RCHarmon
Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Yes we did talk to Norbsoft about the timing of the release of Waterloo but they said they were going to be ready earlier and we held it back for the Anniversary, we did not bring it forwards. Once we agreed a release due we all worked towards it. We absolutely did not ask them to hit a date they could not meet. That would be ridiculous. Once a date is set by the developer, wheels are put in motion and campaigns booked and other releases planned around it and moving a release at this point is expensive, but again, we never had any request to do so or any thought there was a need to.
The UI was iterated many times with Norbsoft and we want through many versions. This was not imposed by us, we worked with them to make it more approachable to new players. It was not done against their will and they understood the need to make the game more approachable to new players, after all they are the ones who designed the new UI. Now you can argue about how it works and what you prefer but you have to understand there is a fundamental difference between a new players requirements and an advanced player. An advanced player wants to be able to do things in as few clicks as possible. A new player needs a very limited number of options presented at a time so they are not overwhelmed. These requirements are completely at odds. I know the team are still working on a variety of improvements for the game.
The above comments seem to be made on partial information and assumption. Hopefully this has cleared up that particular issue. After all there must be a reason why Waterloo has sold significantly more than Gettysburg did when it first released, so it must have got something right.
Ok whats next…. ;)
This is an older exchange from around September 2015.
I am not sure what partial information and assumption mean, but the series is dead and Matrix killed it.
Sow Waterloo, being very honest, is just an American Civil War game updated with what looks like combined arms. It really is not a Napoleonic game in the true sense. What went wrong? In my estimation, an American Civil war group and a few added individuals with some knowledge of Napoleonics did, in the time frame given, pulled off an incredible feat. They put out a great product. Under the hood though some of the wires got put in wrong or left unhooked because Norb got bad advice and he went with it not knowing any better.
The criticisms were immediate. Jumbled messes with troop movements, artillery that was civil war and not Napoleonics cavalry that stood around and at times with the infantry firing away at it. Where was the order and deliberate movements of the units. For more of the criticisms just do a few searches and you will find plenty.
Norbsoft spent time on a new interface instead of the essential nuts and bolts of combined arms tactics. Complete waste of time.
Now the series is over and who do we have to blame. Well, Matrix is the culprit. Yes we might see some expansions for Waterloo and the SOW Gettysburg community will be around for a long time to come, but any new titles coming? No! Will multiplayer issues dealing with windows 10 be addressed? No! How can you sell a game as multiplayer, when if you have windows 10, you will be faced with chronic connection issues?
So thank you Matrix for knowing what is best when it comes to small developers and wrecking the next versions of the series.
|
Printable Version
RE: Is Matrix dying? - 
RE: Is Matrix dying? - 
...or is this more endless speculation? 
... 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread