Review @ Out of Eight (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

JaguarUSF -> Review @ Out of Eight (10/9/2009 8:26:15 PM)

A review of Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich has been posted at Out of Eight PC Game Reviews:
http://www.outofeight.info/2009/10/gary-grigsbys-eagle-day-to-bombing.html
Enjoy!



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/9/2009 8:54:48 PM)

Thank you

makes me wonder if he even looked at the game

seeing how he doesn't know how the waypoint system works (last time I looked, there were more then 4 waypoints,

"the four component flight path (inbound, initial point, exit point, and outbound)"

Plus I think he has a thing against Gary

oh well, we did better then 50% !!!!

maybe if we were EA we could of done a game more to his liking





Kharkov -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/9/2009 11:02:39 PM)

I actually think the review is spot on.





jomni -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 12:23:47 AM)

Out of Eight is a decent review site.
In fact he's the one I usually go to read about less mainstream strategy games like the Matrix titles.
Knowing the reviewer, he does not like overly complex games (don't think he even dared reviewing WitP) so I'm surprised he even reviewed this game in the first place. He does not have a thing vs. Gary but he has a thing vs. overly complex games that is hard to get into by the common individual.

5/8 does not mean you get a 62.5% score.

He just says that you should buy it only if really like the genre.  Which is true.

A lot of his 8/8 games are from small shops.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 12:28:16 AM)

so, he is a person who reviews games that he don't like, and then bases his views on them, based on his likes and dislikes

very good

I remember one review about a D-Day game, and the guys biggest complaint was, why do all games about D-Day, have to take place in France, why can't it be Holland or Norway, or Greece, why does D-Day always have to be in France

and that was the reason, he gave it a poor review




Erik Rutins -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 12:33:59 AM)

Sarge,

Don't take reviews personally, it's never productive. We all know how much you love the game and how much time you've spent on it, but it won't be everyone's cup of tea no matter what you do. It's better to respond factually to anything you think was incorrect and take the rest to heart as areas where improvement might be made.

I'll note separately that an interface overhaul was never promised, although some interface improvements were made. This release was aimed at folks who loved the original and wanted an improved release of it to play for years to come, and on that score it delivers.

Regards,

- Erik



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 12:41:43 AM)

I already did, he talks about things that are in the old game, not what is in the new game

if he reviewed the new game, he would notice that the game system does not work the same way




harley -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 1:14:14 AM)

I don't see anything in the review I take offence to. I think he's weighted the lack of interface updates too high against the gameplay changes we made (which he hasn't really touched on at all), but other than that, It seems reasonable. We put gameplay over beauty. One thing about the interface is that I can't see how increasing the map area threefold can be anything but a good thing - that was a huge accomplishment and i give myself a pat on the back and a rowdy chorus of cheers for that.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 1:23:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: harley
One thing about the interface is that I can't see how increasing the map area threefold can be anything but a good thing - that was a huge accomplishment and i give myself a pat on the back and a rowdy chorus of cheers for that.


You deserve much more than a pat on the back and a cheer! [&o]



JaguarUSF -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 1:37:43 AM)

This is actually a review of the game as a whole, rather than the improvements made in the Matrix release.
I attempted to convey this in the introduction: "this is my first crack at the titles." The lowered score is due to a heavy penalty for the interface, which I found to be cumbersome.
I didn't comment on the gameplay changes because frankly I did not know what they were because I didn't play the original game. I was reviewing the game from the perspective of a first time player to the series, since that's what I am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
(last time I looked, there were more then 4 waypoints


Yeah, there are three in the inbound and three in the outbound, but there are four components...I tried to simplify it somewhat for readers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
This release was aimed at folks who loved the original and wanted an improved release of it to play for years to come, and on that score it delivers.


True.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni
Knowing the reviewer, he does not like overly complex games (don't think he even dared reviewing WitP)


I actually got the Admiral's Edition to review and cried after I tried playing it. :)



Steamfish -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 2:19:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I'll note separately that an interface overhaul was never promised, although some interface improvements were made. This release was aimed at folks who loved the original and wanted an improved release of it to play for years to come, and on that score it delivers.


I agree 100% with this Erik. A different interface would have been nice, but that wasn't the intent of the update. For those of us who live and breathe the European strategic bombing campaign of WWII, this is the definitive game of that genre and will remain so for the a very long time to come. I'll willingly take the subtle adjustments to the interface with the big improvements to the underlying data & mechanics. That, along with compatibility for newer versions of Windows, ensures that this game will have a place on my HD for many years. Which is about how long it will take me to complete a full 43 campaign at my pace! ;-)



V22 Osprey -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 2:31:40 AM)

Deleted



Justascratch -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 5:01:33 PM)

I think the review was more on the mark than off. Regarless of the intent of the update, it is fair to say the weakest link in the game is the dated interface. As a long time war gamer I blew right through the interface challenges and revelled in the strategic banquet this game brings to the table. But, it is still fair for the reviews to pick on the interface since it wasn't the target of the update, it is left showing it's age. As for me, I'm having a great time playing the long campaign in BTR and whinning like a stuck pig every time the AI kicks my butt. Heaven.



petgod -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 5:23:17 PM)

[:D]At the end of the day you aint gonna please everyone. My attitude is if you like the old version you will love this one!

And I do, so well done HS, Harley and averyone else involved! Now if we can just tie BTR into WITP and create a total WW2 whole world flight strat game then WooHoo! And lets see him review that bad boy [:D]



WBEDIGNER -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 6:38:26 PM)

Not having played the game before, I was waiting on a review before I invested the time and money. I am more inclined to purchase the game after the review.  I can live with a clunky interface if it will lead me to some chess-like challenge.  I do appreciate everybody who has worked on the game, as well as purchased the product to at least keep the title alive.  I look forward to playing the game. 



Lützow -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/10/2009 7:45:50 PM)

I did not purchase the remastered BoB/BtR, but comparing screenshots here with the original games, which both are still installed on my WinXP machine, it looks as if HS has sligthly improved the old interface.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/11/2009 10:50:44 PM)

I actually think the review was a fair first perspective of the game. Like he said, he was unaware of the issues.

However, I do think the weight given to the interface was over the top. Yep - it's cumbersome - but not overly. And it is very much in keeping with the original. Good or bad, as Erik said, and interface overhaul was never on the cards.

But I'm way past the interface issues. The gameplay is awesome. I particularly like playing attacjer because you can let the AI get on with it - something he also mentioned a dislike to.

The actual review was fair, but I think the score was harsh. Defo a 6/8 - I'd maybe squeeze a 7 out for it, given the improvements over the originals.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 2:18:54 AM)

I just glad he didn't have a Quad Core Computer

:)




EagleMountainDK -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 7:22:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I just glad he didn't have a Quad Core Computer

:)





Oooh yes [;)][:D]



Misty99 -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 9:09:37 AM)

Here is an other one. 1 star out of 5.

http://wroteontheground.blogspot.com/2009/10/gary-grigsbys-eagle-day-to-bombing.html



Nemo121 -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 9:38:13 AM)

Well I think his harsh review of the interface was valid. Speaking as someone who spent a few hours trying to tweak German production I can assure you that things are unnecessarily buried in the bowels of the game and little thought was given to making the interface efficient and accessible.

With that said I do think that if you are reviewing a revamp of an old Grigsby game you have to take that revamp on its own merits and make allowance for the fact that this isn't a game which was designed in the current age.

For what it is the revamp is extremely successful ( albeit I still have to play it in a tiny window on my desktop due to the 1024x768 issue ) but, understandably, the focus was on bug-fixing and fixing a few other errors and not on redoing the entire interface. Unfortunately reviewers on most sites nowadays are unlikely to take such a nuanced view.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 4:00:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well I think his harsh review of the interface was valid.


I brought Grigsby's clunky interface treatment up on USENET a while back, and was kind of surprised that so many folks agreed with me. He makes games that many of us are interested in, but the GUI functions are like something from DOS-days. And I'm not talking about the graphics, but their overall system of menus, object selection and manipulation. They are so hard to use that they can darn near ruin the whole experience (for many gamers). I bought WitP-AE when it was released and was quickly reminded of how cumbersome the GUI really is, a flaw which is only magnified by the gargantuan nature of a campaign in that game. Thus far, I've passed on this latest game because the interface appears so similar to the originals.

Kindly attribute this post to simple feedback from someone who buys a LOT of computer wargames. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Erik Rutins -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 5:31:11 PM)

Honestly, I think reviews that focus on the interface (which is the same or better than the original) are missing the point of these remakes. Yes, the interface feels clunkier now than it did in the 90s, but you do get used to it as we did with the originals and the gameplay is better than ever. These games are undeniably based on an old engine and while it now runs on modern systems and is supported, expecting it to behave just like a game designed and developed in 2008 or 2009 is unreasonable.

I think it's absolutely fair to suggest that, as the game continues to be supported, we should make further interface improvements. But expecting an interface overhaul that was never promised comes a bit out of the blue for me.

Regards,

- Erik



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 6:37:30 PM)

trying to be a good boy, but, most of our type of games are going to be menu driven, so what kind of UI do they expect, that isn't going to be using menu's

the Civ's are menu driven, the TW games are still Menu driven, The Witcher, is menu driven, Sword of the Stars is menu driven, this forum is menu driven, there websites are menu driven, how are you suppost to design (which we weren't) a UI that doesn't use menu's




Rekm41 -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 6:45:23 PM)

I think maybe a short cut to the OOB. I believe you mentioned you were working on that in another post. I think people have become too used to windows and just clicking where they want to go immediately and not having to go through steps. Windows 3.1 and DOS were what I first played with..



wilecki -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 6:47:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Honestly, I think reviews that focus on the interface (which is the same or better than the original) are missing the point of these remakes. Yes, the interface feels clunkier now than it did in the 90s, but you do get used to it as we did with the originals and the gameplay is better than ever. These games are undeniably based on an old engine and while it now runs on modern systems and is supported, expecting it to behave just like a game designed and developed in 2008 or 2009 is unreasonable.

I think it's absolutely fair to suggest that, as the game continues to be supported, we should make further interface improvements. But expecting an interface overhaul that was never promised comes a bit out of the blue for me.

Regards,

- Erik


Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface. Such person is also much less likely to know which aspects were promised to be polished and which were not and maybe he's just not willing to buy a game he'll literally fight with while playing and which could have been so much better with few simple solutions known from other games. And why should he even care about those promises? It's like somebody would release today a renewed Sensible Soccer 96/97, with some tweaks and ability to play it on modern computers, ask for it a price of a new game and then act surprised when reviewers are pointing out clunkiness or ugliness or any other -ness that fails when compared with the latest FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. It doesn't change the fact that Sensible was and still is a really fun game. Forgive this example but I couldn't find better.

A person that was already acquainted with the original game will simply ignore obvious parts of the review (if he is even going to read such review in the first place) and as an old fan of the game he will be well aware of what to expect.



Nemo121 -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 6:48:34 PM)

HS, to be fair to the reviewer ( and others ) I don't think that this is an issue of not wanting menus. I think this is an issue of there being a BETTER way to present the menus than we currently have.

E.g. Imagine, if you would, a menu for production featuring, along the top, generic pictures of "single-engined day fighter", "twin-engined day fighter", "night fighter", "Jabo"

Click on "night fighter" and below these generic pictures a new page pops up with pictures of the planes on the left in one column, a second column showing a picture of avionics etc ( parts ) and a third column showing a generic picture of plane engines ( 1 engine for single-engined planes, two engines for twin-engined planes )

There's a number below each plane, part and engine which shows the number required at present for that plane type and the total number being produced in total.

Click on a picture and a new box pops up showing you a list of the factories ( and their sizes ) producing that plane assembly or avionics or engine. If you want to change production you can select more than one of the factories at a time and then when you select change all of the selected factories will change to whatever you want at the same time. When you close this sub-menu the main page will update all the figures letting you instantly see the effect of what you are doing on night-fighter production, assembly,m parts and engine requirements.



On one page you have all of the data you need to change production for ALL of your night fighters. Same for the other types. It is displayed somewhat graphically with a clear communication to players of what engine and parts types are required for which planes, how many of each you need and what the total production for each is.


Is the current aspergery menu a game-breaker for me? No but neither is it even close to being as user-friendly as something along the lines of what is outlined above.


Bottom lines:
1. The issue isn't with menus it is with the user-unfriendliness of menus.
2. If you want pretty menus etc don't get a Grigsby game.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 6:53:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rekm41

I think maybe a short cut to the OOB. I believe you mentioned you were working on that in another post. I think people have become too used to windows and just clicking where they want to go immediately and not having to go through steps. Windows 3.1 and DOS were what I first played with..


but you can just click were you want to go ? (if your talking about the map)

a short cut to the OOB, well, it would save you one mouse click ?

now, you go to the summery page, then to the OOB page, a button for the OOB, would just skip the summery page to go to the OOB page, but if he can add it, great



Hard Sarge -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 6:57:30 PM)

Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface

I could agree with that, if it was focus on all aspects of the game, fine, but they weren't

and both reviews, that is there view of the interface, most people who played the game don't notice it, when they know what they are doing



Erik Rutins -> RE: Review @ Out of Eight (10/12/2009 7:14:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wilecki
Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface. Such person is also much less likely to know which aspects were promised to be polished and which were not and maybe he's just not willing to buy a game he'll literally fight with while playing and which could have been so much better with few simple solutions known from other games. And why should he even care about those promises? It's like somebody would release today a renewed Sensible Soccer 96/97, with some tweaks and ability to play it on modern computers, ask for it a price of a new game and then act surprised when reviewers are pointing out clunkiness or ugliness or any other -ness that fails when compared with the latest FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. It doesn't change the fact that Sensible was and still is a really fun game. Forgive this example but I couldn't find better.

A person that was already acquainted with the original game will simply ignore obvious parts of the review (if he is even going to read such review in the first place) and as an old fan of the game he will be well aware of what to expect.


I think a key misunderstanding here is that my objection is that reviews should not _focus_ on the interface. I feel that the two posted here did focus on that and meanwhile did not really address what it is that players of the originals would find improved here, which is a pretty substantial list. It's also worth noting that we are releasing two games here for the price of one of the originals, having updated both to the final version of the engine plus many improvements.

I certainly think the interface should be part of any review, but I think it should not be the focus of the review for an updated release like this one, especially when it was not promised to be substantially different from the originals. It's worth noting that unlike some other game niches, in wargaming these kinds of definitive treatments on a subject are rare and it's often a long time before they are revisited. That's the main reason why it makes sense to extend the life of definitive games like these when a replacement for them is not really on the horizon. There are limits to what can reasonably be done with older engines though and I believe what the team focused on and promised to do, they did very well.

I'm sure some interface improvements will be possible post-release, but an interface overhaul is asking too much of the engine itself.

Regards,

- Erik



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875