RE: hoi2 ?

RE: hoi2 ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

ancient doctor -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 7:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy the combat mechanics alone separate this from HOI1, so is it an upgrade or a new game.. wtf do I care really RAVERDUDE this is a fun product, I remember you reeming out RTW too, seems that if games do not fit perfectly into yuor criteria they are junk.. I am a turn based fan, and thing almost all rtw is not my thing.. or crap... all the medievil games.. the first Japan based game.. Shogun and now RTW are fine products.. if you are pissed a paradox for some reason other than HOI being lame, what is it? I agree, his comments seem to have this feel of a personal vendetta against the company which distracts from any valid points being made. Therefore, I discount any information or commentary in his posts. Which is sad, because he obviously has lots of ideas and commentary to contribute. Idont know about personal vendetta against Paradox or anything.What i do know is that they have a well earned reputation of releasing half baked products which later on they patch and patch but the games still have a rather healthy list of bugs/not working features and more.Now in some aspects HoI 2 is improved from the previous but as far as i know not that much to be worthy the money now.Few months later when it will only be few $ maybe yes. As about naval air well i suggest to the forumite who said it is ok to try play it and use the CAG for bombardment and then tell me if he can...

ravinhood -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 8:12:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy the combat mechanics alone separate this from HOI1, so is it an upgrade or a new game.. wtf do I care really RAVERDUDE this is a fun product, I remember you reeming out RTW too, seems that if games do not fit perfectly into yuor criteria they are junk.. I am a turn based fan, and thing almost all rtw is not my thing.. or crap... all the medievil games.. the first Japan based game.. Shogun and now RTW are fine products.. if you are pissed a paradox for some reason other than HOI being lame, what is it? I'm just speaking the truth Freeboy, I'm not a fanboi like you and some others are. I told the poster what he asked for. It's the same game else it wouldn't be called HOI with a 2 after it. Only the mechanics are different, not the war, not the game type. It's an rts game of WWII grand operational strategy, just like HOI 1 was. And that's my perogative to be objective about certain games. If they don't meet my criteria. HOI 2 is junk to me. That's all that really matters now isn't it? ;) And I'm perfectly happy with you not liking the Total War games. Doesn't change my mind about them one bit. But, I will certainly ream any game that doesn't deliver out of the box quality. Paradox is well known for not delivering out of the box quality, that's for sure. Hawking out HOI 2 like it's some NEW game is a joke. It's just a refurbished HOI 1 and well shouldn't have many bugs or flaws since all they did was adjust the UI and some tech issues and change combat to movement is combat, big whooptidoodoo. Hardly a NEW game by a long shot pal. It's HOI 1 1.10 lol

pasternakski -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 8:31:41 AM)
My question is this: If you want to talk about another publisher's products, why don't you take the discussion to the forums they provide?

freeboy -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 8:41:55 AM)
Raverdude, I love the total war series, where did you get that I do not... as I recall you where the one when RTW came out saying how great Sparten was and RTW sucked.. my point is that HOI2 is a easily learned, multifacited game tht is rtw, and I am a big turn based fan.. Calling me a fanboy is well, odd. I LOVE MAtrix, but am the first to bitch when they drop the ball on something as simple as letting us know a slowdown on a release date.. BIN and DR etc.... so again, PAradox must have a special place in your heart.. is there anything they have released you like? My personal opinion about bugs, if you cannot live with them, WAIT... almost all developers are getting MORE complex and attempting to stretch the envelope, and rightly so... and we are the new BETA... you and I.. if thats not for you.. or me, we should wait till patch 1.x comes out.... as it appears you did for RTW...

pasternakski -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 8:47:13 AM)
My question is this: If you want to talk about another publisher's products, why don't you take the discussion to the forums they provide?

freeboy -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 11:26:34 AM)
Your ? is like saying, there is only one place to discuss this.. as a member of this forum, I like hearing from members of this forum, thinking a cross pollonation. There are all kinds here, and many members like myself are interested in things non matrix.. are not you? If you do not like this thread.. sorry.. but I do not see how it is in any way detrimental having a GENERAL forum to discuss these types of items.. imo

ravinhood -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 12:24:34 PM)
quote: PAradox must have a special place in your heart.. is there anything they have released you like? You see you misunderstand me freeboy. I like HOI and I like EU II, this has nothing to do with the reaming that I give Paradox. What I don't like is paying to be a beta tester for their products. This is a common practice by them that is easily seen by the numerous patches for every one of their games. Thus, my strategy for buying their particular games is to wait on the "finished" product or find it on ebay for under $20. This is exactly what I did with RTW. I sure didn't pay $49.95 for it. You think after seeing RTW out of the box I will ever even think about buying one of their games retail? (On a side note, I've yet to buy one of their games retail anyway. I got MTW/STW in the bargain bin at Software etc. just because they were $4.99, never was even interested in them till that point). It's not a vendetta against Paradox, it's a vendetta against this constant, buy it now, we'll fix it later policy that has grown way out of proportion to how it used to be. Used to be you got a pretty darn decent game out of the box and a patch was to actually fix MINOR BUGS and not fix the whole game or redo it from scratch. HOI 1.06c is nothing like HOI 1.00, lord knows it's so totally different you can't even play the same way. RTW was identical in that it was totally messed up out of the box, had many "game feature" issues out of the box that from any unblind mans eye could see this should have been caught in beta and early testing. If people want to be fans of Paradox or any other company for that matter, that's fine, but, I'm not going to let a sugar coated thread go by without giving my rendition and opinion about their games. Past, present or future. When I see a game is "simular" in many ways to a past game, I'm gonna tell people. HOI 2 is exactly what HOI 1 was, a grand operational strategy game of WWII, now can you doubt that? If I believe waiting six months to buy a product is better overall for the consumer (because of all this buy it now we'll fix it later) and save them frustration and money, I will do that also. I have never said "don't buy a Paradox product" go back and read my posts, I have said "wait" to buy it, you'll get a better more polished game (after the patches). And I'm getting that way with just about all computer games nowadays. The smartest thing to do is wait out the retail fanboish rush and save lots of money and frustration. It took nearly five months for the RTW patch. It made RTW what it should have been out of the box, but, in my opinion is still in need of more tweaking patches to fix BUGS and not features. Now on that note, have I bought WitP? BIN? Alexander? Korsun Pocket, HTTR? anything "newly" released by Matrix? Nope sure haven't. But, I have bought some of the older titles like the Mega Campaign games for SPWAW. I have also just bought Eagles Strike and Gettysburg by HPS. I'll be watching GGWAW, and this new CAESAR campaigns by Koios and EMPIRE IN ARMS, I have an interest in those, but, I still won't fanboishly rush out and buy any of them. I'll watch the forums and would bet 100 to 1 that all 3 of these games will require patches upon release and more than 1. I did buy another retail game already this year. Take Command 1861 or now called Civil War Bull Run, because it was $17.99 at NWS. Not a major loss if the game is crap, but, I've read a bunch of posts on it now that say otherwise. The price is right even if it does require patching. $49.95 and higher is not. If HOI 2 was $20 or less on retail I would have bought it after reading the forums and reviews. But, it's not and I know it will be in need of several patches, so I am not going to toss out $39.95 or at one place it was $54.95 lol for a game that's not finished yet. I have also preordered ANGLO GERMAN WAR by Schwerpunkt, I bought it because these are backyard developers who take their time and do not charge and arm and a leg for their games out of the box. It is over my $20 limit, but, I am taking a chance on this game based on their "past" performance. Take their time, test, test, test and then release to the public for a very reasonable price. It may be crap and totally broken out of the box, I don't expect this and this is their only chance to impress me. ;)

freeboy -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 6:10:10 PM)
quote: You think after seeing RTW out of the box I will ever even think about buying one of their games retail? (On a side note, I've yet to buy one of their games retail anyway. I got MTW/STW in the bargain bin at Software etc. just because they were $4.99, never was even interested in them till that point). RTW was a Activision/ Creative Assembly product.. is there a connection with them and Paradox? don't think so.. so.. let me paraphrase.. you thing HOI2 is athe same game, like mabe all the Combat missions, all the Civ products all the endless game developers that tweek there code and release another title?... AND you believe in the old fashioned conceipt of gleaning.. I have no problem with that... like seeing last years movies after the are in Blockbuster or where ever at a discount... You are bargain savy, but don't be prejudicial to those of us that are not always found of waiting... thanks for the input.. no hard feeling for me.. I do want to hear what you have to say

ravinhood -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/6/2005 7:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy quote: You think after seeing RTW out of the box I will ever even think about buying one of their games retail? (On a side note, I've yet to buy one of their games retail anyway. I got MTW/STW in the bargain bin at Software etc. just because they were $4.99, never was even interested in them till that point). RTW was a Activision/ Creative Assembly product.. is there a connection with them and Paradox? don't think so.. so.. let me paraphrase.. you thing HOI2 is athe same game, like mabe all the Combat missions, all the Civ products all the endless game developers that tweek there code and release another title?... AND you believe in the old fashioned conceipt of gleaning.. I have no problem with that... like seeing last years movies after the are in Blockbuster or where ever at a discount... You are bargain savy, but don't be prejudicial to those of us that are not always found of waiting... thanks for the input.. no hard feeling for me.. I do want to hear what you have to say Yes, that's me in a nutshell. It just seems many think I have a vendetta against Paradox GAMES, when it's not the games at all. It's PARADOX, just Paradox and all the other companies that are using us for beta testing their games at a cost to us and not them. ;) And yep, if it's one Combat Mission, the next Combat Mission is still a Combat Mission and I also waited on CMBB and CMAK before buying those also. Give me a new game a new title and don't try to sell me the same game with mechanical improvements for full retail and I'll take a look at it. Like this "Take Command 1861", I'm taking a look at it because it's not a repeat of another title, it's not "Take Command 1861 TWO". I also don't "make" anyone do anything, unless they let me make them, meaning they turn over their mind and body to me, my wife is like that. lol We all have our preferences and differences and opinions. Just that seems if someone is on the "negative" side of someone elses opinion like I am most times, it turns into a flame war. I'm just stating "my facts" of what I see in these games. People can take it with a grain of salt or not, but, the point is, like TOM PETTY sings "I WON'T BACK DOWN, NO, I WON'T BACK DOWN" hehe The balance of life is "positive AND negative" it takes both for life to exist. Try to see each situation where you have nothing but positive or nothing but negative, maybe you'll see why I tip the scales to the negative side of games, since there is all too often a positive side in most cases. In an ironic way I am "optomistic" that my "pessimistic" attitude will have positive affects on an otherwise negative encounter. ;)

freeboy -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/7/2005 3:15:50 AM)
ok, So now we are agreed, you think RTW is ? good I guess, and maybe hoi2, too, but have a dislike for games that are supported but not patched up until released to the public.. ok.. and you like a bargain... Why does "telling the truth" allow you to trash HOI2.. have you played it? anyway.. Almost every game company is relesing games that are in need of testing, part of the complexity issue...

rhondabrwn -> Best Advice (2/7/2005 5:53:58 AM)
It would seem self-evident that those folks who can't tolerate any imperfections in initial releases should simply refrain from buying them until they are satisfied that the game has been patched to their satisfaction. That should eliminate their high intensity of anger towards any game company. I've been working with computers since the Apple II and the truth has always been that "first adopters" paid a price for being on the "bleeding" edge of technology. Some people have had no problems with working through buggy first releases in order to experience the latest "thing". I have to admit to having been out there on that "bleeding edge" more times than not (at some considerable expense) but that was my choice. Nothing has changed... if you can't wait to get the latest game and be first on the block to experience it, then you'd better be prepared to pay the price and not just sit around bitching about initial defects. Plenty of people get a lot of value out of identifying and reporting bugs and helping make a product better. One has only to visit the WiTP forum to see this process in action. The same goes for the HOI forums on the Paradox site. I am grateful that (1) we have games being produced; and (2) that designs are continually patched and improved. The only time I'm going to support a vendetta against a specific company is if they knowingly release buggy games and then walk away from them, leaving their customers with unworkable or unplayable software for their investment. I certainly can't see Paradox in that kind of negative light and I feel that the vitriolic comments made against the company are unwarranted. You may as well be attacking Matrix too if you think that the necessity for patches is an automatic indictment against a company. Lighten up... they're only games. [:-]

EnPeaSea -> RE: hoi2 ? (2/7/2005 6:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ancient seaman As about naval air well i suggest to the forumite who said it is ok to try play it and use the CAG for bombardment and then tell me if he can... Naval-based air can bomb ships in port, damage port facilities, crater land-based airfields, and increase the effectiveness of land combat operations occuring in the target province. However, the system is not nearly as option rich as the choices you get for land-based air.

ravinhood -> RE: Best Advice (2/7/2005 9:05:49 PM)
quote: The only time I'm going to support a vendetta against a specific company is if they knowingly release buggy games and then walk away from them, leaving their customers with unworkable or unplayable software for their investment. Very good, then you'll go along with me on the Activision rant. Since they have a "two patch" policy and RTW has been patched twice and is still in need of fixes for "bugs". Not features, bugs. Plus, you can be who and how you want to be and all the rest of us will be who and how we want to be. To say "Lighten up" is rather rediculous and silly, because when we become complacient and don't apply for change, there never will be any change. You think laws get made by people just sitting on their hands or other parts of their body? One has to "fight" for change in some cases, else there wouldn't be any wars to make wargames out of now would there? ;) Word of mouth is one of the best advertisements or worst advertisements for a business, ask any real business person. You'd think Walmarts as much money as they make would care less if "one little customer like myself was upset with them", but, they were hands down concerned about my shopping experience and did as much as they could to rectify the situation. This IS customer service and it goes the same for the software industry as well. They may think they can push us around, but, eventually it's going to catch up with them. Antik games found out just how quickly it can happen also.

ASHBERY76 -> RE: Best Advice (2/7/2005 11:37:35 PM)
Nice review score from gamespy.[image]http://media.gamespy.com/spy/image/stars_4.5_v2.gif[/image] [:'(]

freeboy -> RE: Best Advice (2/8/2005 12:46:34 AM)
ok, so HOI2.. well playing the 39 Scen on hard/aggressive.. getting a pounding from the Germans.. maybe I'll be able to stop them at the historical depths.. maybe... JApan has not attacked the US so no lend lease.. I guess.. My biggest joy is that I have to make really strategic decisions.. take this one.. you start in late 39, lots of old fashioned infantry.. do you send them home, try to upgrade them all.. ugrade the figthers? bombers? I just do not have anythink like enough factories.. but my only option to help is uping infrastructure.. and that takes a year or so.... etc etc so while I support Raverdudes freedom to rant.. [;)] LOTS of levels of play and strategy... and not only can you play different countries at different levels... you can save and switch.. don't like something and want to see things set straight,.. simply save . change to the offending coountry and fix it!... Raver makes a case for buggy games... but to say these companies do not deserve our money and time is an OPINION... not fact.. I am getting great play out of RTW too... All from a guy,me, who hates the point and click fest games and grew up on panzer blitz and the like, and have never lost my desire for tunr based mind challenging games.... Find another solo game that is a challenge... I love HTTR, too bad the ai is so easily beaten.. REALLY easily... my rant over and out [:D]

ravinhood -> RE: Best Advice (2/8/2005 12:28:12 PM)
I'm playing this Take Command 1861 of late and I'm finding it pretty challenging, only won 1 battle out of a handful so far, but, I've been being lazy and haven't even read the manual (pdf file that is) on how to play. lol Also I don't think I've ever once used the words "our money" or "our time", my statements are "my money" and "my time" and those are FACTS not an opinion ;) and anyone that wants to follow in those footsteps is welcome to travel with me. And from the looks over at the Gamespy forum from even the wee tikes, it's getting around that flawed and buggy games are getting way too common and the flurry is just not to rush out and buy them anymore. I'm happy to see the young ones put up posts about how over hyped games are like Doom III and Halo 2 and Halflife 2 and didn't give much of anything that hasn't already been done before, with some statements even less. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know I'm not the only one that thinks the way I do. It's been a growing problem in the industry for about 10 years now, simple repeats of the same game including HOI 2 and not enough NEW and INNOVATING games coming out anymore like there were in the 80's and early 90's. It's no wonder the PC market is in decline and the console gaming industry is booming and taking over 90% of the gaming communities money. I'm not a console fan, but, if the right games start appearing on them, I just might jump ship myself.

rhondabrwn -> RE: Best Advice (2/9/2005 12:04:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood quote: The only time I'm going to support a vendetta against a specific company is if they knowingly release buggy games and then walk away from them, leaving their customers with unworkable or unplayable software for their investment. Very good, then you'll go along with me on the Activision rant. Since they have a "two patch" policy and RTW has been patched twice and is still in need of fixes for "bugs". Not features, bugs. Plus, you can be who and how you want to be and all the rest of us will be who and how we want to be. To say "Lighten up" is rather rediculous and silly, because when we become complacient and don't apply for change, there never will be any change. You think laws get made by people just sitting on their hands or other parts of their body? One has to "fight" for change in some cases, else there wouldn't be any wars to make wargames out of now would there? ;) Word of mouth is one of the best advertisements or worst advertisements for a business, ask any real business person. You'd think Walmarts as much money as they make would care less if "one little customer like myself was upset with them", but, they were hands down concerned about my shopping experience and did as much as they could to rectify the situation. This IS customer service and it goes the same for the software industry as well. They may think they can push us around, but, eventually it's going to catch up with them. Antik games found out just how quickly it can happen also. I wasn't aware of the Activision "two patch" policy. I guess I'd have to evaluate how buggy and unplayable it is (I may get it when it hits $19.95 since I have the rest of the Total War series). I would have to agree that it's a petty stupid business practice to set a rule like that and then leave buggy games out there. If this really a stated policy by the company... or does it just appear this is so from past experiences? Oh.. and sorry about the [:-] - it really was done more in a spirit of [:D] (if that helps any). I'll still stand by the whole "bleeding edge" commentary though as I think it's quite relevant to this (and similar) discussions critical of games and publishers. Disclaimer: I once owned my own software company (business software) and we were patching on a weekly basis for the first year, but we ran on a tight budget and it was "release or die" - that was business, sometimes you have to make do with what you have and fix it later. I'm not bragging about it and we eventually got the bugs out and sold it to a major Canadian company who could put 30 people on it instead of three when producing version 4.0. So, I'm probably quite a bit more understanding and patient than most of you guys. [:)]

rhondabrwn -> RE: Best Advice (2/9/2005 12:09:45 AM)
This discussion got me thinking about how SPI never produced a boardgame that didn't require pages of errata. I remember one S&T game called "Armada" that was literally unplayable as produced. That one took an entire set of new rules. I also remember Game Designer's Workshop (the original owners of the Europa series) releasing the Operation SeaLion module and then having to withdraw the entire game from market because it was so unplayable. I might mention that no one offered to buy back my copy of that game OR give me a free upgrade when it was re-released a year or two later. Some things never change....

ravinhood -> RE: Best Advice (2/9/2005 3:49:29 AM)
The big companies like Activision, Microsoft, Atari, and EA games, don't really care about customer complaints. They (some) will give a couple of patches, if that I don't think I ever got a patch for Madden football 2004, and that's it. MTW wouldn't have even got patch 1.2 if it hadn't been for the leaders all dying at age 56 and that patch came with the Vikings invasion pak, so if you didn't buy Vikings you didn't get patch 1.2 which not only fixed Vikings issues, but, also some MTW issues that weren't fixed in patch 1.1 and even added more playable factions that weren't in the origional MTW. Had to pay for a patch and improvements for a game we had already paid for. (sigh) The big corps rely on the 2% margin loss probability from game to game, as long as this doesn't go too far beyond this 2% margin loss they could care less about the paying public, because for every 100 that won't buy from them again 98 more will. Thus only 2% loss and they still make major profits and continue on until the market runs dry on that particular development group. Take a look at the developers out of jobs or have moved onto other places. They were absorbed by the big guns, used and abused and then either quit or left on their own or were tosssed aside. That's why you saw the move with RTW to a more clicky fest kiddie fest RTS game instead of the slow and drawn out and more adult games of STW/MTW. There's a huge market of clicky fest players out there and they cashed in on them with RTW. It was the perfect plan, they hyped it up bigtime, Time commanders series on tv, History Channel showing it on tv, but, the game the public got was not what we saw on tv. The public got a clickyfest kiddiefest of a game. Historical only by the time period it was produced in, beyond that, like someone else said, a lot of "fantasy" play to it. They not only fooled the RTS crowd, but, fooled the old time fans as well. I'm sure it sold well and they will hardly be bothered beyond the two patch limit, unless the cry is sooooo loud, which right now it's pretty loud, they may forego the cost of a 3rd patch and fix the remaining issues that aren't really that terrible, but, they are bugs no less. I feel though if they stick to their guns and the 2 patch limit, their 2% margin is going to goto heck, it won't matter to Activision though, it's Creative Assemly that will suffer in the long run, they are the ones getting the rap for the bad game release, the crummy 1.1 patch that really only fixed a few of the MP problems and then this unfinished patch 1.2. CA will eventually get driven to the streets, just like the ones of the past. Anytime you let a major corp OWN you, well, they own you and your life is in their hands. I suggested CA contact Matrixgames. ;) I don't think Matrixgames is as bad as the other guys "yet", heh, and they will or do seem to go beyond a 2 patch limit if the game really requires one. Isn't WitP up to patch 1.04 now? I think if CA didn't have their hands tied they wouldn't have made RTW as it came out, I really don't think they would have made such a harsh move to RTS clickyfied game over the past games that got so much praise from the community before the new crowd of kids came in. I also really don't think they wanted it to be a clickyfest game in the first place, but, Activision has their hands tied and what Activision says is what Activision gets.

rhondabrwn -> The Future (2/10/2005 4:23:06 AM)
Ravinhood makes some good points about corporations accepting the 2% loss of customers and then rolling on to the next project. However, I remember back to the old, old days of the Atari 2600 and how the market eventually collapsed because many, many games were total **** with pretty box covers. It took the Nintendo console to rekindle the industry. So... there are limits to how far people can be pushed and eventually the major players who neglect their customers may find themselves bankrupt. You have to remember that even the largest of the major software companies are always dependent on selling their next product (or upgrade) and cashflow can dry up quickly. So Activision and Electronic Arts better be concentrating on quality and service or that "2%" can suddenly turn into 98% and they are out of business. BTW... there have been some good discussions here in the last couple of days and the debate and definitely moved to "higher ground" by all participants. [&o]

freeboy -> RE: The Future (2/10/2005 3:36:57 PM)
quote: think if CA didn't have their hands tied they wouldn't have made RTW as it came out, I really don't think they would have made such a harsh move to RTS clickyfied game over the past games that got so much praise from the community before the new crowd of kids came in. I also really don't think they wanted it to be a clickyfest game in the first place, but, Activision has their hands tied and what Activision says is what Activision gets. Where do you get the 2 patch limit? seems odd, not that I doubt it... ggcb.. or good grief charlie brown, from the cartoonand comic strip... I cannot agree that either hoi2 or RTW are clickie /kiddie games... and one can slow down RTW either by self editing the files or using one of many mods... The game RTw quite surpasses the predissesors, having many cool features and strategy improvements. Raverdude, I definately dissagree on these products.

rhondabrwn -> RE: The Future (2/10/2005 10:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy quote: think if CA didn't have their hands tied they wouldn't have made RTW as it came out, I really don't think they would have made such a harsh move to RTS clickyfied game over the past games that got so much praise from the community before the new crowd of kids came in. I also really don't think they wanted it to be a clickyfest game in the first place, but, Activision has their hands tied and what Activision says is what Activision gets. Where do you get the 2 patch limit? seems odd, not that I doubt it... ggcb.. or good grief charlie brown, from the cartoonand comic strip... I cannot agree that either hoi2 or RTW are clickie /kiddie games... and one can slow down RTW either by self editing the files or using one of many mods... The game RTw quite surpasses the predissesors, having many cool features and strategy improvements. Raverdude, I definately dissagree on these products. Perhaps the time has finally come to just agree to disagree and let the beaten horse die [:D]

ravinhood -> RE: The Future (2/10/2005 11:39:32 PM)
Heh and those 98% begin to speak Rhonda http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=21456.topic Well maybe not 98%, but, quite a few patrons are now in an uproar over this, "we got your money, so tough" statement that came out of one of the Broad Administrators posts. Also the 2 patch limit has been a known for CA since STW. But, this time it was stated by the Shogun long before any questions about it arose. Even the Admin stated in his statement that CA only contracted for ONE patch, CONTRACTED?!!!, that really burns me when a developer only "contracts" for a certain amount of support. Basically "whole game wise" that's all we got, the 1.1 patch was an "emergency" patch that dealt specificially with multiplayer issues, there was ONE item (this so they could escape the "you didn't give us 2 patches) they changed the stats of the elephants, that any player, anybody with any sense at all could to that themselves. @freeboy, remember what you see in a game, not everyone does, same goes for me, to me RTW is a kiddified clickfest of a game "without modifications", therefore out of the box it is a clickfest. HOI 2 is not as bad of a click fest, but, still a "real time strategy" game no less, both have pause features, but, it does not take away from either that they require a lot of clicking in a hurried fashion to a lot of us players. You might enjoy it, but, many of the old schoold STW/MTW crowd/group do not, especially the Totalwar.org group and it is a very large group of players, multiplayers, clans and all. Someone on the RTW forum the other day posted the actual CLICKS it took just to get an online multiplayer going, upwards of 264 clicks, that's pretty clicky fest to me when you have to do all that clicking to get a game started on multiplayer, then not to mention there is NO PAUSING in multiplayer games. This is confirmed information, not my jabbering. As it stands now, the multiplayer feature is more broke than in patch 1.1, unfortunately you cannot even use patch 1.1 anymore to log onto the lobby, you must have patch 1.2 and 1.2 has more issues with multiplayer and still a few with SP than I care to explain. If they don't do a patch 1.3, I certainly feel it will hurt CA a lot more than it will hurt Activision, Activision will just pick up another developer group down the line and when CA no longer is cost effective, it will be bye bye CA and bye bye Total War series. It's just as Rhonda said, eventually that 2% will turn into 98%, you just cannot screw with people and their time and their money. Customer support is the most important aspect of a surviving company, thing is with the software industry, it's the developers who lose out, not the companies, because they can pick up a new group of college kids and try something else and screw over the old developers time and time again. But, eventually the customers will get wise to the companies and dump ALL their products, boycott them, tell everyone they know their experience and we all know how word of mouth advertising can make or break a company in the long term.

freeboy -> RE: The Future (2/11/2005 2:33:42 AM)
Do not play either hoi2 or RTW exceipt as sol;o, and I do not see how in solo it takes any more clicks than in MTW.. you have units fighting in non turn warfare.. they can be given tracks to follow, and grouped together. The strategy two turns per year.. TURN based part is also excellent.. try playing on the very hard levels.. and good luck! ANd for graphics, how neet are the improvements? the larger units on screen and the developing board... ?...

ravinhood -> RE: The Future (2/11/2005 3:19:08 PM)
About those graphics, while great in detail as you are zoomed into maximum, you can't play RTW zoomed into maximum efficiently. Therefore when you zoom out to a playable level the graphics are not as good as MTW graphics. The MTW graphics are solid 2D sprites, the 3D graphics zoomed out look like wrinkled ants. I could tell what my units were in MTW zoomed out at a glance in RTW zoomed out they all look the same to me except of course cavalry, elephants and long spear phalanx. The speed of play in the combat portion of MTW is 1/2 if not more than RTW is after patch 1.2. It's more of a clickfest now than it was previously. Lots of remarks about this also at the official forum. Many are noticing the increased speed of play required and also the overly increased speed of routing. (Of course I have modded this and slowed it down extremely, but, out of the box vanilla is totally a clickfest). And just because you or I do not play multiplayer does not give the right to a company to not support the multiplayers. I would venture to say their increased sales of RTW came from the mulitplayer RTS new crowd of people that were "hyped" about the graphics, but, had no clue about the gameplay. Support is support and should support "everything" the game presents on an "equal" basis, single player and multiplayer. I might one day decide I want to play multiplayer, but, with the issues now, that's not a probablity, thus at least 1/2 of the game they sold me and others is practically unplayable. And no patch to fix this forthcoming. I realize your love for RTW/HOI 2, but, many others do not support that love, especially RTW now since that statement came out. "We got your money, so tough". Big bad mistake on their part. The other big bad mistake is a 2 patch policy. They need to dump that in the trashcan. Oh and you said "try playing on harder levels" lol, I start out playing all games on their hardest difficulty, I've already modified RTW to make it even "harder" for myself. But, it's just still too easily overcome. Sure I lose some battles, but, I never lose the war. Once I get 10 or so provinces, the game becomes a boring repetitive game of the same and it's nothing more than adding more provinces without fear of ever being overcome. The lack of the AI forming some kind of global alliance when a player becomes more powerful than anyone else is much of the problem in the loss of challenge once one has broken out from their initial starting position. Germany provides a decent challenge in the beginning, but, it's not overwhelming enough to cause any fear or doubts, it's only a matter of time, I breakout, destroy Dacia while keeping the Gauls and Briton at bay, then turn on Briton and eventually the Guals as the AI Julii will have hurt them some by this time. The one thing I could do to add challenge is put all factions at war with me from the start and never accept a ceasefire. This is my next challenging mod to create. ;) I found the file to set this up that way. Wish me luck, I might need it here. heh

Bluestew0 -> RTW & HOI 2 (2/11/2005 6:27:33 PM)
I enjoy both games but I feel HOI 2 has much more replay value than RTW. I'm also well aware of Paradox's reputation for releasing buggy games. I have to say that 2 of their last 3 games have been released in a rather stable condition. Victoria was very stable. I hated the game but it was very stable. HOI 2 is very stable in SP play. In MP play, there are so many variables that the HOI code doesn't play well with, that many experience lots of problems. For example, running ICQ while playing MP HOI 1 or 2 is begging for a crash. I play HOI 2 in a regular group every Sunday for 3 hours. So far the game has proven stable but there are short annoying lag spikes. Annoying but tolerable since we enjoy the game and there isn't anything else like it on the market. Anyway, quite a debate you 3 are having. [:)]

ravinhood -> RE: RTW & HOI 2 (2/11/2005 7:26:39 PM)
quote: Anyway, quite a debate you 3 are having. DIscussion, Discussion, if we were debating or arguing there would be mudslinging and throwing of PIES! ;)

rhondabrwn -> RE: The Future (2/12/2005 5:02:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Heh and those 98% begin to speak Rhonda http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=21456.topic Well maybe not 98%, but, quite a few patrons are now in an uproar over this, "we got your money, so tough" statement that came out of one of the Broad Administrators posts. Also the 2 patch limit has been a known for CA since STW. But, this time it was stated by the Shogun long before any questions about it arose. Even the Admin stated in his statement that CA only contracted for ONE patch, CONTRACTED?!!!, that really burns me when a developer only "contracts" for a certain amount of support. Basically "whole game wise" that's all we got, the 1.1 patch was an "emergency" patch that dealt specificially with multiplayer issues, there was ONE item (this so they could escape the "you didn't give us 2 patches) they changed the stats of the elephants, that any player, anybody with any sense at all could to that themselves. @freeboy, remember what you see in a game, not everyone does, same goes for me, to me RTW is a kiddified clickfest of a game "without modifications", therefore out of the box it is a clickfest. HOI 2 is not as bad of a click fest, but, still a "real time strategy" game no less, both have pause features, but, it does not take away from either that they require a lot of clicking in a hurried fashion to a lot of us players. You might enjoy it, but, many of the old schoold STW/MTW crowd/group do not, especially the Totalwar.org group and it is a very large group of players, multiplayers, clans and all. Someone on the RTW forum the other day posted the actual CLICKS it took just to get an online multiplayer going, upwards of 264 clicks, that's pretty clicky fest to me when you have to do all that clicking to get a game started on multiplayer, then not to mention there is NO PAUSING in multiplayer games. This is confirmed information, not my jabbering. As it stands now, the multiplayer feature is more broke than in patch 1.1, unfortunately you cannot even use patch 1.1 anymore to log onto the lobby, you must have patch 1.2 and 1.2 has more issues with multiplayer and still a few with SP than I care to explain. If they don't do a patch 1.3, I certainly feel it will hurt CA a lot more than it will hurt Activision, Activision will just pick up another developer group down the line and when CA no longer is cost effective, it will be bye bye CA and bye bye Total War series. It's just as Rhonda said, eventually that 2% will turn into 98%, you just cannot screw with people and their time and their money. Customer support is the most important aspect of a surviving company, thing is with the software industry, it's the developers who lose out, not the companies, because they can pick up a new group of college kids and try something else and screw over the old developers time and time again. But, eventually the customers will get wise to the companies and dump ALL their products, boycott them, tell everyone they know their experience and we all know how word of mouth advertising can make or break a company in the long term. I liked this bit from that site's administrator: "In conclusion, patches are not a profit center. Never have been. Never will be. You and I introduce new players a handful at the time. Then, if hooked, they really don't say, like our whiners, oh this game needs a good patch or I quit. Most people accept the games as presented and don't do a Schopenhauer analysis of the trivial failings in life as a reason to commit suicide." Yep, they certainly laid out their position and told everyone to stuff it [:D] You are right... they do have quite an attitude at Activision. I think the problem is that we remember the old days when wargames were crafted by dedicated, loving hobbiests who just wanted to produce the best game possible. Now it is becoming totally impersonal and individual designers and programmers from the old school quickly find themselves at the mercy of the corporate types seeking to maximize profits (thinking of the thread on the working conditions at EA). And people wonder why there is no longer any real consumer loyalty in the marketplace....

SemperAugustus -> RE: The Future (2/12/2005 5:25:30 AM)
quote: I think the problem is that we remember the old days when wargames were crafted by dedicated, loving hobbiests who just wanted to produce the best game possible. Now it is becoming totally impersonal and individual designers and programmers from the old school quickly find themselves at the mercy of the corporate types seeking to maximize profits (thinking of the thread on the working conditions at EA). The fate of 3DO should be a sobering for the corporate types.

freeboy -> RE: The Future (2/12/2005 6:09:27 PM)
quote: The speed of play in the combat portion of MTW is 1/2 if not more than RTW is after patch 1.2. It's more of a clickfest now than it was previously. Lots of remarks about this also at the official forum. Many are noticing the increased speed of play required and also the overly increased speed of routing. (Of course I have modded this and slowed it down extremely, but, out of the box vanilla is totally a clickfest Totaly agree, good sights are around for "patching this" as a community mod, and it is unfortunate the attitude, I played the UV game way before witp after a reveiwer at the wargamer talked about how good it was after being patched like 6 times...WOW, thanks MAtrix for not gibving up on games... And yes.. I remember getting a 95.00 card just to play the new Atomic Games.. do not think they where this at the time, maybe 360? WW2 Normandy game "supporting multiplier".. IT never did.. even though they kept releasing add ons! SO Raverdude you have made excellent points that companys often succeed in spite of themselves..... cheers and HAPPY VALENTINES DAY TO ALL

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375