bo
Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jascou quote:
ORIGINAL: bo I have learned to never buy a game until several weeks go by, and what I am reading I still feel it is the correct thing to do, I am having a problem with "heck buy a game or two and help Peter out" no thank you Krys, this is his baby and he lives or dies with what he produced. I rebel in paying for a programmers mistakes [not saying there is any here]. If their is one thing I have learned as being a beta tester for World In Flames is one person creators of a game is not a good idea. I realize that each player sees the game differently than another, but what I am reading is not good, Then again I prefer strategic games over tactile games but that is just me, just an opinion right or wrong. Bo Hi Bo, I'm a long time lurker on the MWIF forum, am an owner of the game, and have always appreciated your input there. I think MWIF is a great example of what happens when a developer tries to bite off too much from the get-go. In following the progress of that game, it's clear to me that the problems with that project started long before Steve and Matrix got involved, with the decision by the original programmer to implement the majority of the WiF optional rules from the get-go. In looking at where most of the problems have cropped up, these appear related to the myriad of optional rules, and not the core system. More optional rules = more complexity in the code = more bugs. Let's also keep in mind that MWIF, unlike the board-game, implements a map of the entire globe, thereby widening the depth of an already substantial Pandora's box of potential bugs. (On a side-note, I've often thought about piping up on that forum and telling everyone to try playing the game with only 1 - 3 optional rules turned on if they want to dramatically reduce the possibility of coming up against a bug -- at least for the time-being until things get better sorted out -- but thought better of it; people have the right to expect the game that they paid for.) As I stated above, the developer has avoided the same mistake in keeping things to a manageable level. The core is quite stable from what I see, which bodes well going forward. jascou, you know what your problem is, you don't post enough. Could not agree more with what you are saying, I felt that MWIF could be streamlined, very few optional rules etc, I was shot down on that one and I understand where the board game players were coming from, the game had to be exactly as the board game. Personally the MWIF game is the most brilliant game ever made as a strategic game, I have only known strategic games. My son only plays Battlefronts Combat Mission which is a tactile game with very few problems if any. Steve did bite off more than he could chew, but the reason for that is that every rule had to be exactley as the board game and to me a non-programmer, that became the problem, Steve is dedicated to completeing this game someday when that day is I have no idea. This game seems to keep the player more immersed than having to worry about this rule and that rule, even though I do prefer counters with information on them. Thank you for your post. Bo
< Message edited by bo -- 3/1/2016 3:57:45 AM >
|