker with the text files.

I purchase many games, including from Matrix. With rare exception, those games are worth the expenditure, and demonstrate that sound beta testing procedures can and do ensure a stable product.

If you're happy with TOW, I am happy for you---really. The problem with this thread is that one guy started by saying he was unhappy with the game. And then people like Texashorns and Gardner responded by telling him what a wonderful game it is, and implied that there must be something wrong with HIM for not liking it. One wonders what the agenda of posters like them might be.

I know what my agenda is, and it has nothing to do with selling a "rival" game. My agenda is that I would like to see companies that sell games that clearly suffer from deficient testing to step up to the plate and (a) either give the unhappy purchasers something, such as a credit for a future game purchase, or (b) exert pressure upon the developers to quickly "get it right". Platitudes such as I have read on this forum about how the developers are "dedicated" to fixing the problem don't help me one iota. Only results matter, and to date I have seen none.

_____________________________

Chance favours the prepared mind

(in reply to Anraz)

Post #: 26

RE: Rather disappointed - 10/23/2010 7:58:14 PM

Tomokatu