RE: Maybe Im too harsh?

RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/9/2004 9:35:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tactics You lost me when you compared Paradox to Matrix. How so? My point revolves entirely around the fact that both companies have put out games far superior to their competition and got hammered for minor issues. Both are dedicated to improving their products. As for Paradox, what Johan meant by the "less complex" announcement was that they will now be keeping their games on the EU2 level. That's in direct response to the criticism received on their forums, most of which amounts to mindless screaming about HOI or Vicky being broken or unplayable because one ship is missing or some really minor happening is not modeled by event. I like complex games and I think it would be a disaster if the whiners win and PE games become just another set of RTS clones. Crusader Kings will likely be the last of the truly immersive "nation simulators" which have become a PE trademark. Hopefully they'll be able to find a happy medium and keep going. Further, I think most of PE's woes are a result of being paired with SF. Poor marketing, poor distribution, pittance royalties, and impossible deadlines will wreck anyone in the industry. Hopefully that will change as they're offering their next product via direct purchase, but it remains to be seen how much revenue that will generate for them.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/9/2004 10:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1 I have heard the UV comments, and won't out of hand deny them. Because I expect all game producers to stand on their own two feet. But while I won't leap in and say "not so" where UV is concerned, I will say this much. It didn't attempt to simulate a war in rediculous terms under rediculous conditions in such a flagrantly rediculous environment as to completely turf all credibility. Fair enough. We obviously differ in regard to what we expected from HOI. quote: Could Brazil have attacked and successfully defeated Germany in WW2? Sorry you lost me there just asking such a moronic question. Only a science fiction writer would give a damn. Would I a routine wargamer want to play it in real time with no option to tell the stupid AI to get lost, not one iota. HoI was garbage the second it exited its creators mind. But some people like garbage eh. One man's junk is another man's treasure. But sorry, not everyone wants to invest in junk and portray it as valuable resources. I take it you would've rather seen HOI as a turn-based war simulation with a hot-seat option? In that case you're right, HOI isn't your game. However, it is something of value to those of us who were looking for a WW2 nation simulator. :) Again, I think we just want different things from a game of this type. quote: I have said it elsewhere, and I can say it here, I don't know of a single wargame design, that has ever been created, and not altered after day one. There is always something to improve. Board games, computer games, doesn't matter. Both Squad leader and Third Reich, my most played to death games didn't remain as they were originally made. Some say it was a bad choice to improve them. Steel Panthers did not remain Steel Panthers. I know some that will only play the original version eh. Big difference between an improved game and a fixed game though, is a fixed game originally would not even run after you bought it out of the box. Here I will differ. While I agree that games evolve, I think HOI was rushed by SF. PE patched it to what I would've expected as a release state with v1.03. My comparison with Matrix lies in the adjustments brought in with the later patches, which mainly tweaked the game in response to player feedback. The next patch will supposedly have further modifications and overhauls based partly upon player-made mods and partly on revisions by PE. PE games do indeed evolve; just look at the beta patches for EU2, the last of which came out last week. It helps to keep in mind that EU2 is nearly 26 months old. quote: UV ran out of the box, but it was not perfect. HoI in most cases was inert and just plain worthless. They don't make for perfect comparisons. Now to compare companies, one has a bad reputation, the other doesn't. And I don't care if you can get the order correct. No, UV and HOI don't make for perfect comparisons, but the companies themselves do make for valid ones, if not perfect. PE and Matrix both keep improving their products well after release and use the feedback of their customers for that purpose. Given the state of the industry as a whole, I'd say PE is in the top ten list, and that hardly gives them a bad reputation in my opinion.

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 1:47:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin As for Paradox, what Johan meant by the "less complex" announcement was that they will now be keeping their games on the EU2 level. That's in direct response to the criticism received on their forums, most of which amounts to mindless screaming about HOI or Vicky being broken or unplayable because one ship is missing or some really minor happening is not modeled by event. I like complex games and I think it would be a disaster if the whiners win and PE games become just another set of RTS clones. Crusader Kings will likely be the last of the truly immersive "nation simulators" which have become a PE trademark. Hopefully they'll be able to find a happy medium and keep going. Ah yes the ever powerful arguement that people on a forum are responsible for failure [8\|] Rather than "mindless screaming" there are many people spending their time finding bugs and trying to figure out exactly where the economy is broken, but if you want to attribute Paradox's decision to the power of a handful of ranting posts then why not rant yourself and convince Paradox they are wrong. Look to the non-existent sales and poor reviews before you have the audacity to blame people on a forum.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 2:42:25 AM)
Oh there were plenty of posters providing constructive criticism. However, I saw far more of "X is broken and the entire game is unplayable! I'm never going to buy another PE game again!". I largely quit posting in the game forums after I had a number of threads hijacked by whiners who absolutely had to state for the 100th time how feature X wrecked the game and ruined their life. [8\|]

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 3:14:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin Oh there were plenty of posters providing constructive criticism. However, I saw far more of "X is broken and the entire game is unplayable! I'm never going to buy another PE game again!". I largely quit posting in the game forums after I had a number of threads hijacked by whiners who absolutely had to state for the 100th time how feature X wrecked the game and ruined their life. [8\|] Try reading the Victoria boards before making an assumption so sweeping as to blame posters on a forum for the perceived failure of a game. Aside from a small number of rants the place is very positive. Or again, if you feel that fora are so powerful that a few posters influence game designers, then go lobby.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 3:25:59 AM)
Well reasoned rebutal Von Murrin. By that, I mean you stated your case without attacking me. But rather sufficed to rebut my position and leave it at that. That I appreciate. On the matter of nation building games, I prefer they remain games of the Civ variety ie no real dependence on forcible confinement in a historical simulation at the same time. If I wanted to know if Brazil (just using them as an example eh), could rule the 1940s era, I would rather it was done in a Civ type game. I don't mind "what if" games to a point. But my own personal "what if' thresshold is limited to what actually really could have happened. Thus, in 1939, there are only so many variable what ifs I want to consider. What if Germany had not gotten their way in Czech conquest for instance. What would the game's starting point look like on the atack on Poland under those conditions. That is an interesting a viable "what if" that doesn't stretch the notion of "what if" into "what ever". It all comes down to suspension of disbelief. Games that look stupid to a scholarly player, will be immediately dismissed as such. Thus, even if HoI had been done as turns with hotseat, if the game had allowed the "what if" to much leeway, it would still have gotten grief from a large sector of the wargaming community. When I first saw the game, I was hoping for a grand strategy game of the level of complexity it attempted, but of a seriousness that is found in Advanced Third Reich. It lost me when it looked like a silly you can play any region as your starting force game of Axis and Allies. As "simple" looking as Strategic Command is, it still retains what a wargamer would call a more serious attempt to be a wargame, and not a silly diversion. SC has some design errors to be sure. But they don't prevent the game from being entirely fun to play. They are just notions to be weeded out (hopefully) in its next version.

Golf33 -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 3:36:35 AM)
You can't actually compare Matrix and Paradox. Matrix is a publisher and should be compared to Strategy First; Paradox is a developer and should be compared to, e.g., 2by3games or Wargaming.net. Regards 33

ravinhood -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:04:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1 I find this to be a "fascinating thread". The latest remarks being interesting to me in one particular way. The phrase "heresy" If a reviewer says avoid something, is that good enough? If a like minded person says avoid something, is that good enough? If a forum mate says avoid something, is that good enough? If a friend say, nah you won't like it, is that good enough? Generally speaking, is the opinions of people you know, or the views of people you can relate to, not adequate? Or are you the sort to stupid to accept that only you can really know the truth of a matter? Me, I can't afford to be that category of person. Finances in my case are incredibly finite. So I have to stand with the skeptics, to take a pass on a game if it hasn't got a sterling reputation. The market has plenty of games, and there are more than a few that have more than enough people glowing about it. And if those people tend to mirror my own normal expectations, why should I assume I can't value their views. I can't afford the arrogance that only I can be a proper judge, that I must absolutely buy a game first before I can make a reasoned opinion. Everyone that has participated on this thread is already well aware of which games are good and which games are not. The views of rabid fans won't alter any of that. I so agree with you here LES, and even though you don't own the games or ever played them, you really didn't miss anything. They aren't like your normal historical board game simulations. They are recreations as best as these developers can research them, then thrown together and called a historical simulation and/or strategic wargame as in the case of HOI. It's just a different type of niche. I thought I would give it a shot, but, it's nowhere near to my board gaming style of play, strategic or tactical. If feels more like playing an advanced version of RISK, with the same crappy AI. For one thing you have to put hours, days, even weeks to finish one of these games. It's not your typical weekend of fun, set a new game up next week type game. It's micromanagement moreso than it is strategy and tactics. And Vicky is like playing Financial Tycoon, just a different time period. lol You are also right about which company has a good reputation and one that has a bad one. Matrix makes wargames. Paradox makes simulations. I believe the market is bigger for wargames than mere simulations with very ahistorical outcomes, like Brazil whipping Italy and Germany with no help from the allies, except Russia. I know, I did it, it was a laugh and nothing else. I also don't think build a game and relying on the community to "make it work" is the proper way to build a game either. As I've said before, there's people out there that don't even own an internet connection and they lose out even more, because they don't get patches or the mods. The "silent" consumer can make you or break you in the long run. I played HOI and beat it the very first game on hard. I downloaded the demo of EYSA and got smoked the very first game, which one do you think I enjoy more? The one that is the most challenging, not just one with pretty pictures and micromanagement out the ying yang and with no challenge. I can play either wargame or simulation, but, I determine whether it is good or not by the challenge first and foremost.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:44:09 AM)
I read the forums. I have roughly 250 posts in them and maybe 3-5 times that much in OT. Want to know something interesting? I would say probably 150 of those are in the EU2 forums, 75 in the HOI forums, and the rest in the Vicky forums. I was pretty active in the HOI forums until the whining got bad about 2 months after release. I was just starting to get back into the game boards, particularly Vicky, when the whining started again with the 1.2 patch. There was a day when the constructive threads were outnumbered about 3 to 1 by rants and flames. That's the last time I bothered to look in there. Your post, so wonderfully suggestive of your smug, self-righteous opinion of me, has been read and noted. Let's leave it at that.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:51:01 AM)
[:D] Yeah, I figured you as a more "traditional" gamer, and I agree HOI does not a wargame make. I like my wargames too, but somewhat implausable, wild romps to Rome as Mexico suit me just fine every now and then. Thus my enjoyment of HOI. [:D]

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:51:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin I read the forums. I have roughly 250 posts in them and maybe 3-5 times that much in OT. Want to know something interesting? I would say probably 150 of those are in the EU2 forums, 75 in the HOI forums, and the rest in the Vicky forums. I was pretty active in the HOI forums until the whining got bad about 2 months after release. I was just starting to get back into the game boards, particularly Vicky, when the whining started again with the 1.2 patch. There was a day when the constructive threads were outnumbered about 3 to 1 by rants and flames. That's the last time I bothered to look in there. Your post, so wonderfully suggestive of your smug, self-righteous opinion of me, has been read and noted. Let's leave it at that. Well one day of complaints over 1.2 would certainly give you all you need to know about a forum [8\|] Glad you noted the smug self-righteousness, next time you might even notice the point.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:51:55 AM)
quote: Your post, so wonderfully suggestive of your smug, self-righteous opinion of me, has been read and noted. Let's leave it at that. You need to learn when someone says something nice to you man. I am not smug, nor self righteous nor god's gift to wargaming. Just a wargamer.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Golf33 You can't actually compare Matrix and Paradox. Matrix is a publisher and should be compared to Strategy First; Paradox is a developer and should be compared to, e.g., 2by3games or Wargaming.net. Regards 33 Heh, I knew someone would latch on to that. [:D] To clarify, I intended the comparison to be between companies, not their respective functions.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 4:58:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1 quote: Your post, so wonderfully suggestive of your smug, self-righteous opinion of me, has been read and noted. Let's leave it at that. You need to learn when someone says something nice to you man. I am not smug, nor self righteous nor god's gift to wargaming. Just a wargamer. Meh, that reply was for dinsdale. Sorry! [:o] EDIT: I see there are separate buttons for reply and quote, and reply specifies the poster to whom you're responding. I learn something new every day.

von Murrin -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 5:11:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin I read the forums. I have roughly 250 posts in them and maybe 3-5 times that much in OT. Want to know something interesting? I would say probably 150 of those are in the EU2 forums, 75 in the HOI forums, and the rest in the Vicky forums. I was pretty active in the HOI forums until the whining got bad about 2 months after release. I was just starting to get back into the game boards, particularly Vicky, when the whining started again with the 1.2 patch. There was a day when the constructive threads were outnumbered about 3 to 1 by rants and flames. That's the last time I bothered to look in there. Your post, so wonderfully suggestive of your smug, self-righteous opinion of me, has been read and noted. Let's leave it at that. Well one day of complaints over 1.2 would certainly give you all you need to know about a forum [8\|] Glad you noted the smug self-righteousness, next time you might even notice the point. I was reading, have read, still do read, and will READ the game forums. The whining put me off POSTING in said forums, and to a lesser extent, reading them. Copy? Goodbye.

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 5:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin I was reading, have read, still do read, and will READ the game forums. The whining put me off POSTING in said forums, and to a lesser extent, reading them. Copy? Goodbye. Doubt it. If you did read then your wouldn't spout garbage about how hostile the Victoria forum is and why that's the reason for Paradox's switch to simpler games.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 7:02:50 AM)
I am, in the interest of accepting when a topic has met its limits, deciding to exit it while I might :) There are so may wargames, so little time :) No I am not retracting any previous comments. Just going to move on :) Got the email Von Murrin, no harm done :)

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 8:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tactics Dinsdale I read your "Any Plans to Finish this Game" thread in the Victoria forums. I still have not purchased the game and I dont think I will. I know you guys are talking AI and marketing etc, but dont replys like this tick you off? quote: you are perfectly free to not want to buy CK for some time because of this but, IMHO, that isn't going to be particularily productive, for anyone involved. Scythe It's like they want you or us (the consumer) to support their half assed work. "Yea, our work is shoddy and we break more than we fix, but if you stop supporting us we wont be able to bring you more 2nd rate products in the future". quote: Vicky is a good game - we will get it improved further but we don't have a right to get it improved. Argg! quote: So I guess a plea for a little more positivity in requests and fewer ultimatums is what I'm suggesting. Double argg! If thats the attitude of the Victoria community Im glad I didnt buy it. It smells like the World War II Online problem--Keep silent about the games problems and we can sucker more people into buying the game. I guess the idea being to generate cash so the developers can work faster on fixing broken products. Well, I think that it's natural on the game's forum for posters to be biased in favour of the game or developer, otherwise why would they be there? :) It doesn't sicken me and I'm glad that a lot of folks are able to enjoy the game and have more patience than I do. I think buying games is subjective and it doesn't bother me if someone wants CK on day1 or like ravinhood they want to get it as cheaply as possible after all the problems are worked out (or not.) I've had a lot of fun with Victoria, I'm just a little pissed at the length of time it's taking to fix and the way it's being fixed and for me, unfortunately that's eroded any goodwill I had to buy future Paradox games and trust that they will be completed. As for that thread, there was really only one personal attack, the rest were valid opinions, and I'd say that's one of the reasons why I like the Paradox boards; they're civil and open to criticism. I have recommended the game before, but now I'd have to say wait and see what happens with 1.04. There aren't a great deal of problems, but incrementally, they have put me off playing for a while.

Cheesehead -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 8:38:06 PM)
IMO the reason many people get so worked up about HOI (in a negative sense) is the disappointment they felt after buying the game and trying to play it for the first time. When HOI first came out about 3 or 4 years ago, there were no other grand strategy WWII games for the PC on the shelves or even on the horizon. My excitement upon spotting HOI on the shelves for the first time knew no bounds. There it was, tucked in among all the 1st person shooters, a game for the "true wargamer." After loading it and reading through the rules, my first impression was the old adage "measure with a micrometer, hit with a sledgehammer." The level of detail was so exceedingly complex in some areas and ridiculously simple in others. It didn't make sense to me that you were limited to playing only one country. I want to play one side or the other (Axis or Allies). Sure, it is more realistic if you want to realize what it was like to be a Churchill, or a Stalin. But than again Churchill and Stalin didn't have allies run by AI (and a limited AI at that). I was crushed. Here they finally make a strategic level WWII game and it sucks. My biggest reason for disappointment was not that I wasted $60 on a game I would never play. It was my concern for the genre. The possible damage to future GS WWII games for the PC was my foremost concern. Now that Matrix has come along with WaW and CWiF, I'm not worried. But it looked like a death blow to my favorite hobby.

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 9:13:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Name me some games that touted the AI Learns. It's pretty easy to say you've seen, but, I would like to see their names? please ;) Superpower, Universal Combat. AI development in other industries has made quantum leaps over the last 10 years, games remain in the stoneage. Those two above are the ones I could think off the top of my head use learning AIs, but who'd care about Superpower's AI as the game is worse than crud, and UC is a Space Sim. GalCiv used an interesting mechanism, IIRC the AI 'thinks' durning the player turn, thus taking advantage of the time a player uses to plan moves instead of leaving the CPU idle. There's plenty of processing power on a modern PC and with memory so cheap, there are no excuses not to improve AI performance.

ravinhood -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/10/2004 11:45:38 PM)
I think another concept of the buyer is thus: They bought the game and it must not suck because they bought it, therefore it does not suck, for if it sucks they just wasted $50. That's the concept for most of the loser software out there and the loser companies. They have a fanbase that blew $50+ dollars on their products, heaven forbid if they suk, how would that make the fan(atics) look? lol Instead of defeatism, there is elitism. The game they bought and the company they bought it from does not suck and anyone who tries to say it does is a "troll". ;) I'll use the concept of an apple with a worm hole in it. Now while probably 75% of that apple is still edible, only a handful of people would even attempt to eat that apple, a very low MARKET of people would eat an apple with a worm hole in it. And likely not even go back to that store after seeing so many apples in the apple bin with worm holes in them, that need to be C.O.R.E(d)/PATCHED over time.

DerekP -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 1:15:10 AM)
Well, thats an opinion. It's not mine. For me that $50 is measured against my broadband connection $50/month. The next shirt I'll buy ($30), the next tank of gas ($50 - it's the UK ok[:'(]) Thats why I'm an optimist about most companies and most wargames / strategy games. Very few of them give me less pleasure than the next tank of gas [:D][:D][:D]

ravinhood -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 7:40:29 AM)
Wow where do you live? A full tank of gas costs me about $17.50 and broadband just went ot $19.95 a month for the next six months. No wonder I'm a cheap bassturd eh? hehe But, you can see, to me a $50 game is quite the expensive, compared to other things in life. $50 buy me two weeks worth of groceries also.

ravinhood -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 7:46:28 AM)
quote: Superpower, Universal Combat. Yep, can't say I ever heard of either of those two games. Musta been real dogs. ;)

dinsdale -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 7:55:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DerekP Well, thats an opinion. It's not mine. For me that $50 is measured against my broadband connection $50/month. The next shirt I'll buy ($30), the next tank of gas ($50 - it's the UK ok[:'(]) Thats why I'm an optimist about most companies and most wargames / strategy games. Very few of them give me less pleasure than the next tank of gas [:D][:D][:D] [X(] Thanks Derek for reminding me that despite Caramels, Walkers Shortbread, May, Cricket and decent TV drama, I won't be moving home anytime soon :) The dollar is plumming new depths so it's hard to compare, but what's the price in pounds per gallon these days? Let's see, $50 is ...dinner for two ...2 trips to the movies for 2 ...about 3 new cds or dvds ...between 1 and 5 books ...2 tanks of gas for me ...1/3 of a speeding ticket [;)]

ravinhood -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 7:59:25 AM)
quote: When HOI first came out about 3 or 4 years ago, there were no other grand strategy WWII games for the PC on the shelves or even on the horizon. I think they should have called it "Civilization takes a TOTAL WAR-RISK on WWII" heh Because to me that is exactly what I saw in the game of HOI, civilization technology tree, the random events of the Total war engine, the risk like play, province to province with cute tanks and truckies and lime green infantry men to blow up with firecracker gameplay. heh I also saw a biased programming of the Germans and Russian AI, and very little allied ai at all. What do the, is it Swiss or Swedes/Paradox developers have against the allied faction during WWII? I'm seeing a trend of weak British, English isles/American/Usa colonies being weak when it comes to the AI playing them. Wonder why that is? And yet, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Germany, Japan, some France, and some Italian, have at least a playable AI? So, in theory, if you're going to make wargames/strategy games, and you want them to be a hit and your company to be a hit, you better make darn sure the ALLIES AI is better than the AXIS AI. ;) Or any OTHER AI in the different types of games. ;)

frank1970 -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 2:34:36 PM)
Hey, it depends who will play what fraction. If they think all players will play Allies (hey, they are soooooo cool ;) ), why should they do a good Allies AI? [;)] I take a lot of pleasure from editing HOI. One has almost unlimited possiblities. That is one of the main reasons I bought HOI.

DerekP -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 2:54:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood quote: When HOI first came out about 3 or 4 years ago, there were no other grand strategy WWII games for the PC on the shelves or even on the horizon. I What do the, is it Swiss or Swedes/Paradox developers have against the allied faction during WWII? I'm seeing a trend of weak British, English isles/American/Usa colonies being weak when it comes to the AI playing them. Wonder why that is? And yet, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Germany, Japan, some France, and some Italian, have at least a playable AI? So, in theory, if you're going to make wargames/strategy games, and you want them to be a hit and your company to be a hit, you better make darn sure the ALLIES AI is better than the AXIS AI. ;) Or any OTHER AI in the different types of games. ;) So a good game is one in which the US and UK win?[8\|] You might consider that writing an AI to handle trans-continental logistics, reinforcements and multi-front wars a tad more difficult than a one dimension German AI. Besides - some people were slagging off Pardox for being anti-German / pro-Russian for Vicky [:D]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/11/2004 3:14:55 PM)
quote: So a good game is one in which the US and UK win? Sorry, but I had to jump on that one [:D] No, simply put, the largest installed base of home computers (ie: customers) happens to live there. One always needs to play to the consumer if one wants sales. Making a product where some obscure little nation fights some other obscure little nation results in closing the product to 70%+ of the potential buyers interests. This is the same reason that CC3, while being a far better engine then CC1 & CC2 failed to deliver, it was the location, not the game that decided it's fate. Russia vs Germany just was not a mass seller in the USA, compared to the previous two which had the Brits and Americans against the Germans. If you are going to produce something, made darn sure that the two most popular sides work, then delve into the others. From a wargame perspective that means you need the looser (cause everyone wants to show they could have done better) and the winner (because the majority of people want to win no matter what!)...

frank1970 -> RE: Maybe Im too harsh? (3/12/2004 12:10:48 PM)
I don�t want to jump on that one, but what are you speaking about? The EU has about 300 million inhabitants, Russia 120million, Japan 100 million, etc. All this nations together for sure are a larger market than the USA alone.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.390625