UV review by Gamespot

[Sabre21]

I'm still gonna harass the guy about the ABCD thing...hehe.

Still waitin on them Vikings to show up:)


Andy

[bradfordkay]

"The reviewer was mistaken. The order of button pressing is not important. You must assign a
destination before the ship finishes loading or it will start unloading where it is. That's all. You
can give all load orders at all the bases, if you like, and then go back through and assign all
destinations. It really does not matter. On the turn the ship is finished loading, it will go to the assigned destination and start unloading. If the assigned destination is the current destination, fine, it unloads there."


I'll have to admit that I had no idea as to what the reviewer was talking about. I have regularly given my ships the order to load the troops before setting the destination, but since I issued the destination orders during the same orders phase that the load orders were isssued I assumed that you had to do it the same turn. I never realized that I could wait until the ships were nearly full before giving a destination.



I was a little disappointed not to see little formations of planes flying across the map (a refinement of the BTR process?), but that hasn't stopped me from ignoring everything else in my life to play UV.

[pad152]

Graphic Comments:

The icons and buttons are too small it makes the to hard on the eyes and makes the game unplayable on some laptops. It's really hard to select the litte buttons and icons with laptop mouse.

I'm surprised, I really like the animation and would like to see more (for bombarments and air attacks on ports with ships). I would like to see oil slicks for ships that have non-combat damage instead of smoke, damaged aircraft trailing smoke and ships in a line top/bottom of screen for surface combat.

My favorite is sub attacks, that little pause between the fire torps and waiting for the hit or miss.

[msvknight]

Firstly,

The ABCD thing. I figured he was joking - right away.

Secondly, I thought the graphics and sound assessments were fair. Their ratings have to be consistent across the board of reviews (for comparison purposes). Barring you getting a full motion video of a torpedo slicing into the bow of the Northampton with associated footage of actors simulating the results of the impact the graphics were never going to get a great score. The reviewer clearly stated this. UV cannot and should not try to get too graphics heavy.

His review was fair. If you add up his ratings but ignore the graphics element, it is a very good rating. And can I point out your average doom player probably wouldn't give this game a second look even if it was rated with straight 11s.

Keep up the good work, and hope that they get this guy to do future reviews for Matrix products. He was fair and that is all you can ask of a reviewer.

[strollen]

Originally posted by U2
Hi

I agree with David that this was indeed a good review for he wrote that it was fun and could be rewarding even for people outside the hardcore community that most of us here belong to but the majority of gamers dont. But like most members I was quite angry about the sound/graphics grade. This shows, just like my PBEM buddy Rob stated, that the author simply have not been playing "heavy" wargames for the past twenty years. I have simply never seen graphics and sound like this in this type of wargame since I started playing 13 years ago.

BTW: Matrix should really try to sign Norm Koger for his Russo-Japan war 1904-05 project if its not too late.

Again many thanks to Matrix for making a great game better.

Dan

Well you really ought to check out Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com) if you want to see great graphics in a wargame. After playing Combat Mission I found it really hard to go back to the Steel Panthers system. The graphics really immersed you in the situtation. That was a wargame that deserved a 10 in graphics. The UV map graphics are fine, but the animation is frankly pretty weak. Don't get me wrong, I think 2BY3 made the right trade-off focus on the interface, and game play and not the graphics. It is possible to combine great graphics and wargame. I just don't think we've seen it with a operational game yet.

[U2]

Originally posted by strollen


Well you really ought to check out Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com) if you want to see great graphics in a wargame. After playing Combat Mission I found it really hard to go back to the Steel Panthers system. The graphics really immersed you in the situtation. That was a wargame that deserved a 10 in graphics. The UV map graphics are fine, but the animation is frankly pretty weak. Don't get me wrong, I think 2BY3 made the right trade-off focus on the interface, and game play and not the graphics. It is possible to combine great graphics and wargame. I just don't think we've seen it with a operational game yet.

I actually bought Combat Mission two weeks after UV and I have played it for about 3 hours. I havent even played CM for the past two weeks because of UV. UV is just taking up all my computer time like no game ever before.
Dan

[Hartmann]

Originally posted by strollen


Well you really ought to check out Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com) if you want to see great graphics in a wargame. After playing Combat Mission I found it really hard to go back to the Steel Panthers system. The graphics really immersed you in the situtation. That was a wargame that deserved a 10 in graphics. The UV map graphics are fine, but the animation is frankly pretty weak. Don't get me wrong, I think 2BY3 made the right trade-off focus on the interface, and game play and not the graphics. It is possible to combine great graphics and wargame. I just don't think we've seen it with a operational game yet.

Sorry for not exactly staying on topic, but I have to say that this is indeed the only way I can accept and enjoy 3D graphics in a wargame: give your orders, and then press "done" and watch the turn being executed from every angle. I guess I also would like this kind of system in naval *tactical* games. Not in operational, though, for this probably wouldn´t work (but go ahead and prove me wrong! ).
Finally, I never liked games like TaskForce 1942 or M1 Tank Platoon (Microprose), where one actually had to do all the tactical stuff in realtime. The only games where I like *this* system are flightsims, where one only commands one plane, and .... then there´s Duke Nukem, of course.

Hartmann

[David Heath]

Yea.... the Duke is the Man.... I love The Duke.....

David

[Marc von Martial]

Well you really ought to check out Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com) if you want to see great graphics in a wargame.

Honestly, as much as I like CM, the initial graphics presented by Battlfront could have been done much better IMHO. Way to oversaturated colors, tank textures with only spartanic details, and not so nice terrain. The CM modding community made this game pleasent to the eye. There´s is no single original BF graphic left in my installment of CM.

Of course it is still a good game.

[Basement Command]

Continuing the off-topic/other games and their graphics element of this thread .... 1) To get it out of the way, I really like CM. Enuff on that; 2) One of the best looking hex based games ever released is Battleground Gettysburg, that's all I'll say on that; 3) A little closer to home, I really liked the main strategic map of PTO, especially considering the limitations of the SN gaming system; 4) I liked the the 3d look of SSI's Great Naval Battle series. It was quite immersive, especially when you "went topsides' and watched a raging multi ship surface battle. I think GNB 2, which covered about the same area and period of UV was the best of that series. There were campaigns by which one could engage in strategic/operational elements of that theater of operations, even though GNB 2 was really a tactical sim. GNB 2 had a view option that let you watch your air attacks on enemy fleets from a "Ensign Gay perspective" somewhere a few hundred or thousand yards off the enemy TF beam. GNB had some real problems with modelling air combat too; 5) Finally there's Fighting Steel, SSI's sucessor to GNB, which is basically a simpler, and therefore cleaner running surface naval combat 3D semi-simulator. Basically, SSI seemed to simply eliminate the problematic aspects of the GNB series (ex. abstracted damage control rather than the manual damage control of GNB - no landmasses modeled), and completely eliminated air combat. While Fighting Steel is limited in what it does, it sure was fun to play and watch a IJN/USN night battle in Fighting Steel while waiting for UV to release (and we did wait for a while did we not?):rolleyes:

[Charles2222]

The suggestion has been made, that people should go to Gamespot to rectify the bad rating there, by giving the game higher ratings than we'd otherwise give. Fine, if you really believe it's worth ten across the board, but to do so for the aforementioned is dishonest. How many of you know that people's proper opinions isn't garnered when people start stuffing ballot boxes for all-star games and the like? How many people new to wargaming will buy that game simply on this ballooned rating and then feel it's around a 7 or worse? Whether they figure out the ballot stuffing or not, will they then decide that the ratings on wargames are about as reliable as a salesman's word?

Something you have to remember about graphics as well. That site operates under the notion of comments not based as genre-specific as to whether the graphics are great, but just how they compare to gaming as a whole, as far as I can gather. Sure we'd like the article writer to leave it compared to it's genre only, but especially given that so many of the Gamespot clientele is into graphics almost to a fault, it wouldn't be a good idea on his part to make it the observation friendly to wargamers. Anyone whose been into a few graphic programs of the later variety couldn't likely give a 10 in graphics. Yes, maybe a ten for operational wargames, but not for pc gaming in general.

[mogami]

Hi, Anyone who looks at the screen shots will have their own idea about graphics no matter what anyone else has said.
I don't think anyone will buy this game by mistake, or because they were fooled into thinking it is something else.
The Matrix web site has many screen shots and a clear detailed discription of the game.
I don't use other peoples ratings of games (or reviews of movies/books/music) I go with what I like, what I don't know I experiance for myself. If we gave it a 1.0 rating the Grognards would still buy it (look at it seriously) Jacking it up to 10.0 will not convince any non wargamer into buying it after they have seen the screen shots.
Suggesting that people can somehow dishonestly fool people is suggesting people who might buy UV are idiots. (people who like this type of game rate it the best all time (warts and alll), people who don't like this type of game will rate it pretty low)
Every online game site has their fans vote for them at MPOG (or somesuch place)
I am interested in the rating for one reason only, to see how many people vote. I hope no one votes more then one time.
I don't think anyone who gives it 10's across the board is being dishonest. (subjective maybe) There have already been owners who gave it a mere 8. I wish I could give it 12's in some areas

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Charles_22
The suggestion has been made, that people should go to Gamespot to rectify the bad rating there, by giving the game higher ratings than we'd otherwise give. Fine, if you really believe it's worth ten across the board, but to do so for the aforementioned is dishonest.

Do you have any proof of what you are writing . Nobody has ever suggested to give UV an higher rating than deserved ... but only to get UV a "reader review" rating as good as the game is !

BTW, the GameSpot reader rating of 8.9 is quite close to the rating given by the Matrix poll ... and is NOT the highest GameSpot reader rating (ie : Jedi Knight II : 9.2 - Morrowind : 9.0 ...)

showthread.php?s=&threadid=20084

Spooky

[mjk428]

Hello, this is my first post.

Thanks Spooky for letting me know about the Gamespot review. I immediately went to the site and gave them my opinion which was:

Gameplay = 10
Graphics = 7
Sound = 8
Value = 10
Tilt = 10

I also emailed Gamespot to ask for elaboration on the low graphics and sound ratings. I conceded the reviewer was entitled to his opinion but I felt he had a responsability to explain his reasons. I haven't gotten a reply yet and realize I may not.

As far as stuffing the box is concerned, Spooky certainly did not suggest anything like that. However, it did sorta snowball in that direction further down the thread. When I gave my ratings I had to fight the impulse to give straight 10's in an effort to support Matrix.

Thanks,
MJK

[DougAngle]

The review was quite fair, I thought. If you compare the graphics with something like Combat Mission, then you're gonna lose. But for what we're playing, they are more than adequate. I would much rather the resources be spent creating the detail that went into this game than on eye candy. Graphics are nice, but the game/sim is the thing. You guys have done a great job and I look forward to the continuing updates you are noted for, and I'm REALLY looking forward to WitP!

[Charles2222]

Mogami: While the screenshots might tell the graphics story well enough, to someone outside the genre to rate it higher than we believe it is just deceptive (BTW, still photos may work, but if the game were comparatively sluggish in graphics [motion you know] compared to general pc games, they could still end up miffed).

Put yourself in their shoes. Assume you know little or nothing about a genre, say soccer. Assume you get onto Gamespot and rave 10s for a game that is graphically very good for the genre (but still not honest 10s across the board), but isn't deserving of a 10 outside that genre. Also assume that you would expect the best opinion from software soccer fans as to whether it's all that good a game. Now if they all ballot stuff just to make their game look better than it is, in some ill-conceived notion of saving the genre, won't you be upset when you find it was a mediocre experience in your opinion. In fact, it might upset some people enough about the genre that instead of recruiting them for an extended period, they drop the enlistment in the genre to one game. This doesn't even begin to speak of the shame one should feel for deliberately being misleading.

[Charles2222]

Spooky:

Do you have any proof of what you are writing . Nobody has ever suggested to give UV an higher rating than deserved ... but only to get UV a "reader review" rating as good as the game is !

How about this?

I also rated it with 10's accross the board being and hope other's here will do the same to hopefully boost sales through readership reviews.

and this?

Great game. I just submitted my review and saw the rating go from 8.3 to 8.4 <grin> Some pay back for all the hard work Matrix and GG etc put in. Thanks.

Now maybe you don't see what I see and I'm mistaken, but then I should have a bias when there have been those who have tried to convince me to buy games I don't even want, so that the genre and Matrix can grow. Which I of course pointed out that buying what you don't want, only gets businesses to make more of what you don't want.

As you saw later in the thread, and no I wasn't blaming you, there are others who had the impression I had:

As far as stuffing the box is concerned, Spooky certainly did not suggest anything like that. However, it did sorta snowball in that direction further down the thread. When I gave my ratings I had to fight the impulse to give straight 10's in an effort to support Matrix.

[mogami]

Hi, I wish I really knew what you were referring to. Perhaps you could start a poll and we could find out
a. anyone ever bought a game sight unseen on a subject they had up to then had no interest in based on a review by persons they had never heard of.

b. Get their address and start selling vacuum cleaners, bowling ball polish and frequency grease.

I do not advocate dishonest marketing practices.
I don't see the need for the forum moral conduct police.
If fans want to give 10's where the more astute/objective only would give a 6 or 7 that's what makes it a "Fan" review.
I'm sure there will be people who rate it low when it is not what the flashy graphic stills on the box make it out to be.
It's not a pig-in a-poke. Wargamers are going to buy this game, based on many things. All of them are in the game for real
Gary Grigsby designed it. That alone is all it would require me to buy it. Persons who have never heard of GG will not buy it based on that, those that have it is case closed.
The Graphics are absolutely a 10. The finest map of any wargame to date. (IMO) DVD quality display animations but poor supply combat routines would be worse for me then these excellent renditions of the ships and aircraft and geographic area.
They are more then adequate they are pretty. I like the little puffs of smoke when the flak goes off.
The subject matter. Persons who don't know where Goodenough Island can be found will not run out to buy the game to discover it's where abouts. People who have heard of Guadalcanal and know it is not in Holland might pick up the box and read a little.
I think it is a Grognard game. It most likely will not attract the attention of non Grognard non History buff types no matter what a mag review rates it. I think you are over rating the importance of these ratings. They are a measure of how the war gaming community feels about the game not bait to catch unwary suckers with. I'll believ your concerns are sincere and finish by saying don't worry, no one is going to be tricked into buying this product.
The reviewer didn't even know his history he could have rated the game a 2 and not fooled a Grognard. He speaks the non grognard language. They'll listen to him. This is the review I would write for UV

Uncommon Valor-Campaign for the South Pacific
designed by Gary Grigsby 2by3 and Matrixgames
Windows95/98/Me/2000/XP
Direct x 8
Pentium II 400MHz CPU
64 MB RAM
16 bit sound card
8MB video card
8x CD ROM
800MB free Hard Disc space

www.matrixgames.com

[Ardle]

Originally posted by DougAngle
The review was quite fair, I thought. If you compare the graphics with something like Combat Mission, then you're gonna lose...

Nonsense. For starters, Combat Mission's graphics are 'cartoony' in the extreme, especially the laughable infantry (looks like they were modelled after South Park characters if you ask me ).

But the point is you shouldn't be comparing the graphics of UV with a tactical game like CM. UV is an operational game, for which 3D is not appropriate. Just compare UV's graphics to other operational games - say, Tiller's HPS stuff - and you'll understand how good they are.

[Charles2222]

Mogami:

I think you are over rating the importance of these ratings.

That may well be, but then I'm not the one sticking 9.5-10.0 ratings in the poll to jack it up to it's current 8.9 either.