RE: 3 vs. 36

RE: 3 vs. 36 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Charles2222 -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 4:19:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pry I don't know if this is going to come across the way it is intended but I'll give it a shot... I purchased WAW out of dare I say it "Blind Loyalty" to 2by3 and Matrix, Even though I have yet to really get into the game because after this monster I find the scale somewhat confining but I can and do see the "Fun Game" value of WAW. They deserve a commercial success with WAW and I did my part out of my limited disposable funds to help achieve that as a way of thanking them for War in the Pacific... Having spent enormous amounts of my personal time over the last 2 years deeply involved with WitP, first helping bring WitP to life then making it even better post release I have deeper attachments to this game than most folks here and I strongly urge everyone to do their part and support 2by3/Matrix by purchasing WAW, even if you don't play it by making WAW a commercial success it allows the decision to put additional resources into WitP much easier in the future. We all want to see WitP improved and the success of WAW is one way to help make that happen. Marvelous theory, but in my mind if you want to bolster sales, you bolster it specifically for the sort of product you want, because if you put money into products you don't want, they are much more likely to make products you don't want. If one feels like doing what you suggest, and don't like the idea of a WAW, they would be better off putting their money into additional copies of WITP, or if they're a big East Front fan such as I am, buy additional copies of that. Only problem with buying additional copies of the same game, however, is that you don't get anything the slightest bit different, whereas if you bought WAW you would. If you're not going to play a WAW anyway, a copy of a game you do like, makes a stronger statement in my view.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 11:01:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings 1) Oleg's statement about Mike Wood not working on GGWaW is correct. His time has this year been going into War in the Pacific, War in the East (our Eastern Front game) and last I heard War Plan Orange (although this is supposed to take very little of his time). 3) As for AI work, forget about it. The AI is as good as it's going to be. Gary couldn't improve it now without devoting many months of his time, and even if he did, it would only get marginally better (or it might get worse). In comparison, GGWaW was written with more modern coding methods and is much easier to work with. Also, as mentioned, the game is simpler and given that the scope of the game is so much smaller (27 turns versus 1500), any work on the game including even the AI is much more manageable and productive. Would it be safe to assume that War in the East will have an AI and be coded differently?

coralsaw -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 2:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 Marvelous theory, but in my mind if you want to bolster sales, you bolster it specifically for the sort of product you want, because if you put money into products you don't want, they are much more likely to make products you don't want. If one feels like doing what you suggest, and don't like the idea of a WAW, they would be better off putting their money into additional copies of WITP, or if they're a big East Front fan such as I am, buy additional copies of that. Could not agree more, well said. I was (rightly or wrongly) turned off by WaW because of: its scope. The conquer-the-world-in-thirty-minutes concept doesn't appeal to me often, plus the last time it did I played Risk. its graphics, especially its battle graphics. IMO, anybody who says nowadays graphics are not important need take a look at the visual appeal of the Ms Office suite. If graphics matter to a spreadsheet, then they matter to everything. You'll find people base their purchasing decision on personal interest, reputable reviews, word of mouth, publisher's/creator's reputation, and... graphics! Good graphics = (proxy for) Good quality, which will make it easier for an impulse buyer to get the damn thing and invest time in it. Call it 'psychology of perception', if you will. its UI. Better than WitP but still proprietary, which means investing time to learn the ropes. Rolling your own is bad in my book, standard is good. Open is even better. IMHO of course, and I do wish all the best to GG and 2by3 for WaW. May they become rich so we can get WiE and WitP2 faster! [:)] /coralsaw

Terminus -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 2:16:25 PM)
quote: Would it be safe to assume that War in the East will have an AI and be coded differently? Thou shalt not assume... However, it probably won't be based on WitP, as War in the East will be about land combat, and WitP's land combat routines are a bit simplistic.

rtrapasso -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 4:00:29 PM)
quote: Can't ask for a promise from 2by3, of course, but if 2by3 would make an opening for continued improvement of WiTP conditional to the success of GG:WaW, then I would not only buy it myself but also network to help make it an even greater success. I think you'd really have to have something drawn up by a lawyer to get this to work. After all, it is much more likely that if we did this and GGWAW was a huge success, the reasonable conclusion would be "See, we don't have to spend the time and effort we devoted to WITP to get a winner. We'll just turn out simpler games like GGWAW and make more money".

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 4:04:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coralsaw its graphics, especially its battle graphics. IMO, anybody who says nowadays graphics are not important need take a look at the visual appeal of the Ms Office suite. If graphics matter to a spreadsheet, then they matter to everything. You'll find people base their purchasing decision on personal interest, reputable reviews, word of mouth, publisher's/creator's reputation, and... graphics! Good graphics = (proxy for) Good quality, which will make it easier for an impulse buyer to get the damn thing and invest time in it. Call it 'psychology of perception', if you will. Can't believe this, coming from WITP fan.... in which way are WITP combat animation graphics significantly better (or worse) than WAW's combat animations? They are both merely adequate representation of what goes on in (simulated) combat, and both can be turned off or skipped at will, which is what many players do anyway. So why all this fuss about WAW combat animations, when no one on this board, and I mean no one ever seriously debated equally good (or bad) WITP combat animations? And BTW I absolutely agree good graphics and eye candy are VERY important. It's just that I don't see any significant difference between WAW and WITP in this regard (and is there is any difference, then it's certainly in WAW's favor). Both games look nice to me, and WAW has much much better UI to boot. I will play WITP in 5 years time, for sure. I rate WITP above WAW on "Great All Time List" of games and achievements of mankind, but frankly WAW is MUCH more fun, and is best enjoyment-per-minute I had or have with PC strategy or wargame in a long long long time. I played WAW from first beta testers alpha version, which was few weeks more than year ago, and after playing the game for more than a year I still enjoy the game, explore and find new things, nuances and strategies each day! - to call this game "shallow" or simple is VERY unfair and is just wrong on so many levels (this is coming from your fellow WITP fanatic guys). WAW has lots of depth, it just does not require 500+ turns or tons of micromanagement for this depth to become obvious [:'(] O.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 4:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso After all, it is much more likely that if we did this and GGWAW was a huge success, the reasonable conclusion would be "See, we don't have to spend the time and effort we devoted to WITP to get a winner. We'll just turn out simpler games like GGWAW and make more money". Isn't that much obvious from every game on the market? [:D] Many guys here don't realize how lucky we are to have WITP at all. O.

rtrapasso -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 4:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso After all, it is much more likely that if we did this and GGWAW was a huge success, the reasonable conclusion would be "See, we don't have to spend the time and effort we devoted to WITP to get a winner. We'll just turn out simpler games like GGWAW and make more money". Isn't that much obvious from every game on the market? [:D] Many guys here don't realize how lucky we are to have WITP at all. O. Agreed - but that's why i don't think supporting GGWAW for WITP's sake is the smart move. If we wanted to support WITP, we should buy extra copies ourselves, and gift them to fellow gamers (or better, buy them in their names). This would increase the bottom line on WITP, and increase the WITP community, and support of the game.

Skipster -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 4:58:01 PM)
I thought WaW was very well done. I bought it originally as a game to play when I wanted a break from HoI. I had Axis & Allies, but the AI was crap in that game. WaW was simply intended to replace A&A in my collection. Judging by the screenshots, I figured that was exactly what I was buying, an improved A&A. I was pleasantly surprised to find it had a lot more to it than I had expected, with a lot of subtlety and clever abstractions. The graphics are, AFAIC, the best out there for that type of game Of course, since I got WitP, I don't have much time for WaW or HoI [:D] As far as buying WaW to support 2x3's efforts in other areas, it really depends on 2x3's devs. If they are just making WaW so they don't have to deliver pizzas at night, that's great. If they're doing it to try to re-introduce the masses to the lost art of wargaming (and thereby getting new customers for the hardcore games they really want to do), that's also great. It's only if they are just out for the money that it's a bad thing. And from what I've seen so far of WitP, which looks to me like a labor of love [:D], the third option seems unlikely.

Graymane -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 5:08:39 PM)
I think WaW is ok but suffers from some very strange behaviors (see below). My recent gaming history is that I'm a long-time Paradox gamer (EU, HOI, etc). Someone over there made a post about WaW so I checked it out and bought it. In both forums, people talked about WiTP and hence here I am, living proof that having a game like WaW will draw some people into WiTP. I love the concept of WiTP and also the detail so this game is for me. WaW is really meant to cater to a different kind of audience I think. Fewer units, fewer choices, higher abstractions, faster play. The problem is that there are places where it takes intense micromanagement (read the supply system) that is going to turn off most casual gamers who are expecting a simpler kind of game. I actually find WiTP easier to understand than I did WaW, lol. Or at least I expect I have to move supplies around in this game, but moving them around every hex on the map like in WaW is just insane to me :)

Grotius -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/17/2005 5:17:04 PM)
quote: The conquer-the-world-in-thirty-minutes concept doesn't appeal to me often, plus the last time it did I played Risk. Respectfully, WaW has nothing in common with Risk other than graphics. You can't "conquer the world" in WaW against any kind of decent opponent, or (for most ordinary mortals) against the AI. WaW players are rather rigorously constrained by history. The ebb and flow of WaW games usually resembles the ebb and flow of the actual war for me. In fact, that may be more true of WaW than of WITP.

coralsaw -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 9:02:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Can't believe this, coming from WITP fan.... in which way are WITP combat animation graphics significantly better (or worse) than WAW's combat animations? They are not (other than because WitP is my baby, I think it looks nicer than anybody else's). [:D] Seriously now, I like the graphics in WitP better, I find the TF silhouettes much more appealing than toy soldiers ready to march. And the map is absolutely stunning. Granted, combat animation sequences are not that good, and fortunately at least we don't have toy soldiers dancing about when B17Es drop bombs onto their heads. But the single most important thing that will make me buy a game is its scope, which is the main reason why I didn't buy WaW (that's why I mentioned scope first in my original post). Scope aside though, Oleg, the point I wanted to get across about the graphics is that for the last 15 years I've been hearing how grognards don't care about eye candy. Which is absolutely mind-blowingly, death-defyingly untrue. We do expect high standards in all aspects of games these days, the Commodore 64 era is long gone. I understand that sometimes the art budget is not big enough for graphics, but I also know art students (and perhaps forum modders) that would kill to get their credits on a box with extra small fee. Regarding the WitP UI, I'm with you. I think WaW has a better interface than WitP, but IMO this is because the complexity of WaW is much lower than WitP. I was never a fun of the WitP UI, or of proprietary UIs to start with, and I can't for the life of me figure out why they did roll a custom UI (other than not having Windoze expertise inhouse). New UI learning is like learning how to walk again, which distracts from early adoption, unless you find the game so appealing you want to persevere. In my line of business (internet), they say every click losses you 5% of customers, and this stands true of UIs too. From complex sound engineering apps, to embedded systems controller apps, to word processors, to (good complex) games, there are good examples everywhere of rolling out standard Windoze UIs successfully. So it can be done. Anyway, I was just venting on one of my pet peeves. Hope it hasn't been to deaf ears. [;)] /coralsaw

coralsaw -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 9:13:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Respectfully, WaW has nothing in common with Risk other than graphics. You can't "conquer the world" in WaW against any kind of decent opponent, or (for most ordinary mortals) against the AI. WaW players are rather rigorously constrained by history. The ebb and flow of WaW games usually resembles the ebb and flow of the actual war for me. In fact, that may be more true of WaW than of WITP. Grotius, I am sure that WaW rules do constrain the player to walk within historical borders, otherwise why would anyone buy it to re-run (not simulate) WW2. I guess what I wanted to say is that the level of simulation for such a massively scoped event as WW2 has to be from a bird's eye view, and that view is what WaW tries to accomplish. Call it Axis & Allies on steroids if you wish, I'd call it Risk on steroids, with a (strong) WW2 flavor. It's a matter of taste. Believe me, I've lurked around the WaW forum long enough to understand large parts of its design blueprint, and I was not terribly impressed with the overall design. Of course this is a personal opinion, and GG stands among the proud and few in the industry. Still, I think he was born (sorry GG to talk about you without knowing you [;)]) to design monster games, like WitP and the soon to come Eastern Front game. And I'm really happy he's been doing so for the past 20 years. /coralsaw

coralsaw -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 9:40:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Many guys here don't realize how lucky we are to have WITP at all. Oleg, I respectfully disagree with your point. There is proven demand for wargaming, and the Pacific theatre is one of the most vivid ones. Just search for 'pacific war' in Amazon and see how you get over 100,000 books. Creating a company that has the right ideas, assets, will and cost structure to support a Pacific wargame among other products is not a prohibitive venture. The Paradox guys (and I'm saying this because I've been a beta tester with them in the past) have created a successful company, not only franchise, out of an obscure medieval board game called Europa Universalis. Let's go back in time a bit, and tell me if you would put money in an unknown Swedish company that would use it to create a medieval historical game. I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that this relationship we have here with Matrix and 2by3 is a dialectic one. We give, they take, they give, we take. We're not lucky, this is capitalism. /coralsaw ps. No personal offense intended, of course. [:)]

Charles2222 -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 10:07:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: Would it be safe to assume that War in the East will have an AI and be coded differently? Thou shalt not assume... However, it probably won't be based on WitP, as War in the East will be about land combat, and WitP's land combat routines are a bit simplistic. If they follow WIR's lead they also won't have any naval units.

fbastos -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 10:46:14 AM)
quote: I think you'd really have to have something drawn up by a lawyer to get this to work. After all, it is much more likely that if we did this and GGWAW was a huge success, the reasonable conclusion would be "See, we don't have to spend the time and effort we devoted to WITP to get a winner. We'll just turn out simpler games like GGWAW and make more money". What RTrapasso is saying is true, of course. But then, that's true for anything that we buy based on price alone. I don't feel any loyalty for most of the companies, as most of them just take my money, give me a box and pretty much run away. 2by3 can use that formula, but that's a losing proposition in the long term - just consider Talonsoft's case. 2by3's differential is a little known guy called Gary Grisby, which has a loyal legion of fans - myself included. So, you see, it doesn't really take a lawyer. It takes a Public Relations guy to say: "look, it is a good Business approach to keep our most loyal fans as energized as possible, because one energized and talkative fan today will bring 10 customers tomorrow for everything with GG's name". And this PR keeps on: "it happens that GG's most hardcore and vocal fans are more into WiTP than into GG:Waw, so let's throw them a bone and some cookies with small regular improvements on WiTP, so we can keep these guys here until we have WiTP II or WiE or whatever else we will cook". Some companies manage to reach that level; for example, I'm so loyal to Blizzard that I just buy everything they make, I don't really care what. F.

Joel Billings -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 7:26:21 PM)
Interesting posts. For those that want to support 2by3/Matrix because you like the games we do, the best thing you can do is buy a copy of a Matrix wargame (take your pick, of course a 2by3 game would be best [:)]) and give it to someone you know that does not know about Matrix. That person can be either a dedicated wargamer that either hasn't played computer wargames or has, but isn't aware of Matrix's games, or an avid computer gamer that hasn't played wargames. If the person is a lover of monster boardgames with a ton of detail, get them WitP (or UV as a start or another game on a topic you think they'd be most interested in). If the player is a non-wargamer, get them a simpler game like World at War. Ideally get them to promise to play the game (against you if you like to play PBEM) in return for the game. I've heard many reports from people that have done this with WaW and have been very happy with the results. I'd bet that a decent percentage of people exposed to Matrix this way will come back and buy other Matrix titles. Of course this is very self-serving of us to ask you to spend your money on growing the audience for our products. But why wouldn't you want to bring others into something you love if you think they might enjoy it and you can afford it. I love to play roller hockey. I've managed to get several people into playing by loaning them equipment I have (sometimes permanently) and spending my own money to get some of them out to see a hockey game. I'm helping to create hockey fans, but I also feel that I gain something (it's a lot more fun to be on a team where you're good friends with some of the players). If money is tight for you then don't bother. A lot of us, however, are at a point in life where $30-50 (ok, WitP at $70 seems like a lot) is not a big deal. If my uncle hadn't bought Tactics II for my father as a birthday present in 1965, my dad would have never taught me how to play a wargame, and I probably would have missed out on wargaming entirely.

rroberson -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/18/2005 11:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings Interesting posts. For those that want to support 2by3/Matrix because you like the games we do, the best thing you can do is buy a copy of a Matrix wargame (take your pick, of course a 2by3 game would be best [:)]) and give it to someone you know that does not know about Matrix. That person can be either a dedicated wargamer that either hasn't played computer wargames or has, but isn't aware of Matrix's games, or an avid computer gamer that hasn't played wargames. If the person is a lover of monster boardgames with a ton of detail, get them WitP (or UV as a start or another game on a topic you think they'd be most interested in). If the player is a non-wargamer, get them a simpler game like World at War. Ideally get them to promise to play the game (against you if you like to play PBEM) in return for the game. I've heard many reports from people that have done this with WaW and have been very happy with the results. I'd bet that a decent percentage of people exposed to Matrix this way will come back and buy other Matrix titles. Of course this is very self-serving of us to ask you to spend your money on growing the audience for our products. But why wouldn't you want to bring others into something you love if you think they might enjoy it and you can afford it. I love to play roller hockey. I've managed to get several people into playing by loaning them equipment I have (sometimes permanently) and spending my own money to get some of them out to see a hockey game. I'm helping to create hockey fans, but I also feel that I gain something (it's a lot more fun to be on a team where you're good friends with some of the players). If money is tight for you then don't bother. A lot of us, however, are at a point in life where $30-50 (ok, WitP at $70 seems like a lot) is not a big deal. If my uncle hadn't bought Tactics II for my father as a birthday present in 1965, my dad would have never taught me how to play a wargame, and I probably would have missed out on wargaming entirely. I have done this...with several different games..(not just Matrix ;) ) and several different friends. It use to be I would purchase a Sid game no matter what it was. The quality was that high...I have boxes of Microprose games for the same reason...once I get one or two products that are that good...I can't think of many reasons why I won't put down the dollars...Matrix has achieved that in my eyes...though I have to admit I still havent purchase WAW...something about the simplistic nature just doesnt appeal to my micromanaging nature I guess.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: 3 vs. 36 (5/19/2005 1:05:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coralsaw It's a matter of taste. Believe me, I've lurked around the WaW forum long enough to understand large parts of its design blueprint, and I was not terribly impressed with the overall design. Of course this is a personal opinion, and GG stands among the proud and few in the industry. Still, I think he was born (sorry GG to talk about you without knowing you [;)]) to design monster games, like WitP and the soon to come Eastern Front game. And I'm really happy he's been doing so for the past 20 years. I will respectfully disagree here. I think WAW is a brilliant design, best, and in some respect most innovative wargaming design in years! ...which is more or less what I wrote in my review of the game for the local PC mag. To make a game of such depth, using relatively simple, accessible, and relatively few design "tools" takes nothing short of genius. WITP is big, and complex, but as far as wargaming design goes it's not very innovative. Basic premise when designing WITP seems to have been "let's simulate everything", so indeed, every weapon, and their various interactions, are simulated. Whether it works realistically or not is up to every player to decide for himself (it works for me [:D]). Now, WAW, is by design much more abstract, and when designing this game, there are many problems that can be summed up as "how do we make very complex historical events simulated by so few, and relatively simple player controlled factors?". I think, the anner in which WAW managed to solve this basic design problem (in fact, design requirement may be better term) is just absolutely brilliant. As Grotius noted, you have a game that is for many players "relatively simple" and that manages to simulate WW2 sometimes more true to history than mega-detailed WITP! And manages to do so on a bigger scale (whole WW2). Now mind you, in my reviews for the local mag WITP got 98% (historic milestone in wargaming, game as big and as detailed as it gets, never even attempted before), WAW 93% (wargame of the year) - BUT I do stand behind my words that WAW is better example of design genius than WITP, by a long shot. O.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125