RE: print costs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: print costs

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.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> RE: print costs

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: print costs - 7/2/2005 7:01:17 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I had the US PCGamer in mind actually; but as I said in my previous post; it was simply very sloppy posting on my part. I shouldn't have refered to PC Gamer specificly.

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 61

RE: print costs - 7/2/2005 7:01:39 PM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

bluemonday, of course you are correct; I should not have mentioned a specific source when it wasn't my intent to criticise that source. I have subscribed to PC Gamer for years so that was just the first example that came to my mind to represent the mass media as a whole. I do disagree with PC Gamer reviews quite often though and would not be surprised about what types of reviews CoG receives. This game requires a real commitment and effort; something that most gamers aren't willing to invest in, imo. I hope I'm both surprised and proven wrong.

No problem - I just think that if you look at the reviews in the US PC gaming magazines, you will find very fair reviews. That is simply my prediction.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that of the major US magazines (PC Gamer, Computer Games, Computer Gaming World) and sites (Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN) you will see fair reviews from all of them. They may not like it wholeheartedly, but the reviews will be extremely fair and well-considered. Those are the only "professional" reviews that you'll see - I would not consider and of the other sites "professional."

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 62

RE: print costs - 7/2/2005 7:27:16 PM

Hanal

Posts: 2312
Joined: 11/1/2003
Status: offline

Well I decided to print the manual myself but one of the things I did was reduce the number of pages printed....I started on page 12 and finished up on page 74....I feel there is no need to print all of the intro stuff and the strategy and scenario guides could easily be read from the monitor....I only copied the meat of the manual which saved on consumables....

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 63

RE: First Impressions here please. - 7/2/2005 7:43:27 PM

waynec

Posts: 299
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Colorado, littleton
Status: offline

quote:

I haven't even played the game properly yet because I can't read the manual via alt-tab and have no clue what is going on. Maybe I'll have gone and stocked up on printer cartridges by the end of the weekend. Maybe other things as well

burn the manual on a cd and take it to office depot. got game manual and tutorial printed (b/w single sided), both in one "book" with a separator, spiral bound with clear plastic front and back for $13.00. took about 2 hours. sitting here going though the tutorial and listening to 1812 overture.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

If the little things annoy you, maybe that's because the big things are going well.

(in reply to Montrose)

Post #: 64

RE: print costs - 7/2/2005 8:11:20 PM

Warpstorm

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/6/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

No problem - I just think that if you look at the reviews in the US PC gaming magazines, you will find very fair reviews. That is simply my prediction.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that of the major US magazines (PC Gamer, Computer Games, Computer Gaming World) and sites (Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN) you will see fair reviews from all of them. They may not like it wholeheartedly, but the reviews will be extremely fair and well-considered. Those are the only "professional" reviews that you'll see - I would not consider and of the other sites "professional."

I will agree with this. These magazines will get a reviewer who understands wargames to write the review, not give it to the same guy who writes about the latest FPS.

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 65

RE: print costs - 7/2/2005 8:55:43 PM

Queeg

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z

Casualties vary according to a number of factors (fire combat and charge combat modifiers are listed in detail in the "Detailed Combat" section of the manual). Changing morale can significantly affect casualties (morale tends to drop after receiving damage.)
Formation also significantly affects casualties (did you see whether they changed formation from column to square, for example?) Flanking is also significant. Type of unit vs. type of unit (heavy cavalry vs. light infantry, regular cavalry vs. regular cavalry, etc.) is also important. Terrain is also important. Facing is also important.

If, on the other hand, you have one isolated unit attacking another isolated unit, and neither one moves, and the next round you perform the very same attack against the very same unit with the very same facings in the very same formations, and you notice that the morales of each unit has not changed significantly, and the casualties are still wildly off from attack to attack, please let us know--we'd like to look into that sort of thing. Thanks!

My guess is that what I was seeing was due to the factors Ralegh mentioned a few posts back - points expended for movement and the fact that I was firing every round (while the AI, as I think back, was letting its guys rest every other round). I'll see if it repeats itself.

(in reply to Mr. Z)

Post #: 66

RE: print costs - 7/2/2005 10:52:27 PM

Rooster

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/9/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ravinhood wrote:

But, how about a pocket pdf manual machine? Does nothing but hold pdf files you can take anywere and read anytime and will have a magnifying feature so you can easily read the manul from the pocket pdf unit? Would work in the bathroom or in the bed easily don't you think? ;)

Um... it's called a PDA. The acrobat reader is a free download - load the manual and there you go. You can even put your own private list of game tips, notes, etc.

The only problem might be - and I haven't checked it out - that they might have locked the PDF file so that it can't re-flow the text on the smaller PDA screen. If it can't re-flow the pages, then the line-lengths are problematic because you can only read 6-7 words, and then you have to scroll left to finish the line, then scroll back to finish the next line. This was a problem with the HTTR manual - I posted it up on the "wish list page" over on the HTTR forums, but didn't get much of a reaction over there.

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 67

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 12:11:27 AM

Warpstorm

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/6/2003
Status: offline

If I could get it, I'd ask for my money back. While the game may be good, I'll never know because of the sub-standard programming. C'mon, a windowed mode is trivial (even using DirectX) and really needed for those of us with LCD monitors, as is responding to the alt-tab request (for those of us who want to learn to play). Maybe I'll give it a try once this is patched a few times (assuming the patch allows me to have the documentation open at the same time as the game), but I don't have the patience to put up with this on a game of this complexity. And I am not throwing another $10+ dollars away to print the manual.

I guess I should have taken the warnings here more seriously, but I figured that I'd be lucky and it would work on my system.

(in reply to Rooster)

Post #: 68

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 12:20:19 AM

wayne19563

Posts: 14
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warpstorm

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

No problem - I just think that if you look at the reviews in the US PC gaming magazines, you will find very fair reviews. That is simply my prediction.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that of the major US magazines (PC Gamer, Computer Games, Computer Gaming World) and sites (Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN) you will see fair reviews from all of them. They may not like it wholeheartedly, but the reviews will be extremely fair and well-considered. Those are the only "professional" reviews that you'll see - I would not consider and of the other sites "professional."

I will agree with this. These magazines will get a reviewer who understands wargames to write the review, not give it to the same guy who writes about the latest FPS.

I went to Kinko's and had them print the PDF file that I burned to a disk ... Cost $8.00 - B&W. Took 20 min. - while I waited ... now on to reading!

(in reply to Warpstorm)

Post #: 69

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 1:19:27 AM

Reg Pither

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline

Overall first impression after a few hours' play -

So much to do, absorb and learn. Definitely a step up from EUII, but obviously very similar. Good thing it's not realtime, or that would be impossible!

A few random thoughts...

Minus :

- Undo / verify buttons for just about everything are needed!
- The 80% penalty for artillery on higher ground is waaay too harsh.
- Uniforms are functional, but need to be more country and unit specific. (This may have been mentioned already somewhere...

)
- Most of the fonts are ugly; the map looks pretty good and is very atmospheric, but I'd prefer the land and sea to be more distinct - one a significantly darker shade than the other rather than the similar tones we have now.
- Windowed mode would be very useful.
- Sort out the alt+tab viewing of the manual, as mine doesn't work. Luckily I can just have the manual up on my other PC, but it's not ideal.
- Too many buttons need more than one push to work, even though I get the 'pressed' sound. Sometimes they don't work at all and I have to go out of that screen and back in. And the general interface is a bit 'clunky', not nice and smooth and tactile like we'd expect of a modern computer game.
- As others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive overview screen for your nation, just all sorts of details spread across various screens and repeated on others. Needs to be more streamlined.

Plus :

- It's a huge, strategic level Napoleonic wargame!!! So I'd probably have to be dragged from my PC before I stopped playing, no matter how many problems it had.

- Depth. Plenty of it. Trade and diplomacy in particular have plenty of options.
- Combined arms tactics seem to be well modelled.

Overall, spectacularly good, if a bit rough around the edges.

< Message edited by Reg Pither -- 7/3/2005 1:32:57 AM >

(in reply to wayne19563)

Post #: 70

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 1:26:38 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

There is a US PC Gamer and a UK PC Gamer.. there may well be PC Gamers in other countries too. I don't believe the writers for the UK and US mags are the same so you may be talking about a different reviewer.

You're right there and the PC Gamer UK reviewer is notorious for giving low scores to wargames.

But, the overall average that appears in Gamerankings.com is the one that matters most. PC Gamer US is only one magazine, hardly the last word in pc gaming, I quit taking a subscription to them because of their youthful kiddiefied reviews except for when Trotter was there.

Gamespy and Gamespot reviews will have a big impact on scores as well. I'll just be amazed if this game gets the kind of overall scores like Korsun Pocket or HTTR got. Though just from the readings by the players and the way it plays I know already I'd score it high because I love reading manuals, the bigger the better. ;)

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 71

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 1:32:08 AM

Reg Pither

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline

UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks.

Oh, and I just want to say... Hello, ravinhood!

Age of Wonders Heaven, I believe...?

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 72

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 1:40:42 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks.

Why do you think that?

(in reply to Reg Pither)

Post #: 73

RE: Oh no, another seniors master thesis game! - 7/3/2005 2:00:22 AM

John B

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Re the manual, if your printer can do this, (which I think most can) set it to print two pages per sheet in "landscape" mode. This halves the number of sheets, cuts down on the ink used, and is still readable. For the eagle-eyed, I suppose it would be possible to print four pages per sheet, though I for one would have the same difficulties as Davout without his eye-glasses

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 74

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 2:58:29 AM

Reg Pither

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks.

Why do you think that?

Because it's complicated, old-fashioned, isn't in 3D, requires effort and doesn't come with a manual.

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 75

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 3:07:11 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

So you think that the guys who gave Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy 5 stars are going to dislike CoG because it is turn-based and not in 3D? Please. You obviously don't read the magazines.

(in reply to Reg Pither)

Post #: 76

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 3:14:43 AM

Reg Pither

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

So you think that the guys who gave Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy 5 stars are going to dislike CoG because it is turn-based and not in 3D? Please. You obviously don't read the magazines.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought...

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 77

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 3:45:25 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

Your statement:

"UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks.

"

"Because it's complicated, old-fashioned, isn't in 3D, requires effort and doesn't come with a manual."

Actual ratings for recent turn-based, non-3D wargames from US magazines and major websites:

PC Gamer: Korsun Pocket 93%
Computer Games Mag: 4/5 stars
Computer Gaming World 5/5 stars
Gamespy: 5/5 stars
Gamespot: 8.6/10

PC Gamer: Battles in Normandy 81%
Computer Games Mag 5/5 stars
Computer Gaming World 4.5/5 stars
Gamespot: 8.4/10

So despite the rolling eyes in your last post, my statement holds.

< Message edited by bluemonday -- 7/3/2005 3:46:18 AM >

(in reply to Reg Pither)

Post #: 78

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 3:48:48 AM

bostonrpgmania

Posts: 271
Joined: 9/14/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

So you think that the guys who gave Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy 5 stars are going to dislike CoG because it is turn-based and not in 3D? Please. You obviously don't read the magazines.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought...

Unfortunately, Reg Pither, you are wrong
It depends on who reviews it
For example, Bruce Gyrwek of Computer gaming world, rates games by independent developers quite highly
He gave very very high opinion for Dominion II ascension wars even with its very very primitive graphics in 2D
What matters is gameplay.....for strategy games, especially turn based ones

< Message edited by bostonrpgmania -- 7/3/2005 3:49:29 AM >

(in reply to Reg Pither)

Post #: 79

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 4:17:28 AM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

Well, some wargames get good reviews by some people.. but I agree with Reg in that, generally, they don't score high enough. For instance.. Victoria.. A game I love.. was one of Paradox's more complicated variations of their well known 'province' theme.. but it is a gem. Some reviews;

Gamespy 1/5
Avault 2/5
PC Gamer 62/100
Gamespot 63/100

Admittedly Strategy Gaming gave it 90/100

Anyway, we could all spend weeks draggin up reviews to prove our point.. Most of the ones that have really riled me up are long since thrown away in disgust..

I do know that I'm quite used to reading reviews of deep, thoughtful, complex games I enjoy.. where the game gets rubbished because the reviewer simply wasn't into that kind of game, or able to learn it's rules.

Here in the UK we have a mag called 'PC Zone' that's fine for normal games but is just unable to review wargames.. if I remember correctly (don't quote me!

) they gave Korsun Pocket 19%!

So, while I agree there are reviewers around who understand our love for these kind of games.. it is generally the case that games like CoG don't get the credit they deserve in mainstream reviews.

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to bostonrpgmania)

Post #: 80

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 4:57:19 AM

Warpstorm

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/6/2003
Status: offline

Oddly enough, I'd have given Victoria a 2 star myself. Boring. Which is a shame, because I really wanted to like it (sad to say, I keep saying that about Paradox's games).

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 81

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 5:50:42 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet
So, while I agree there are reviewers around who understand our love for these kind of games.. it is generally the case that games like CoG don't get the credit they deserve in mainstream reviews.

I understand where you're coming from - my only response would be to say that the original comment by Reg specifically referred to "the mags." In the US there are three main PC gaming magazines, and all three have regular reviewers who generally take on wargame reviews and are quite capable of appreciating a good wargame. CGW, Computer Games, and PC Gamer all have editors who know exactly whom to go to for wargame reviews. Heck, William Trotter reviewed wargames in PC Gamer for how long? The idea that "the mags" are going to discount a game like CoG because it is "turn-based and not in 3D" is not only incorrect, but gives the appearance that wargamers don't really care for or appreciate the attempt to review these games fairly. Even if a knowledgeable, credible reviewer reveiws the game, it's going to get dismissed as uninformed because it's "in the magazines." Even though these magazines have been publishing credible wargame reviews for years. PC Gamer and CGW both even had separate wargaming columns until recent redesigns (and the retirement of Trotter from PC Gamer).

If wargamers are just going to blow off years of attempts to review such games "right," what's the point of "the mags" even trying? No non-wargamers are going to care if Korsun Pocket gets trashed, so if the wargamer readers don't care either, why bother?

That's depressing.

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 82

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 5:58:33 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Here's Gamespys recent review on Gary Grigsby World at War:

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/gary-grigsbys-world-at-war/627404p1.html

Just an inkling of what I expect to come for COG as good as it may be, when it's complex, and requires reading the manual, most of the "well known" review sites might burn it like GGWAW.

Oh he really cut ole Gary to the core with this statement. Heh

" As it is now, World at War is the work of an ambitious developer whose ideas are bigger than the capabilities of his game. "

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 7/3/2005 6:05:09 AM >

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 83

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 6:11:04 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

I agree with the reviewer - it's not a very good game.

And the reviewer who wrote that review gave Korun Pocket 4/5 stars in Computer Games. So it has nothing to do with having to read the manual. In fact, that reviewer wrote a full AAR of GGAWAW in Computer Gaming World.

< Message edited by bluemonday -- 7/3/2005 6:14:03 AM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 84

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 6:17:31 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

Lastly, to bring this back to CoG: you had better believe this game is going to get hit for the opacity of the economic system. Any reviewer who fails to mention that isn't doing his job. And there's no falling back on "ah he didn't read the manual" because as you can see, it isn't in there.

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 85

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 6:19:44 AM

Warpstorm

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/6/2003
Status: offline

I just read Tom Chick's Gamespy review and I must say, he gave intelligent reasons for what he didn't like. He didn't say "Dude, like they actually expected me to read the manual before starting. And there's no pixel shader support for my new GT 7800." His primary complaint was that it was too detailed for the presentation and marketing (the A&A crowd), but not detailed enough to pull off what Gary was trying for. He also complained that the combat was too dicey for his tastes and that the AI was very weak. He also complained that the game was predictable because the game forces you to follow the historical route. These are valid opinions.

Incidentally Gamespot gave it an 84% and PC Gamer gave it an 83% (both considered Great by their standards)

Battles in Normandy got an overall compostie rating (all known ranked sites and mags) of 89%

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 86

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 6:22:07 AM

GreenDestiny

Posts: 177
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Alamogordo NM
Status: offline

WTF... I would not compare GGWaW with CoG.

_____________________________

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 87

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 6:29:57 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warpstorm
These are valid opinions.

Exactly. They're not childish dismissals born of frustration. My point is: if you get people like Tom Chick or William Trotter or any of the other regular magazine guys (I won't name everyone) writing the CoG review, you'll get a fair, thoughtful review. They may not love the game the way the forum members do (after all - these are the ultimate fans: people who will pay for and download the game essentially sight unseen) but they will give it a fair review. And no one is going to complain that they had to read the manual.

(in reply to Warpstorm)

Post #: 88

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 6:54:50 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

WTF... I would not compare GGWaW with CoG.

It's not comparing GreenDestiny, it's showing what the reviewer of Gamespy is looking at and for in wargames. I think each reviewer looks for different things, some complexity, some easy of interface moreso, some the graphics, some a bit of all 3, no two reviewers are ever alike that's for sure. I wonder who wargamer is going to use to review this one? Aaron would be my choice he's good at drooling and sugar coating a game he likes. heh

(in reply to GreenDestiny)

Post #: 89

RE: print costs - 7/3/2005 1:52:12 PM

Reg Pither

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline

Sorry, didn't mean to start a fight about magazine reviews.

I was speaking from the UK magazine perspective, which isn't as mature as that in the US. I did put CGW in brackets, and should have mentioned Computer Games (is that what it's called nowadays? Used to be Strategy Plus or some such). PC Gamer over here is obviously a very different animal to the US version, so I shouldn't really have lumped them together.

I really hope it does get good reviews from those three mags, but I'd be very surprised if any magazine in the UK gives it above about 60%, if they review it at all. Deep wargames for grognards are still seen as the last refuge of the computer nerds over here. But I'd be very happy to be proved wrong on that score.

Sorry for the confusion.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 90