RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby!

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Juba -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 9:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Didz I'm afraid it just irritated the hell out of me watching those lame little figures trudging over the landscape for ages when all I needed to do was pick tyhem up and move them to the next province and the stupid animate comabt sequences acheived nothing but delay the point when the programme told me who had won the battle. I'm afraid I have no time for such teenage gimmicks, escpecially when the net result of all that 3D rubbish is that I can't play the game as a PBEM with my friends. I guess you forgot that you can speed up the game [:o] How would it have been done better to simulate the troops marching to the province? Or would you like the unit to stay motionless and then all of a sudden zoom over to the other province? The same thing with the battles. Should the battle be decided the second the two armies meet or should the player be given time to retreat when he sees that the battle isn't going his way? Teenage gimmicks [:D] IMHO the game is much better in real-time than in turn-based. You don't think so and it's your loss you're missing out on one of the greatest games I've ever played (EU2 that is not EU, eventhough they may seem similiar there is a quite a bit of difference between the two and EU2 is MUCH better than EU).

mjk428 -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 10:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zakhal quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Heh, they dumped Strategy First and picked up with ATARI, lol ATARI, oh boy, let me go find my JOYSTICKS from my ATARI days! lol Its not atari really but interplay which bought the atari logo after their own trademark (interplay) was tarnished by multiple bad releases. Not that it helped much in their case. The bad releases still continue. (temple of elemental evil etc) That's not accurate, although I'm sorry that's the case since it was the loss of rights to Atari that helped kill Jefferson (Baldur's Gate 3). Poor old Interplay is dead. They put out some great games. May they rest in peace. The Atari logo is being used as a beard but it's by Infogrames. http://www.atari.com/

elmo3 -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 10:56:35 PM)
And after the way Atari/Infogrames/Quicksilver butchered MOO3, then cut their losses and ran, they'll never see another penny from me.

Zakhal -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 11:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 quote: ORIGINAL: Zakhal quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Heh, they dumped Strategy First and picked up with ATARI, lol ATARI, oh boy, let me go find my JOYSTICKS from my ATARI days! lol Its not atari really but interplay which bought the atari logo after their own trademark (interplay) was tarnished by multiple bad releases. Not that it helped much in their case. The bad releases still continue. (temple of elemental evil etc) That's not accurate, although I'm sorry that's the case since it was the loss of rights to Atari that helped kill Jefferson (Baldur's Gate 3). Poor old Interplay is dead. They put out some great games. May they rest in peace. The Atari logo is being used as a beard but it's by Infogrames. http://www.atari.com/ Correct. Inforgames not interplay. Cant remember all the names.[:'(]

ravinhood -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 11:04:13 PM)
OMG it's Infogrames? I swore I would NEVER EVER buy another game with their name on it. Glad you told me, I might have bought the Atari title.

ravinhood -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 11:06:32 PM)
quote: Bet you still feel gouged on the price. Yeah I sorta do, when I went back to the store a month later the last few copies were down to $4.99. lol quote: Now, they are their OWN publisher. Atari is helping with distribution. So the next time we have this discussion, there will be no more excuses as to the state of the game. Good. Tired of excuses. Yeah, we'll see, can't wait to see what Johan's excuse will be this time around since they are their OWN publishers now, there will be no excuse for a beta program out of the box. To me though there never really was, I don't buy this publishers push causes bad games, I say the developers were lazy and didn't program fast enough, probably spent too much time drinking coffee and wagging with the secretaries, then when release time came, it was like "oh but we aren't finished yet, we need more funds and more time", "ok well don't blame us then if the game gets bad reviews, we worked on it hard and heavy" lol yeah right.

mjk428 -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 11:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zakhal Correct. Inforgames not interplay. Cant remember all the names.[:'(] Easy to get confused. I just didn't want Interplay to get the "credit" that Infogrames deserves. [:)]

EricGuitarJames -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/21/2004 11:13:30 PM)
I have to say I find Grigsby's games a bit uninvolving. I can't really put my finger on why and since a lot of wargamers rate his games highly I guess it's just a personal thing. Regarding HoI (and the upcoming HoI2), despite my general preference for 'real-time' (or 'continuous-pausable') I'd agree with Wodin that it probably would have been better turn-based.

Juba -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 1:24:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Yeah, we'll see, can't wait to see what Johan's excuse will be this time around since they are their OWN publishers now, there will be no excuse for a beta program out of the box. To me though there never really was, I don't buy this publishers push causes bad games, I say the developers were lazy and didn't program fast enough, probably spent too much time drinking coffee and wagging with the secretaries, then when release time came, it was like "oh but we aren't finished yet, we need more funds and more time", "ok well don't blame us then if the game gets bad reviews, we worked on it hard and heavy" lol yeah right. They still have their European publishers (there are many, like 5 for each game) to blame [:D] [8\|] PE & Johan are NOT lazy. How many developers/lead programmers would decide to cancel their weekends plans to fix a serious problem introduced by a patch/update released on friday and have had the new patch out by saturday? How many programmers update their games in their free-time like Johan does with EU2?

Didz -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 1:38:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juba How would it have been done better to simulate the troops marching to the province? Or would you like the unit to stay motionless and then all of a sudden zoom over to the other province? The same thing with the battles. Should the battle be decided the second the two armies meet or should the player be given time to retreat when he sees that the battle isn't going his way? Teenage gimmicks [:D] IMHO the game is much better in real-time than in turn-based. You don't think so and it's your loss you're missing out on one of the greatest games I've ever played (EU2 that is not EU, eventhough they may seem similiar there is a quite a bit of difference between the two and EU2 is MUCH better than EU). Its essentially a boardgame and in my opinion should have been designed as a board game. There was no need to use real time at all. The counters could have been picked up and dropped where ever you wanted them to go and battles could have been decided when two counters ended up in the same area. At least them it could have been played as a multi-player PBEM.

Mr.Frag -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 1:57:02 AM)
quote: How many developers/lead programmers would decide to cancel their weekends plans to fix a serious problem introduced by a patch/update released on friday and have had the new patch out by saturday? What company puts out a patch on Friday that needs a new patch on Saturday? Thats about as sad as it gets! [:D] quote: How many programmers update their games in their free-time like Johan does with EU2? Any who want to ever do business again after unloading such crap on the public and getting such a bad reputation that people will not buy their software until it hits the $10 junk bin. This is a rough business. People are generally very loyal, but once burned are forever burned. EU2 should have come out as a free apology to those who suffered through all the problems in EU. That may have undone the image problem.

Juba -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 2:36:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag What company puts out a patch on Friday that needs a new patch on Saturday? Thats about as sad as it gets! [:D] Any who want to ever do business again after unloading such crap on the public and getting such a bad reputation that people will not buy their software until it hits the $10 junk bin. This is a rough business. People are generally very loyal, but once burned are forever burned. EU2 should have come out as a free apology to those who suffered through all the problems in EU. That may have undone the image problem. A company that notices a bug in the installer of the patch not the patch itself. How many other companies would do this if a patch introduced a new issue (something which does occur frequently). As PE have stated one of their flaws is excessive patching. People like you look at the website and see many patches to a game and think it's still broken and was seriously flawed at release while infact most of the patches are updates not bug fixes. How much did you actually play EU? Or did you just look at the number of patches and judgre that it was broken. I played the NA release and it was bug-free. In fact when I played HoI the way I noticed most of the bugs was by reading the forum not actually encountring them in the game.

Phillip V -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 3:20:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood quote: Now, they are their OWN publisher. Atari is helping with distribution. So the next time we have this discussion, there will be no more excuses as to the state of the game. Good. Tired of excuses. Yeah, we'll see, can't wait to see what Johan's excuse will be this time around since they are their OWN publishers now, there will be no excuse for a beta program out of the box. To me though there never really was, I don't buy this publishers push causes bad games, I say the developers were lazy and didn't program fast enough, probably spent too much time drinking coffee and wagging with the secretaries, then when release time came, it was like "oh but we aren't finished yet, we need more funds and more time", "ok well don't blame us then if the game gets bad reviews, we worked on it hard and heavy" lol yeah right. Where the hell do you get the balls to make that accusation? When I was involved in the developing process of Victoria, Johan was belting out updates daily. I could not see a time when he would be resting. Also, if you were not so ignorant, you would know that PE does not have any "female secretaries."

dinsdale -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 5:51:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Didz I'm afraid it just irritated the hell out of me watching those lame little figures trudging over the landscape for ages when all I needed to do was pick tyhem up and move them to the next province and the stupid animate comabt sequences acheived nothing but delay the point when the programme told me who had won the battle. Well the units don't teleport, so there has to be some indication that they have movement orders. Same with battle, it takes time segments out of the continous time. quote: I'm afraid I have no time for such teenage gimmicks, escpecially when the net result of all that 3D rubbish is that I can't play the game as a PBEM with my friends. Those "gimmicks" have nothing to do with you not being able to play PBEM. That would be because continous time is not compatible with PBEM. Most people would consider Continous time to be a style of play, not a gimmick, but then again, the world went downhill when ink replaced slate tablets. [:'(]

Pippin -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 7:41:05 AM)
quote: Why blame the publisher for shoddy development? They have nothing to do with the code. Well the way I look at it, if you are a publisher, it is YOUR name that also is added to the logos on the box. If you distribute crap, then expect a bit of flack, why should the consumer trust any of your other published titles? It seems that a lot of publishers want a package done, as fast as possible, cheaply as possible, and then try to make a fast buck on it as much as possible. In other words, they want developers to work like slaves, while trying to force them to also do short-cuts. This trend is also continuing as competition increases. Since I am not a publisher myself, perhaps I have no right to judge, but if I were, I would at least insist in any contract that before I ship a title for ANYONE, it would at least have to be held up to high standards in quality testing, etc. I would also try PLAYING the title myself before I put my company's name on it! I see there is a little grude against Inforgrames here. That is certainly understandable. I myself do not buy any Infogrames titles either. (At least when I can avoid doing so!). Back in the day, Hasbro pumped out a lot of horrid Junk. Not only were a lot of the interfaces done so horrid, but some of these were almost un-playable online, despite advertised as so on the box. Despite making millions in sales, Hasbro started to get a bad Rap, then poof, she sold the entire electronics division to the new French company down the block Infogrames. WHY, should I trust Infogrames? Not only did they pick up all the buggy titles, but no doubt they have the same people in the department (& developer lists). It's just the publisher name that has been changed. Now, once again, maybe I am too quick to judge, it is POSSIBLE there is better management at Info? Or am I wrong. Someone from Infogrames want to make a comment on this? hehe.

dinsdale -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 7:49:43 AM)
If you don't like Atari (nee Infogrammes) then order direct from Paradox instead. The whole "Strategy First threatened to eat Paradox's firstborn if they didn't release the code" has been proven a fallacy by the release quality of CK. SF had no plans to ship for several months after 1.00 was released.

ravinhood -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 8:06:56 AM)
LOL Release quality of CK??? HAHAH, They are already working on patch NUMBER THREE!! I'll wait for patch number SEVEN, I know it's coming, so why buy a buggy or unfinished "beta" game as usual it's just like all the rest. ;)

dinsdale -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 8:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood LOL Release quality of CK??? HAHAH, They are already working on patch NUMBER THREE!! I'll wait for patch number SEVEN, I know it's coming, so why buy a buggy or unfinished "beta" game as usual it's just like all the rest. ;) Perhaps if you could stem your vitriol for long enough to read that entire sentence you'd be able to understand it.

Didz -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 11:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale Well the units don't teleport, so there has to be some indication that they have movement orders. Same with battle, it takes time segments out of the continous time. But continuous time is an unecessary gimmick in a game supposed to represent hundreds of years of gameplay. IMO: All it does is ruin the gameplay. quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale Those "gimmicks" have nothing to do with you not being able to play PBEM. That would be because continous time is not compatible with PBEM. Most people would consider Continous time to be a style of play, not a gimmick, but then again, the world went downhill when ink replaced slate tablets. And presumably the designers decided that continuous time was a more saleable gimmick than allowing the game to be played against other human players. Strange choice for a wargame company in my opinion and not a company I'll be spending any more of my money with.

DerekP -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 1:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Didz quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale Well the units don't teleport, so there has to be some indication that they have movement orders. Same with battle, it takes time segments out of the continous time. But continuous time is an unecessary gimmick in a game supposed to represent hundreds of years of gameplay. IMO: All it does is ruin the gameplay. quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale Those "gimmicks" have nothing to do with you not being able to play PBEM. That would be because continous time is not compatible with PBEM. Most people would consider Continous time to be a style of play, not a gimmick, but then again, the world went downhill when ink replaced slate tablets. And presumably the designers decided that continuous time was a more saleable gimmick than allowing the game to be played against other human players. Strange choice for a wargame company in my opinion and not a company I'll be spending any more of my money with. Well it's horses for courses. But continuous time multiplayer does have some advantages over PBEM. For one thing its a social occasion - you get to bait and intimidate your opponent. It's not quite the same in PBEM - too sterile. Secondly the continuous nature means that mistakes are often made - even by good players. PBEM suffers from the perfect move syndrome too often in my opinion where you spend along time planning the perfect offensive. I know you would get more time/assistance in real life to plan the attack but in continuous time you make a decision and theres no safety net. So follies and blunders do occur. Which makes for a fun game. Lastly - you get to react. If you really screw up an attack you can abort it without a load of conditional orders. The difference is the adrenaline rush you get in a continuous multiplayer game versus the "shock / horror / payback" cycle in PBEM PBEM is ok but the really great game experiences that I've had have been with half a dozen friends in a multiplayer continuous time game (which are almost all Paradox Games - not RTS clickfests!!!)

Mr.Frag -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 2:18:13 PM)
I have nothing against EU or EU2, just sick and tired of the patch syndrome. If the game is not ready, don't let me buy it and find out just how unready it is. It does not get you a loyal customer. It gets you an angry frustrated customer who is unlikely to buy your products again. If they don't understand that, then it really is time to get into another line of work. When I bought EU2, I made the mistake of assuming that it would finally be a working EU only to get burned again. You think I was angry about EU, EU2 just made it worse. Not only do I feel ripped off twice, but now I am just seeing red anytime anyone mentions Paradox stuff. If this is the kind of customer they want on their hands, they are certainly going about it the right way. Don't blame me for my attitude. I am a nice guy until you go out of your way to screw me. Paradox needs to get a bunch of 10's from many review sites before they ever end up on my list of games to buy again. Their new publisher is firmly on my "never buy from" list so that really is not going to help matters.

ravinhood -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 3:32:20 PM)
Paradox stuff.....Paradox stuff.....Paradox stuff. lol Are you seeing red yet? ;) Actually I totally agree with you Mr. Frag and I'm that same type of skeptical customer now, if you even want to call me a customer. I'm more than happy now to wait until Paradox games hit the bargain bin. (I don't like it's real time senseless combat system either). I'ma boargdamer wargamer converted to computer boardgame wargamer, I have no need for "fluffy" animations, I like turn based most often and I too like PBEM. I don't have several hours to play an online multiplayer game that never gets finished anyways. Been there done that, seen how it don't work. You have players that want to speed up the game and those that want to play it on it's slowest setting, finding a group of players that all agree on the same speed setting is rediculous. Paradox games fall into that "I'm not gonna take it anymore" catagory as well. I'm not gonna take it anymore that I must be satisfied with a "beta" program out of the box and expect to wait a year and a half for patch 1.0X for the game to finally be a finished product. I have to admit though when 1.06 came out for HOI, I downloaded it and reinstalled HOI, played out a full campaign, was delighted to finally see some sense in the AI, but, basically I was so frustrated with the whole game from day one and having to wait a year and a half to play it, it no longer holds the interest it once had. There's much better games to play out there that provide me what I'm looking for, like the Combat Mission series that plays fast multiplayer online or PBEM and SPWAW still a top dog in any true wargamers heart from the board gaming days. HOI is just too much of a time sync for what it offers. And being it's real time, the only value it has for me is single player since multiplayer as I stated is rather rediculous and it offers no PBEM possibilities. It's found it's way back to the "games I used to play" cd case and never made it to my top 16 games of all time. I figure if I'm going to play a game with as much of a time sync required as HOI, I might just as well play the total war games and civilization. They aren't really your board wargames though, but, much more fun for me to play when I just want a beer and pretzels type game to waste a lot of time on. LOL and what's even funnier, I got EUII for $7.95, but, it's still sitting in the box. It's really true, once you've been burnt by something or feel burnt, you just don't have a desire to stick your hand back into the frying pan, even though the fish is finally done. lol

dinsdale -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 4:02:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Didz But continuous time is an unecessary gimmick in a game supposed to represent hundreds of years of gameplay. IMO: All it does is ruin the gameplay. And presumably the designers decided that continuous time was a more saleable gimmick than allowing the game to be played against other human players. Strange choice for a wargame company in my opinion and not a company I'll be spending any more of my money with. Continuous time is hardly a gimmick, it's simply a different paradigm with it's own strengths and weaknesses. I do think it makes multiplayer more awkward, but most PC games I play are strictly single player anyway so that aspect doesn't bother me.

Koper -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 4:18:38 PM)
I think we are talking about totally different views on game design - as far I as understand main problems of Paradox games are not bugs (ok, they ARE important, but...), but the fact that they are not turn based and PBEM option is not available? ;)

elmo3 -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 4:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Koper I think we are talking about totally different views on game design - as far I as understand main problems of Paradox games are not bugs (ok, they ARE important, but...), but the fact that they are not turn based and PBEM option is not available? ;) It's true that HOI and EU, among other Paradox games, are not turn based and can't be played PBEM. That is not my complaint although I prefer those features over games with RTS/continuous pausable time. My complaint is that those two games at least were released with game killing bugs and terrible manuals. Neither should have been released without a lot more work IMO. FWIW I have posted those same complaints more than once at Paradox so I'm not just bashing them here at Matrix. Were Grigsby/Matrix to do the same I wouldn't hesitate to complain here as well.

max_h -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 5:12:53 PM)
bashing? hardly. contrary to matrixgames, such an arrogant flamewarrior like les the sarge (I do not need to mention all the threads he misbehaved, do I? it also says something that he was banned here (but reinstated) wouldn�t survive long on the paradox forums. the hoi2 mod explicitely stated that criticism against other games should be expressed on the producers/publishers website.

max_h -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 5:14:51 PM)
deleted double post, sorry.

Phillip V -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 5:22:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood LOL Release quality of CK??? HAHAH, They are already working on patch NUMBER THREE!! I'll wait for patch number SEVEN, I know it's coming, so why buy a buggy or unfinished "beta" game as usual it's just like all the rest. ;) Once again, please get some experience before you make such slanderous comments. CK was quite playable out of the box and ran very smoothly. If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would see that the patches mostly add new FEATURES and ENHANCEMENTS to the game, NOT bugfixes.

dinsdale -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 5:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phillip V Once again, please get some experience before you make such slanderous comments. CK was quite playable out of the box and ran very smoothly. Err are you considering 1.02 to be the out of the box version? Not only were there multiple threads regarding the game's instability, with examples provided for the betas to help track down and fix, but the fixlists for 1.00 and 1.01 contain multiple CTD fixes in them. "Ran very smoothly" is simply not true for CK's release.

ravinhood -> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! (6/22/2004 5:55:55 PM)
quote: the hoi2 mod explicitely stated that criticism against other games should be expressed on the producers/publishers website. The only problem with that mods statement Max_h is that if you goto the Paradox boards and bash their games, they "ban" you. Hardly an "open" forum in my opinion. I like Matrix forums better for overall discussions of any wargames, whether it includes bashing or not, everyone is not going to like every game, but, everyone should be entitled to state their opinions of the game good or bad without repercussions from the moderators, as long as it doesn't get into "name calling" wars amonst the members, which of course it eventually does, because you have some with quick tempers that just can't stand to have their precious game or precious developers talked badly and truthfully about. ;)

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.874023