Game is completely unplayable due to hangs/lock ups

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

Jagdwolf- just put this game away until they fix it right and play Guns of August- the new 1.3 patch is good and its a fun gaming experience- which this one isnt anymore..

So you implying that there was a moment when World War One was actually "fun" for you?...[:D]...[;)]

Personally, I have been very patient with this game but I have shelved it for awhile...I will admit that my experience with this game has changed my buying habits...I now wait a good three months or more before I will even consider buying a new release and so have delayed buying Jagged Edge, Supremacy at Sea, and a few others. I no longer care about "release dates" since my personal date will always be months later...I guess I should thank AGEOD for that much....

I can empathize with the frustration of the other gamers in this thread.

I'm also a little disappointed in how tolerant of this whole mess some gamers have been. It really should not be considered "okay," how this game release has worked out. Having 'optoins' like: turning off sound, or changing default settings to minimal levels, or turning off basic game functions, or turning off processes in your taskmanager, may indeed be workable ways to make a game that works poorly work well enough to enjoy it for a few hours at a time, but it should never by any of us, be considered okay for that state of affairs to be common among a significant fraction of players with rigs that are well within spec range.

Since buying this game weeks back, I've been very active over at the WWI Ageod forum, and I have to say: Ageod, and Calvinus, and almost everyone involved (testers, developer-helpers, Ageod managers, even the gamer/forum members) has been very reasonable in what they say and do. The Ageod crew has clearly gone 'above and beyond' the call of duty to try to fix or repair the issues with the game, and they have generally been very responsive, nice and committed. Most of the gamers who have complained have been patient, helpful, detailed, polite. Even most of the guys who 'defend' Ageod, and the WWI development team have been pretty reasonable. So, I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone. All you guys seem like really nice fellows, and pretty much everything I've read from most of you seems very nice and reasonable.

But I want to make one point that is a simple fact: IT SHOULD _NEVER_ HAVE BEEN LIKE THIS in the first place.

When problematic launches become considered to be 'okay' that is a slippery slope for this industry.

Innovation should not come at the expense of playability. Market-efficiency and innovation should not be made to be oppositional. Could release have not been delayed through an additional six-months to a year of beta-testing? Look at how long we are waiting for Admiral's Edition; and I'm sure it will turn out to be worth it, and the magnitude of technical problems will be negatively correlated with the dilated wait to release. It might be that Matrix is having to swallow some fiscal overhead right now, during this pre-sales, long development phase, but imagine how much better immediate, short-term and long-term post-release sales will be if that pre-sales period was actually efficient at improving the final product.

Patches are of course a given. But the way things have worked with WWI goes beyond mere patches.

The game was released way too early. Heck, for all I know, there are some fundamental flaws in the game design/code that might require serious workarounds to get past them or else are not fixable at all.

This game has an excellent design, look-and-feel, and an innovative engine and overall structure. In terms of potential the game clearly has a great deal of potential. This is an ambitious, groundbreaking, innovative game design. For promoting the design and marketing of a game like this in the first place, Ageod and Matrix are to be applauded. Pushing the gaming industry forward, with innovative new concepts and designs is a risk-fraught venture, which the gaming business is understandbly loathe to consider. A consequence of this is that popular lines (Empire: Total Frustration comes to mind) become so popular and hyped up, that the maker employs increasingly tricky and 'secure' security and installation procedures, as well as increasingly shiny and fancy 'chrome' (graphics, and other eye-candy that does not actually involve innovations in strategy game design.

All of this makes the situation all the more poignant. The long-term potential of WWI to push the industry in exciting new directions is bound to have been negatively impacted by its early release problems and its persisting problems, and that is a damn shame for all of us.

I was not able to get the game to run after DLing it, but the CD arrived within a couple days of my order. There is a long (and still somewhat contradictory) manual that can be downloaded.

If the developers keep working on this one the way they have been since it was released back in the fall 2008, I think that this game will live up to about 95%+ of its tremendous potential as a very innovative, and groundbreaking game.

Right now I'd say it is at about 80%. There were such serious problems with the game during the first couple weeks that it was released that Ageod offered a money-back offer. Because the most serious issues have been fixed with patches, that offer has been withdrawn. The problems that remain are mostly subtle and fine-detail points, but the game remains fundamentally conflictual with background processes for many machines, with Autoupdaters and Antivirus apps being putatively the biggest problem.

Honestly, when I play this game, I find that I need to turn off my wireless so I'm not networked, and then go into my Taskmanager and turn off as much as possible in order to have close to zero chance to suffer hangs, delays, and CTDs.

That to me is really not acceptable: the game should WORK on a wide-range of systems; Civ certainly does; FoF does; TOAWII does; Pirates! does; LOTS of games work fine with infrequent hang/delay/CTD issues without having to reconfigure your system to prevent conflicts.

I resent the time I have to spend opening up Taskmanager and turning off processes in order to make this game run 97% smoothly, and so should any of us who spent $50 or $60 for a computer game.

Time will tell if the developers actually work this out, but at present, addressing basic bugs, and the few remaining game design issues seems to be their primary focus.

[GShock]

The AgeOD DEVs know what they are doing, they always did. It's all a matter of reaching the potentials before and not after the release because that's how you can reach the SALES potentials: The game is supposed to be READY at the v1.0 with no major issue and a few minor ones.

In AACW at V1.12 we have a less than mediocre AI.
In WiA 1.4 we have besieged troops receiving replacements and supplies.

What could you have expected from WW1...it shall take a dozen patches and they will come, and unerringly the game will reach a good status but it will never hit the mark on its real sales potential because players can't be expected to be betatesters.
They don't buy the game with that purpose and u need to maximize sales with game quality immediately after the release, not years after through patching. Devs should be coding new projects, not always running to catch up with mistakes coming from previous ones.

You've seen what this user posted...you probably have seen what other users posted in WW1 tech support @ageod (and surely u have seen those here @matrixgames).
I am wondering if u've seen the player reviews, as i have, at gamespot, armchair general, gamersgate, etc. This is not the DEVs' fault but those reviews are bummers.

[JastaV]

Well GShock, you decided to call me in!
I do not know what a bummer is.....I apologize for my poor English, then the word is not reported in my dictionary.
But it, (a bummer) I should expected to be in so far I'm with ones who reviewd WW1 at Gamespot.com as at Play.com

I carefully read this full thread: I no wonder there're many peoples disappointed with WW1.
Truly, I had no chance to go after last WW1 patch and I gave up with WW1 gaming from weeks: that's because of frustration with instability and bugs in a game I bought out of my money.
Anyway, I kept running the boards searching for positive reports following patches release so to recover trust in a game I'd love because of its subject, its complexity: unfortunately reports are very frustrating up to date.... even following last patch gamers are reporting CTDs and Calvinus is till excusing with users and hunting for solutions.
It's all very disappointing and we cannot see the end of the nightmare.
You mentioned Ageod AACW and WIA, both suffering for bugs and AI weaknesses so many time after their publication. You forgot to mention AGEod NCP: the game is not getting support by a patch publication from months, although many issues have been reported and although Ageod promises of future improvements.
I trust and share your opinion of AGEod products in many aspect but I'm very disappointed to notice YOU missed and confused a primary point.
You are charging AGEod DEVs, -(developers, I suppose)- of WWI troubles.
That's wrong![:-]
It was not Calvinus' choice, to publish at the wrong time a week, alpha state game, unplayable because of tons of bugs, CTDs, incompatibility with most common programs, and even manual unsupported.
That was Ageod publishers' decision. That was a PhilThib’s decision.

BTW, that same tradition of publishing games without adequate beta-testing is then responsible for troubles you reported for Wia, AACW, and NCP as I had to remember. Is it a searched publishing and marketing strategy? Is it a proof of AGEod company weakness or perhaps an evidence of ThilPhib strength that, but many games troubles is trusted by so many enthusiastic supporters?
I do not mind. As a customer I bought games supposing to be able to enjoy them as they come out of the box: that was not true and it's not true months, (WW1 and WIA) and even years after publication (NCP, AACW): so, as a disappointed customer, I claim my right to address my complaints to the publisher.

[Blueprint]

ORIGINAL: GShock

The AgeOD DEVs know what they are doing, they always did. It's all a matter of reaching the potentials before and not after the release because that's how you can reach the SALES potentials: The game is supposed to be READY at the v1.0 with no major issue and a few minor ones.

In AACW at V1.12 we have a less than mediocre AI.
In WiA 1.4 we have besieged troops receiving replacements and supplies.

What could you have expected from WW1...it shall take a dozen patches and they will come, and unerringly the game will reach a good status but it will never hit the mark on its real sales potential because players can't be expected to be betatesters.
They don't buy the game with that purpose and u need to maximize sales with game quality immediately after the release, not years after through patching. Devs should be coding new projects, not always running to catch up with mistakes coming from previous ones.

You've seen what this user posted...you probably have seen what other users posted in WW1 tech support @ageod (and surely u have seen those here @matrixgames).
I am wondering if u've seen the player reviews, as i have, at gamespot, armchair general, gamersgate, etc. This is not the DEVs' fault but those reviews are bummers.

As far I know, WW1 is selling well. Life is a liitle more complex than your post.

and AACW is at V 1.13. 2 minor bugs in your post. Waiting the 1.01.

[Blueprint]

ORIGINAL: JastaV

Well GShock, you decided to call me in!
I do not know what a bummer is.....I apologize for my poor English, then the word is not reported in my dictionary.
But it, (a bummer) I should expected to be in so far I'm with ones who reviewd WW1 at Gamespot.com as at Play.com

[/b]

You even reviewed these games several times under 2 or 3 nicknames.

For the origin of your WW1 bashing: http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12358 and here: tm.asp?m=1997686

For the rest, NCP has yet one great quality: its avaibility. Anyone can play it, not like your NCP mod you removed from Fileshare 2 months ago and you haven't yet uploaded somewhere.

WW1 was released too soon. Yes. I guess because the French distributor Nobilis has shared part of the cost development and exiged the game to be "ready" for the 11th November.

Now My position remains the same: we may hope for a more perfect world where wargaming companies would have huge revenues and could delay a game release until fully ready. Unfortunatly, we're in a world where we have to live with more or less precipitated releases. But at least we have computer wargames to play. In the whole, there are maybe around 20 computer wargame designers at work, in very small companies. The real point isn't to get perfect games the release day. It's to get dedicaced support to fix things in the next months.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Blueprint WW1 was released too soon. Yes. I guess because the French distributor Nobilis has shared part of the cost development and exiged the game to be "ready" for the 11th November.

Now My position remains the same: we may hope for a more perfect world where wargaming companies would have huge revenues and could delay a game release until fully ready. Unfortunatly, we're in a world where we have to live with more or less precipitated releases. But at least we have computer wargames to play. In the whole, there are maybe around 20 computer wargame designers at work, in very small companies. The real point isn't to get perfect games the release day. It's to get dedicaced support to fix things in the next months.

I would love to see the actual numbers that indicate that (a) distributors, financial backers, or whatever Daddy Warbucks overlords are putatively pulling the strings stand to lose unmanageable amounts of money by not getting a computer game on the shelves quickly; not to mention (b) the long-term cost-benefit analysis comparing revenues from games that underwent longer developments and games that got rushed out to the shelves.

I do not doubt that none of this was Calvinus or any other gamer or developers' fault. I can believe that it is a moneyroll somewhere putting pressure down the ladder to kick it out for retail sooner. It is not that I'm disputing who ultimately is responsible.

All I'm saying is: wouldn't a good game do BETTER business in the long-run by undergoing a bit longer development period to work out the kinks? You would think that corporate finance types would have thought through those kinda analyses pretty carefully.

Or, maybe it is as you say: World War One is "selling well," despite the fact that it still runs like a clunker. Maybe it is even selling almost as well as a comparable game that is in a much better state in final release (CoGE comes to mind).

If that is the case, then I guess there is just one thing for us gamer/consumers to do: beware.

I personally took a leap of faith with Ageod and bought the game based on Matrix's online advertisements having never tried the demo. I've generally had good luck just buying stuff that way with Matrix.

I will never buy so impulsively from Matrix again, and I likely will never buy from Ageod again at all.

On the other hand, having had two exceptionally good experiences with some of the other small-house developers who peddle their wares through Matrix, I will never hesitate to buy, nor to speak supportively of some other companies that I'm guessing are no less constrained by being small fry than is Ageod.

I'm just one guy, but the thing about Grog computer gamers is how powerful reputation word-of-mouth and pragmatism figure in to repeat purchases if not brand loyalty.

[skshrews]

I'm more forgiving than some comments here.

I remember the rise and fall of SPI and Avalon Hill. Small, specialized game companies that produced products for a limited audience.  When they were gone, there was only an infantile computer wargame industry.

Considering the endless "beta" applications produced by massive companies such as Google, and the endless updates of OS X and Vista, it's not hard to be forgiving of small game developers struggling with the same issues.

I haven't bought "World War One" yet, but probably will eventually.  It does sound as if it was released much too early (if only they would address the "sweet spot"/mouse issue!). But being someone who has always imagined producing a computer wargame, I'm appreciative there are people producing something in this genre.

[JastaV]

ORIGINAL: Blueprint

For the rest, NCP has yet one great quality: its avaibility. Anyone can play it, not like your NCP mod you removed from Fileshare 2 months ago and you haven't yet uploaded somewhere.

Uhhhh, that's a great point!
Are you saying NCP in now available for free?
Hops, just checked: AGEod is selling it out of € 33.99/44.99, download/boxed versions.
Guess a bit too high price for a bugged games published some a year ago, not receiving support and patches out of many months.

As regard my NCP mods they came for free out of many hours of my work: no one paid me for them, no one can claim rights over them!
But all, there's something sick with you: you expended time, words and efforts to denigrate my mods, then you are here to claim for right of access to them!

Anyway, I did all I could to make my mods available even after I “left” AGEod board.
My last attempt is till hot:



It was then AGEod decision to remove the post soon damaging all ones interested to get my mods.
So, should you till have to charge someone for un-availability of my mods charge AGEod, not me!
Notice I was posting at AGEod board to reply to a specific questions over my mod:
http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13461

Please notice it was not a problem for me signing the post with my JastaV aka-nickname.
I have no reason for hiding behind dummy identity, in the same way I signed all my posts, and user-reviews.
It's a sick fantasy moving you to see my presence behind any negative statement regarding AGEod products.
As you said, "WW1 is selling well", and may be other AGEod games too: so you should not be stunned with negative public statements reporting the many issues affecting Ageod products.

"WW1 is selling well!"
Really?
I'm doubtful..... Are you sure that will that be positive for AGEod future?
Can you think customers disappointed and frustrated by AGEod WW1 issues will then buy any future AGEod product?
It seem like VGN will soon be available: based on past experience, AGEod customers can expect VGN will be buggy as hell on release and the AI will be dumb as a bag of hammers, so customers would not bother with it at all!

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: JastaV
Guess a bit too high price for a bugged games published some a year ago, not receiving support and patches out of many months.

It seem like VGN will soon be available: based on past experience, AGEod customers can expect VGN will be buggy as hell on release and the AI will be dumb as a bag of hammers, so customers would not bother with it at all!

Ok, it's clear there are some raw nerves here, but this is simply going too far. This forum is not a place for you to post constant criticisms of AGEOD's games based on the personal problems you've had with them. There are ways to be civil and ways to be rude and the statements above are simply bashing. Constructive criticism is always accepted here, comments like the above regarding a game that has not even been released yet are way beyond the line.

This is a final warning, stop using our forum as a way of continuing this feud, or you will be given a "vacation" to reconsider how to post with civility.

Regards,

- Erik

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
All I'm saying is: wouldn't a good game do BETTER business in the long-run by undergoing a bit longer development period to work out the kinks? You would think that corporate finance types would have thought through those kinda analyses pretty carefully.

You've obviously never dealt with my accountants[:)]

Two other comments:

1. I've been one of those supporting AGEod (for comment #2 below) since a few days after the release of WWI, but I don't remember hearing anyone (including myself) say WWI should have been released when it was. It was clearly not ready and should not have been release and all comments to this effect I agree with whole heartedly (but I do not agree at all with with the same comment being made about BoA, AACW, NCP or WiA).

2. One thing I don't understand is anyone claiming AGEod doesn't support their games. I've found BoA, AACW, NCP and WiA all playable from day one. Perfect? No. Playable? Very. Supported? Amazingly. That's why I've been supportive of AGEod with WWI. Everything I've ever seen from them tells me it will continue to be be supported and will achieve it's potential. But to point #1, it should not have been like this.

[Blueprint]

Anthropoid, the sad truth is players will impulsively buy games they want immediatly whatever the company reputation. if not, most of the current big actors on the PC game market wouldn't sell anymore.

And then...5 years ago, Neither AGEOD nor FOF and CoGE were existing. IQ Software wasn't created . Slitherine maybe was yet acting ( and frankly, tehy released some rather poor games in the past). 2 by3 had released WAr in the Pacific a monster game with its lot of bugs. Who really remember today these bugs?

The only common point is John Tiller's games [:D]

WW1 is another monster wargame. In the next 5 years, some companies will disappear, maybe other will appear and maybe WW1 will be bug free and no one will anymore care of the initial bugs.

And gamers will be yet buying some games on the spot simply because they want it immediatly...

[Joram]

I have nightmares of banging my head against a board with nails in it yet at times that still seems preferable to playing this game.  But anyhooo, simple yes/no question here.  Is the game playable yet?

[Blueprint]

yes.

That's not to say some will not experience ctds here and there.

That's not to say some points of the GUI hadn't to be improved.

But definitly, yes the game is currently playable. AAR here http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13401 and here http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthre ... 114&page=3

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Blueprint
And then...5 years ago, Neither AGEOD nor FOF and CoGE were existing. IQ Software wasn't created . Slitherine maybe was yet acting ( and frankly, tehy released some rather poor games in the past). 2 by3 had released WAr in the Pacific a monster game with its lot of bugs. Who really remember today these bugs?

COG was released in 2004, five years ago. Slitherine was also around and had released several top-selling games (you may not have enjoyed them, but many others did). War in the Pacific had followed Uncommon Valor, both very well received and WITP and UV were playable right out of the box.

I do agree with you that every "monster" game does have bugs at release (in fact, I would say that every game has bugs on release - even the apparently "bug free" and simple games usually have at least a few though they may only be known to the development team).

[Blueprint]

Whatever the initial release state of WIP, the real point is its current state. I understand frustration expressed here but I remain convinced money spent in WW1 isn't definitly lost...

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Blueprint
I understand frustration expressed here but I remain convinced money spent in WW1 isn't definitly lost...

Well stated. As I said before, I think all will agree it was a mistake to release it when they did, but for me, that's water under the bridge and I remain convinced it was not a mistake to buy it (although I understand those that are waiting or wish they had waited). In fact, I already enjoy it and look forward to each new patch.

Heck...I look at it this way. Where else would I have put that money? In the stock market???? WWI was a better investment:)

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
All I'm saying is: wouldn't a good game do BETTER business in the long-run by undergoing a bit longer development period to work out the kinks? You would think that corporate finance types would have thought through those kinda analyses pretty carefully.

You've obviously never dealt with my accountants[:)]

Two other comments:

1. I've been one of those supporting AGEod (for comment #2 below) since a few days after the release of WWI, but I don't remember hearing anyone (including myself) say WWI should have been released when it was. It was clearly not ready and should not have been release and all comments to this effect I agree with whole heartedly (but I do not agree at all with with the same comment being made about BoA, AACW, NCP or WiA).

2. One thing I don't understand is anyone claiming AGEod doesn't support their games. I've found BoA, AACW, NCP and WiA all playable from day one. Perfect? No. Playable? Very. Supported? Amazingly. That's why I've been supportive of AGEod with WWI. Everything I've ever seen from them tells me it will continue to be be supported and will achieve it's potential. But to point #1, it should not have been like this.

Good points. I certainly don't want to detract from Ageod or the Devs in terms of their support of the game.

But I'd feel even better about lauding them if I still had not bought it yet, and you and I were beta-testers and 1.07 was going to be the release for retail version.

I can definitely empathize with them, and I agree that supporting these small cottage industries that we love so much is critical.

I think we support them MORE when we discourage them from releasing, or being railroaded into releasing their products before they are ready for market.

World War One: La Grande Geurre is a brilliant work of art. It just wasn't done before the crowds were let in to look at it, and now there have been quite a few prospective customers who have been turned sour because they expected a finished product day one. That is not a smart way to approach the business, and I am asking, and encouraging whomever is reading this and may have any influence on such things to do everything in your power to prevent such things from happening because ultimately, it harms our hobby.

Brilliant, innovative, ambitious games that get rushed to market are not likely to provoke more and better innovative, ambitious games in future, nor are they likely to optimally satisfy maker, designer, publisher, financial backer, or customer.

ADDIT: I agree; money spent on WWI is not "lost." I have played it probably 6 or 7 times for several hours each time and enjoyed it, despite being quite frustrated by it too.

But the fact remains: the last I played this game without going into my Taskmanager to turn off as much stuff as possible, I suffered hangs and CTDs. Turn off the stuff (a minor annoyance during my evening of surfing and gaming, but an annoyance nonetheless) and it works okay, but still an occastional delay and session did finally end with a CTD a few hours later.

Add to this that there is a persistent problem with the mouse-click-select routine seeming to have a very elusive 'sweet spot' . . . well, I'm just a wee bit skeptical that these issues are going to get addressed is all. Not saying I'm definitely convinced they will not get addressed, but since they are issues dealing with (most likely?) either (a) conflicts with other apps and/or (b) fundamental aspects of how teh game is coded?, I cannot help but wonder if they will in fact be addressable with a patch.

If they CAN be addressed with a reasonable amount of patching, I have every faith that Calvinus will get it done and the game will eventually run flawlessly on most all systems.

[Stwa]

Muhahahahahaha!

It continues!

The CURSE worked!

[:)]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Stwa

Muhahahahahaha!

It continues!

The CURSE worked!

[:)]

I should have known it was you! Why, why, Stwa?

[Jonny_B]

[:(][&:][:@][:'(][X(]

Absolutly