Alfred
Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress What do you think? I can't tell you how many times I have enjoyed a game and then come to find out from one of the local forum experts on military history and technology that the designers messed up on something. It really takes the fun out of a game once I've been told that it's "defective". Why bother with the game anymore. The beguiling shroud of enchantment has been broken or something. The trouble is, I'm not a stickler for details. I just play the game and usually enjoy it in my blissful ignorance. I don't first go into the editor and notice that the stats for the Mitsubishi Zero are all screwed up. But once someone points it out to me, then the bubble of blissful ignorance is busted. Granted, there are usually patches that follow and even remakes that are supposed to be better. But it usually doesn't take long before the critics find something wrong with the patches and remakes. I really have to wonder...what if there were no Matrix forums? What if Matrix only produced games and then left it up to fans to write confidential e-mails to them or something to complain about the mistakes? I probably wouldn't ever have noticed the botched stats on the Zero and would probably be enjoying games like War in the Pacific to this day. Just some thoughts about the effects of criticism. You should take the comments from the "local forum experts on military history and technology" with more than a grain of salt for the following reasons. 1. The most dogmatic vociferous critics are usually nit picking because in their eyes it should be a simulation. This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the software. They are commenting on a game designed to run on commercial retail hardware. Unless the software is designed to run on hardware comparable to Supercray, it is impossible to have a simulation. It is like complaing that an ultralight plane will not suffice to take you to the moon. 2. Very few of the dogmatic vociferous critics have any knowledge or experience of the subject matter they profess expertise. Just how many of them have (a) actually flown a Zero at various atmospheric conditions, (b) been at the controls of a Zero whilst under attack from enemy ground/ship/airplane. Instead, at best they are usually reliant upon secondary sources which more often than not repeat earlier mistakes and these critics lack the training/knowledge to test the accuracy of the secondary sources. 3. These dogmatic vociferous critics tend to be very selective. For example, in WITP:AE, the A6M2 Zero is given a maximum speed of 331 mph. Back in the real world, the top speed of any WWII airplane was dependent inter alia on (a) the altitude, (b) the fuel quality, (c) maintenance status, (d) did they see the enemy in time to pull full throtle etc etc. Again because these are games, not military simulations, the data is really only a judgement call intended at best to be representative of the acceptable range. Don't allow opionnated megaphones ruin your enjoyment of a game. The few real experts on the forums are usually much gentler in putting forward their views and usually acknowledge the judgement calls which have been made. Alfred
|