|
Lichtenstein posted:Tim Stone's review of Command is up, and it's surprisingly negative. A good read for everyone as poor as I am. Glad you posted this. If I'm spending 80 dollars on your game it better really stand out and not have some of the issues shown in this review. No thanks.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Another 'negative review' was shutdown on matrix after being posted. Erik actually called it 'review malfeasance'(wtf!) before he edited his post. Let's see how long this crit lasts. That is the same negative review as before, SimHQ took it down and put it back up. There are two main reasons why the review is really bad: the author of the review has been [link=http://www.warfaresims.com/?cat=129]feuding with the developers[/link] for about 15 years now and the author of the review also supports a competing product. I didn't like it when SimHQ took the review down (because censorship is bad, in any form), within ~36 hours it was back up, unedited. It is a dishonest review. The review on RPS is a negative review, but is quite a bit more fair!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:That is the same negative review as before, SimHQ took it down and put it back up. There are two main reasons why the review is really bad: the author of the review has been [link=http://www.warfaresims.com/?cat=129]feuding with the developers[/link] for about 15 years now and the author of the review also supports a competing product. While the tone of the two reviews is very different, there seemed to be substantial overlap in the complaints.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:It is a dishonest review. Ummmmm What'd an honest review look like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
One that isn't written by someone hawking a competing product or carrying a grudge against the developers, eg every other review on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
I didn't know anything about grudges or hawking other products before reading the two reviews, and to me it seemed that they both pointed out the same kinds of problems with the game. Plus it seems to gel with what I've read on Matrix's forums and what I saw in your playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
The guy who wrote the SimHQ review is an rear end in a top hat who has an interest in killing the genre. I've been trying to stay away from the drama... he just isn't the right person to write a review. There are valid points to make against the game; but when it comes from someone who literally wants to prevent any progress in the naval combat simulation genre I (any many other people) get upset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Yeah, but you're biased in the other direction yourself. It's great that you like the game and the current pricing scheme behind grog games in general, but that doesn't make you objective. The truth is likely somewhere between the two viewpoints, and you can glean information from just about any review. Game reviews by nature are biased in one direction or the other. The person either has a vested interest in the situation, or they're opposed to it. The review they write will then lean in the direction of their viewpoint. It is just more obvious when that viewpoint disagrees with that of the reader that the writer is biased.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Yeah, but you're biased in the other direction yourself. It's great that you like the game and the current pricing scheme behind grog games in general, but that doesn't make you objective. The truth is likely somewhere between the two viewpoints, and you can glean information from just about any review. Game reviews by nature are biased in one direction or the other. The person either has a vested interest in the situation, or they're opposed to it. The review they write will then lean in the direction of their viewpoint. It is just more obvious when that viewpoint disagrees with that of the reader that the writer is biased. I agree, I'm certainly not going to write a review.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I agree, I'm certainly not going to write a review. Well to be honest, a lot of the stuff in your vids sounded cooler than it looked, especially after half an hour or so. So even if you don't intend them to be reviews, I could see how they are might work that way from multiple perspectives  Please don't take it as negative feedback though! Your videos provided a valuable service to me. I had to keep myself from ordering the game the first couple of minutes because I read about the technical issues, but was eventually reinforced in holding off and I feel like I made the right decision..
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
If you need to get an earful of some guy sperging about naval combat simulations you know where to find me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
They (or at least the warfaresims guys) actually are considering the RPS review as a positive review. There is a short thread on Tim's review in the Matrix forums.
vyshka fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Oct 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
This is fairly grog-lite, but Sid Meier's Ace Patrol is on sale for 5 bucks on Steam and unless you already own it, I'd say it's well worth it at that price. It simulates WWI air combat, but turn-based: Every turn represents so many seconds, and you issue orders to your pilots to go straight, bank left/right, climb, dive, etc. As your pilots score more kills, they become more skilled, which unlocks additional maneuvers for them. Whereas a rookie pilot might only be able to fly straight and make basic turns, your aces will learn how to Immelmann, Split-S, jink, loop and spin. It's very reminiscent of Achtung Spitfire and Over the Reich (by Charlie Moylan, who also designed Combat Mission), but in Ace Patrol turns and level flight and altitude are all blended together into a single set of orders to choose from, so you don't have to muck around with throttle and specific joystick input like in those earlier games, which keeps things fast and intuitive. Like X-COM EU and Civ 5 and Pirates!, the interface is very slick and there's a lot of upgrade/customization options, and historical accuracy takes a backseat to gameplay, but if anything, the only thing it lacks is larger furballs, since it looks like there's a limit of 4 planes to a side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
I really love that game, but I have it on ipad and iPhone, which I think suits it well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
Anyone know when Panzer Campaigns is hitting iOS? It has been out for Android for like two weeks now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
I'm going to be streaming Command live at http://twitch.tv/baloogancampaign in an hour. Additional information: http://baloogancampaign.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Jakse posted:Anyone know when Panzer Campaigns is hitting iOS? It has been out for Android for like two weeks now. It's already there (US market). I grabbed it about a week ago. Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/panzer-campaigns-panzer/id694291341?mt=8
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
McGlu posted:It's already there (US market). I grabbed it about a week ago. Oh, it is only iPad? Why do Android phones get all these cool games but none of this poo poo works on iPhone?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Because the app is made for tablets, but you can't really restrict it that way for Android?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Riso posted:Because the app is made for tablets, but you can't really restrict it that way for Android? I'm fairly certain the Google Play store can detect which device you're browsing it with and bar purchase/download. At least I think that happened to me once or twice on my phone for a tablet app.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
So earlier this week in the Matrix forums pricing threadgradenko_2000 posted:In the meantime, Matrix is selling Unity of Command for 10 dollars more than Steam or Gamersgate or even directly from the developer is. What, pray tell, is the justification for this 10 dollar mark-up? Is UOC suddenly more deep and complex when bought from Matrix? And today? Matrix Games posted:Unity of Command Series on Sale!  I've also been playing with Defending the Reich from HPS Sims, and I've found that it's the anti-Bombing the Reich. Manageable amount of targets, limited amount of player actions, boardgame-like mechanics, instant confirmation of bombing results and a decent number of turns. I'll try to post an introduction/trip report on why it's the better strategic bombing simulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So earlier this week in the Matrix forums pricing thread Doesn't solve their eyeballs problem, which they've shown no interest in changing. All their smugness over their decade old business model would be less irritating if they didn't have to have basic business principles bashed over their heads in public again and again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Doesn't solve their eyeballs problem, which they've shown no interest in changing. From what I've seen, they've kind of fixated on the pricing as the only major issue and the only thing Steam does, ignoring the accessibility and the mass-distribution they also need to be successful. So they keep arguing that price alone does not sell more wargames (which is true) but figure at that point that they've got the argument sewn up and don't need to bother with the rest of it, despite the fact that you really need the combination of price, accessibility, and distribution to make it big.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So they keep arguing that price alone does not sell more wargames (which is true) No it's not. Steam has allowed Valve to collect some extremely interesting data regarding pricing and buy patterns and they have quite conclusively shown that there are plateaus at which certain people simply will not spend money, amongst other things. Reducing prices on Steam, both permanently and via sales universally results in an increase in sales as the price dips below the line for some people. To take C:MANO for example; I would buy it for 25 bux, straight up. I might even buy it for 30 bux and if someone does a decent LP of the game I could possibly bring myself to pay 40 bux for it. At the moment, they want 91 dollars (or 108 for the boxed set.) I'm sorry, I simply will not pay that much money for this game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Tomn posted:From what I've seen, they've kind of fixated on the pricing as the only major issue and the only thing Steam does, ignoring the accessibility and the mass-distribution they also need to be successful. So they keep arguing that price alone does not sell more wargames (which is true) but figure at that point that they've got the argument sewn up and don't need to bother with the rest of it, despite the fact that you really need the combination of price, accessibility, and distribution to make it big. They seem to be operating under the assumption that at some point in the 80's people who like wargames just stopped being born.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Neruz posted:No it's not. Steam has allowed Valve to collect some extremely interesting data regarding pricing and buy patterns and they have quite conclusively shown that there are plateaus at which certain people simply will not spend money, amongst other things. Nah, nah, don't misunderstand: What I mean is, price ALONE doesn't improve sales. If you make Super Accountancy Simulator 2012 (Now with extra spreadsheets!) and put it up for sale on your lovely Geocities website, it doesn't really matter if you price it at a hundred bucks or one - you're not going to get much more than a dozen sales if that. But if you put that up on Steam, THAT'S when price starts to matter because you've got enough people walking by that some of them will be tempted/drunk enough to buy at a low price. Same thing with Matrix. Just dropping the price on Matrix's own store where nobody looks except confirmed grognards isn't going to make that much of a difference, but jam those games at a lower price up on Steam or Gamersgate or GOG or something and in comes the money. Which is why Matrix's sales are kinda dumb - all they're going to do is to make the Matrix people smugly declare "We knew all along that price won't make the difference, now stop talking about Steam."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Nah, nah, don't misunderstand: What I mean is, price ALONE doesn't improve sales. If you make Super Accountancy Simulator 2012 (Now with extra spreadsheets!) and put it up for sale on your lovely Geocities website, it doesn't really matter if you price it at a hundred bucks or one - you're not going to get much more than a dozen sales if that. But if you put that up on Steam, THAT'S when price starts to matter because you've got enough people walking by that some of them will be tempted/drunk enough to buy at a low price. If that was true then the sales would have stopped already. The fact that they've gone on this long means that they're seeing a revenue bump, they just can't admit it publicly because it means that even taken at best and ceding all the questionable assumptions Matrix asserts about the wargames market, they're still wrong about how the electronic sales model works. e: ha! I just finished the latest 3 Moves Ahead (it's with the Dominions guys) and at the end they're asked about their company situation because they were with Slitherine and they say they're self-publishing now and the response is "Congratulations!" Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Thing is, I've been reading the Wargames thread in TG and there are so many games there (Totaler Krieg, Guns of Gettysburg, Twilight Struggle, Silent War, No Retreat!) that I'd love to play through a framework that's a little more solid than VASSAL, but then it seems like outside of newer outfits (and God bless those), PC wargaming is moving more towards "we have all this computing horsepower, so gently caress CRTs" rather than ease-of-use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thing is, I've been reading the Wargames thread in TG and there are so many games there (Totaler Krieg, Guns of Gettysburg, Twilight Struggle, Silent War, No Retreat!) that I'd love to play through a framework that's a little more solid than VASSAL, but then it seems like outside of newer outfits (and God bless those), PC wargaming is moving more towards "we have all this computing horsepower, so gently caress CRTs" rather than ease-of-use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Like the Fantasy Grounds software, but for wargamers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
pixelbaron posted:Like the Fantasy Grounds software, but for wargamers. A virtual wargame would be fantastic - for both boardgames and traditional miniature games - something that allows you to move models and chits, but a basic program you can buy game "DLC" for - it would work as a business model - hell, you could make the table free and then charge for the modules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
But wargame devs hate money, so that is obviously never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
So the release date for Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm is tomorrow, anyone in this thread play in the beta? I have a hankering for Cold War stuff and unless this gets  level pricing I'll probably pick it up.Speaking of Cold War stuff anyone in here play Steel Beasts? With the new 3.0 release they have monthly licenses so you don't have to drop the $100 (seriously guys, stop making me poor!). I'm lonely and want to fight against the Russian hordes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:So the release date for Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm is tomorrow, anyone in this thread play in the beta? I have a hankering for Cold War stuff and unless this gets Graphics aren't everything but for $100 (and a physical dongle as DRM) I'd expect more. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
uPen posted:Graphics aren't everything but for $100 (and a physical dongle as DRM) I'd expect more. Umm that's Steel Beasts Legacy, published in 2000. We're at Pro PE right now and 3.0 is around the corner. Never played anything else than the demo for the first one more than 10 years ago though so I couldn't comment any further. This is SB 2.6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVq6VUj_clk
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
It's no Arma3, but it's not too bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
That's much more acceptable, looks like Combat mission level. Do you pay on a per-tank/per-module basis or is it $100 for everything they ever put out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
On FPC Red Storm: I was (am?) in the beta but didn't like it, felt very limited to me. It's WEGO and based on an order timer (influenced by proficiency and electronic warfare level, minimum of 20 minutes or so IIRC), but you can only set three waypoints per unit (platoons) and there's no way to coordinate movement or attacks between different units easily as far as I know. Furthermore, the way 'stances' work means that only certain types of movement/vulnerability modes (hasty, deliberate, assault) will lead to units automatically doing the thing you want them to do after stopping (IE screening or digging in). Also, there's no way to change movement modes between waypoints so you'll have to wait until your next orders phase to have your units switch between driving down a simple route in a certain way, holding position according to certain non-player influenced parameters, or resupplying. It feels like you're always bleeding precious minutes in stupid ways: I couldn't get obvious stuff done like blow a key bridge because I had to wait until my next manual intervention to have units string more than one task together (in the 'A time to dance' scenario, which the devs recommended as a tutorial/intro). Maybe I was going at it all wrong but there wasn't much in the documentation to help me out as of a couple of weeks ago. Now I worked out a lot of stuff over a number of hours but what came floating to the top just wasn't much of a fun gameplay experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Umm that's Steel Beasts Legacy, published in 2000. We're at Pro PE right now and 3.0 is around the corner. Never played anything else than the demo for the first one more than 10 years ago though so I couldn't comment any further. Is this like a spiritual successor to M1 Tank Platoon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
uPen posted:That's much more acceptable, looks like Combat mission level. Do you pay on a per-tank/per-module basis or is it $100 for everything they ever put out? $100 for everything with the occasional upgrade cost for the big updates. I watched the game for ages on the fence but with 3.0 you can buy a months license for  and play around, so I did that.I'll get some proper screenshots of 3.0 for you guys, the game doesn't look bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 06:46
|
|