RE: SIM HQ Review

RE: SIM HQ Review (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

HercMighty -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 1:49:37 AM)
Issue here, is you can't put a requirement that a review has to have negative's and positive's in it...that is un-realistic... I didn't get to see the review, and trust me I know the history with Hermann and I don't doubt it was heavily leaned in one agenda...but point is, I am an adult, I can make my own determination...taking the review down was wrong based solely on the fact of because a certain person wrote it...and this has been disastrous for Matrix...there are posts all over the internet now about their actions in having a site take a review down...sorry but they blew it...should have left it and dealt with it... Which is what I don't understand...you have a group of people that rightly have an issue with Hermann and the owners of Harpoon and did the right thing...Command is here, in so many aspects that was the adult answer to the issues...they also need to understand that Harpoon is by and large the gold standard until Command can take over and be the new gold standard...they can do it, but it will take time... But this whole childish fight is ridiculous, and how they handled the current issue is just stupid, plain and simple...like I said above if they would have just ignored it publicly, improved on the game, and moved forward...everything would have been fine...though now how many of these threads will disappear? How many of these discussions about the situation will disappear? See the box they put themselves in?

Mad Russian -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 1:50:16 AM)
I've been reviewed a lot over the years, make games or scenarios and it's a part of the process. You want somebody to review your work. Hopefully they will like it. Maybe they won't. Whatever it is I always thought it was the honest opinion of the person writing the review. Good or bad it was how they felt about it. What I always want to see, was no matter what their opinion of my work is, is for them to be objective and explain why they feel like they do. As a scenario designer/developer I would agree that I personally get more out of the negative points of the review. I already pretty much know what I've done right. In a review for a product that is informative to people's decision to buy or not to buy a product I want to see a more balanced opinion on what the reviewer thought was done well and what could have been done better. I don't always agree with their assessment of my work. But I do always pay attention to the comments. It seems to me the Dev's here are doing the same. They are taking a look at the gamers comments and seeing how that fits with their vision of the game. What more can be asked for by a review? I will also say that the review did it's job. It certainly got people talking about the game. Good Hunting. MR

HercMighty -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 1:54:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wombat778 quote: ORIGINAL: tevans6220 As I said before, it's not up to the reviewer to convince me to buy. That job belongs to the publisher/devs. Reviews don't have to be fair or balanced. FWIW, I disagree completely with this. I absolutely expect published/professional reviews (as opposed to customer reviews) to be fair and balanced. I believe they need to cover the good points and the bad points of a product to give an overall fair assessment of the product based on the reviewer's experience. A quality review is one where the reader can walk away knowing the pros and cons of a product to enable them to make a purchasing decision WITHOUT reference to outside resources. If I have to go to a publisher/developer site to find more information to "counterbalance" a review that focused only on the negative, then it was a very poor and useless review indeed. All that said, I am not sure that pulling the review was the right path. Perhaps adding a disclaimer at the front might have made more sense. Of course, I do not know all the facts (e.g., maybe the author refused to allow a disclaimer). Disclaimer would have been the wrong way to go...here again you are falling into the childish behavior...come on people, does no body understand marketing and managing an image? Ignore it, ignore it, ignore it...fix the game or alter the game where it makes sense based on feedback and move on...let the game speak for itself and the positive reviews will come...

wombat778 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 2:12:53 AM)
Review is back up at SimHQ now, so looks like this whole argument is moot. Carry on...

JRyan -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 2:29:13 AM)
conflict of interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer. TheFreeDictionary just saying.....emphasis mine.

strykerpsg -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 5:20:23 AM)
Interesting post from Fearless Frog at Simhq.com: This is my review of the review, just to get a bit meta. This is not really a review, it's just seems like some sort of angry diatribe from the authors overflowing list of dislikes of the game and probably the developers. It doesn't review the sim, so much as attempts to eviscerate it by sheer repeated blunt clubbing of its failings. I've read ransom notes with more compassion and objectivity. SimHQ obviously made a mistake in allowing Mr Hum near this, and the mistake is now done. Such is life. The ways out would be to pull the review (not good, because it looks like censorship now) or write a better one. As SimHQ relies on volunteers, and sometimes good ones don't turn up, that doesn't seem to be the case either. The whole style of the review takes the journalist principle of balance with complete contempt. For every good point raised there are one thousand slammed down on top of it, as if worried anything good might be accidently glimpsed by the poor reader. The relentless inane 'WHY THIS IS BAD PART XXIV' minutia goes on and on as if some confused pet owner is now desperately upset that their cat doesn't bark. The review reads like a warning that the author desperately wanted to write, and I find that distasteful in terms of being a SimHQ review. A game review in the journalistic sense is a descriptive thing. It teaches on what the game does, how it does it and provides a succinct retelling of the games premise. Its job is to be critical too but not exclusively so. The critic isn't meant to be a cheap hit man with a predetermined yard-long list of weapons, but someone that helps explain the game and tell the story. I could fill a book with what I don't know about this genre, but beyond being absolutely certain that the author hated the damn thing even before he started it up, I've still no idea about so many aspects of the game. I feel dumber reading it. I would have liked to have seen discussion of the price, of value, of the new features, perhaps the kind of scenarios that are played out, perhaps even some history of the title. I guess I wanted Mr Rogers, and we got Hannibal Lector. In summary, and to attempt to be kind, this was a pure opinion piece and not a review. I'm sure there are many failings in the game (I've certainly read enough of them now) but it's likely at the end of the day all this has done had dented SimHQ's credibility a bit and perhaps make people take a deeper look.

Hertston -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 12:15:36 PM)
Having read Herman's piece now, I totally agree with Fearless Frog's comments. While Herman undoubtably raises some genuine issues, just as he did with his Harpoon bug-lists, that's about all he does, and that alone does not constitute a worthwhile 'review'. That's actually so obvious that, together with the commentary both there and here, it's probably sufficient to alert potential purchasers. What we need now is a good, balanced, unbiased review from someone well enough qualified with both the subject matter, and gaming it, to write it. Which may be hard to come by, unfortunately.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 4:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kaburke61 quote: Pii That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review? Man, what is your agenda here Pii? First you complain in pages and pages about how ridiculous the pricing scheme is and how matrix is killing the industry, then you purchase anyway (I guess), and now you are bashing the game, and any kind of opposite opinion. The hypocrisy you show towards the opposing viewpoints (for instance the Herman review) is comical. I bought the game because I think the devs seem like a bunch of standup guys. I have no agenda other than to make the game I bought live up to its potential. I would have to ask you what is you agenda also as you have done nothing but given it blind devotion. I'm curious as to where you feel I've "bashed" it? I'm not a hardcore fan that has been drooling over the game for years so maybe I'm not as bias as you and can see that there are in fact problems and I thought the review pointed out many that I also found even in the short amount of game play time I have put into it. I have offered some criticism and suggestions that I think would improve the game, practically the UI, but that is hardly "bashing" . If you think that's comical I'm happy to make you smile but that doesn't take away the fact that there is a long list of bugs and things that could be better or needs fixing. Sorry you can't see that.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 4:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExMachina quote: Man, what is your agenda here Pii? Herman? [X(] HaHA you funny

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 4:29:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Primarchx I didn't write a review for SimHQ nor was I asked to and I don't need to go point by point through anything. My impression was that the review spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing the game while providing little and faint praise for what's been done right. That's my opinion. quote: ORIGINAL: Pii quote: ORIGINAL: Primarchx When I read it the first time I didn't even notice it was written by Herman. When I finished I thought, "Man, what a hack job." It's 80% negative, if not more. Warts and all, IMHO, Command is not an 80% negative game. BTW, I should of known it was Herman when in the ending points it mentions the lack of database editing as being a con TWICE. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: tevans6220 I read the review and thought it was pretty fair. Certainly nothing over the top or out of the ordinary. The question I have is this: If you take away all the history between Herman, the devs and Matrix, would the review be considered a fair review? Not everybody knows of the history or bad blood. Personally I think Herman's review was spot on and fair. CMANO will be a very good game/simulation but version 1.0 has a few problems with bugs and missing features. All you have to do is read these forums to see that. The review said nothing more than that. I think it's a little disingenuous for Erik/Matrix/Slitherine to cry about it. Herman was the absolute right choice to review this product because of the prior history. Who better to review than your worst critic or rival? The review should not only be put back up at SimHQ but also shown on the Matrix site as well. That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review? So nothing he said wasn't true? OK then. Might I suggest you went there expecting to see a glowing review and when it wasn't you simple dismissed it as a hack jobs since it differed from your, equally bias, opinion? PS I didn't' see any of you complaining about the obvious bias "meant to sell", reviews that Matrix listed on their site. They weren't even reviews or previews they were nothing more than ads for the game that Matrix presented as reviews. Those are ok with you though, right?

$trummer -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 5:09:20 PM)
Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility.

haukka81 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 6:31:31 PM)
SIMHQ review was to harsh but it really says truth what it comes to UI. Command has great potential but will need polish, it's clearly uncomplete for now. Great game but not perfect or even really good now. First beta patch is step to right direction, i hope that command makers will read that review , even that is bit ****ty text but there are good points too.

kaburke61 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 7:20:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: $trummer Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility. +1

Alchenar -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 7:45:54 PM)
I've just read the review. It doesn't really read like a review, it reads like a professional QA report. It's very interesting and should probably be read very closely by the devs (not being able to set times for missions does seems like a really big omission for a game like this), but it doesn't really tell me much about how the game feels from an actual player's perspective (this is why you send review copies to decent game journalists and not other devs). You can read a bit between the lines every time he writes "For some reason this feature is copied but not as good as H3", but then you'd expect any decent review to compare and contrast this game with the closest alternative product. So long as everything he's written is true there doesn't appear to be anything too objectionable. The conclusion appears to be a 'good game (through gritted teeth) in much need of polishing and review of some systems'.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 8:17:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: $trummer Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility. Oh the old grammar police counter argument! (BTW you spelt Criticize wrong) Please post up one post from me where I have "criticized/bashed" the game and I didn't also offer a solution??? I'll be waiting here for it, Good luck. While you are it make sure said criticism is factual I'm new so if I've made a mistake feel free to correct me. As it is most for my suggestions have been about the UI which in my opinion, and Herman's, while functional, is at times clunky at best. In many cases it requires lots and lots of mouse clicking or leaving one window to go look up info in another window and having to do it time and time again when it simple isn't/shouldn't be necessary. One quick example is when I go into the editor and I want to place a new unit why can't I just double click the unit and get the database info on it? (Does everyone really know what every single unit is?) Instead I have to exit there go to the database, look it up, go back....etc etc (Let me guess you like having to do that and think it�s a feature?) And here is the suggestion for the devs so you don't call me a troll. How about making it so I can double click the unit to see the platforms (hyperlink it) in the database and when I exit that go back at the �add new unit� window? I know I know just trolling right? (matter of fact make it consistent across all the windows that have unit or weapons info!) Here�s another one, if I am laying down Reference points. Why can I only put down one and then have to Hold ctl, right click, select reference point and then if I want another I have to do it all over again, and again, if I want more than one point? Why do I have to press f3 or go to the menu to exit that mode when a simple right click should get you out? Now think about it.. Would you rather select �reference point� and click as many times as you need and when done right click or do the one point at a time dance? Unless you're a fanboys fanboy I can't for the life of me see why anyone would choose the "dance". Just because I'm not a blind drooling follower fanboy doesn't make me a troll. Perhaps if you actually opened your eyes and left your heart out of it you wouldn't be so blind. I think the game has great potential but I also think the devs should have actually played their game before hand or had a focus group play it and I'm sure they also would have seen these UI problems. For 80.00+ the game should have been polished with a slick workable UI IMO. You calling me a troll simple because I�m not blind was expected as I know I�m posting in the lion den, so to speak, but nothing I have said is a bash and everything has had a suggestion on how to improve. I'm starting to get more into the deeper parts of the sim so expect to see more, as you put it, trolling when I point out unit misbehaving.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 8:18:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kaburke61 quote: ORIGINAL: $trummer Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility. +1 -1

$trummer -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 8:42:43 PM)
"Criticise" is spelled with an s in the UK, where I grew up, and in most of the English-speaking world outside America. Only in America is the s inexplicably converted to a z. I'm glad I appear to have provoked you into justifying some of your hitherto meaningless raging. By going into detail regarding your complaints, you have finally contributed something worthwhile to this thread. You've been here a week. Use some manners and show some respect.

mattpenfold -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:18:38 PM)
[/quote] I think the game has great potential but I also think the devs should have actually played their game before hand or had a focus group play it and I'm sure they also would have seen these UI problems. For 80.00+ the game should have been polished with a slick workable UI IMO. [/quote] When you come out with stupid stuff like this, you make yourself look a fool at best. If not outright dishonest. You know full well that the game went though an extensive period of beta testing, and the claim the developers did not actually try out the game is just pathetic. Simple ignorance cannot explain such an idiotic comment. It is either malice or stupidity.

Dimitris -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:21:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alchenar (not being able to set times for missions does seems like a really big omission for a game like this), You can, via the event engine. And because it's via the EE, you can set missions to activate/de-activate based not just on time, but on any of the other EE triggers (e.g. aunit is damaged or destroyed, a unit enters an area before time X etc. etc.) Just one of the numerous "errors" in that "review".

Dimitris -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:26:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pii Here�s another one, if I am laying down Reference points. Why can I only put down one and then have to Hold ctl, right click, select reference point and then if I want another I have to do it all over again, and again, if I want more than one point? Right-click, select "define area", and with a single mouse-drag you have a ready-made area, with 4 pre-highlighted refpoints, ready to be used for anything. Manual, page 18.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: $trummer "Criticise" is spelled with an s in the UK, where I grew up, and in most of the English-speaking world outside America. Only in America is the s inexplicably converted to a z. I'm glad I appear to have provoked you into justifying some of your hitherto meaningless raging. By going into detail regarding your complaints, you have finally contributed something worthwhile to this thread. You've been here a week. Use some manners and show some respect. Stop lying I ask you to provide a single post where I didn't do just that. Where are they? "Meaningless raging? Really? Again show ONE just ONE! Talk about being a troll! I did notice you didn't comment on a single one of my "suggestions" or as you liked to call them rages. Did you disagree or do you consider them well implemented features? Also my time here should have NOTHING to do with what I think about your beloved game. If it suxs I'll say so even if I've been here a day if it doesn't I will also say so. But since you claim I have no manners or respect again SHOW ME WHERE I POSTED ANYTHING THAT WASN'T RESPECTFUL or LACKED MANNERS? I know you can't back it up just like your other BS claims but I'll give you a chance anyways. You've called me a troll simple for pointing out REAL problems, claim I'm bashing and raging meaninglessly but yet you can't show a single post to backup your claim. I think its you that needs the manners and respect troll.. Now either prove your claim that I'm a troll and never offered any suggestions or go away.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:46:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mattpenfold I think the game has great potential but I also think the devs should have actually played their game before hand or had a focus group play it and I'm sure they also would have seen these UI problems. For 80.00+ the game should have been polished with a slick workable UI IMO. When you come out with stupid stuff like this, you make yourself look a fool at best. If not outright dishonest. You know full well that the game went though an extensive period of beta testing, and the claim the developers did not actually try out the game is just pathetic. Simple ignorance cannot explain such an idiotic comment. It is either malice or stupidity. Well then they obviously didn't listen to the beta testers. FYI I found out about the gae when it was posted on SimHQ they wanted beta tester and that's all I know. So who is make wild claims now? That was about a month maybe two before release. If you call that an "extensive period" All I can do is laugh . I know for a fact that if the devs actually played the game they would have to know the UI is terrible So I can only assume they did not.

Pii -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:46:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: ORIGINAL: Pii Here�s another one, if I am laying down Reference points. Why can I only put down one and then have to Hold ctl, right click, select reference point and then if I want another I have to do it all over again, and again, if I want more than one point? Right-click, select "define area", and with a single mouse-drag you have a ready-made area, with 4 pre-highlighted refpoints, ready to be used for anything. Manual, page 18. Hmmm what if I don't want just 4 in a rectangle? What page is that on?

mattpenfold -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pii quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: ORIGINAL: Pii Here�s another one, if I am laying down Reference points. Why can I only put down one and then have to Hold ctl, right click, select reference point and then if I want another I have to do it all over again, and again, if I want more than one point? Right-click, select "define area", and with a single mouse-drag you have a ready-made area, with 4 pre-highlighted refpoints, ready to be used for anything. Manual, page 18. Hmmm what if I don't want just 4 in a rectangle? What page is that on? quote: tangle? What page is t Four points is all that is needed to define a rectangle. It cannot be be done with less, and there is no need for more.

mikmykWS -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:50:45 PM)
Areas are defined by 4 points. You can add additional reference points pretty easily if you need them. Thats 4 clicks. If you had the opportunity to design it how would you do it? Mike

mattpenfold -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:52:11 PM)
quote: Well then they obviously didn't listen to the beta testers. FYI I found out about the gae when it was posted on SimHQ they wanted beta tester and that's all I know. So who is make wild claims now? That was about a month maybe two before release. If you call that an "extensive period" All I can do is laugh . I know for a fact that if the devs actually played the game they would have to know the UI is terrible So I can only assume they did not. Stop digging, unless your intention is prove beyond all doubt you are a fool. And provide evidence to support your allegations.

ExMachina -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 9:58:53 PM)
quote: Hmmm what if I don't want just 4 in a rectangle? What page is that on? Euclid's Elements (300B.C)

MaB1708 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 10:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExMachina quote: Hmmm what if I don't want just 4 in a rectangle? What page is that on? Euclid's Elements (300B.C) Thank you so much, Exmachina.... made my day...[:D]

$trummer -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 10:16:36 PM)
My God, you're a fool, Pii. Are you 13, perhaps? Or a fairly bright 10 year-old? The devs are answering all of your dopey "issues" and still you're raging. I was a beta tester. The game was extensively tested and there was massive input from the testers, just about all of which was heeded by the devs. I think Matrix should probably just refund your money so that you can put it back in your father's wallet and go play something less demanding.

JRyan -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/2/2013 10:19:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pii If you think that's comical I'm happy to make you smile but that doesn't take away the fact that there is a long list of bugs and things that could be better or needs fixing. Sorry you can't see that. I think everyone misses the point with the HH review. IF and considering the source not likely but IF the review had been glowing about Command, you would have still have a similar reaction. HH had more to do with breaking up the Harpoon community than ANY other person. It was a tight knit group back to the Harpooner of the Year awards.. Content or not, it is like someone having Harry Reid to a review of the Republican budget, They are diametrically opposed to each other. As for taking it down, I think they did it because they were embarrassed it slipped by them.. UP NEXT CSNBC reviews FOX News documentary on Obama-care and swears to be impartial.... See doesn't work does it?

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.937012