Fun game but...

[BigJoe417]

As much as I find this game a fun experience, for $50 it really should be more than a glorified computerized board game. Matrix really should have included some battle scene animations, cut scenes, maybe even some video of actual ww2 battles? Most games today have terrific graphics but no attention paid to game play. This seems to be the opposite.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by BigJoe417
Most games today have terrific graphics but no attention paid to game play. This seems to be the opposite.

A man who knows how to answer his own question.

[[cut]] for $50 it really should be more than a glorified computerized board game. Matrix really should have included some battle scene animations, cut scenes, maybe even some video of actual ww2 battles? [[cut]]

Why? This is no "glorified computerized board game." It is a watershed event in computer gaming. The graphics are functional, not "eye candy." I doubt that one in a hundred UV gamers wants to sit and watch goofy videos. This is strategy, my friend, not the mall arcade.

[BigJoe417]

I think you can easily have both. Stratedgy and Eye Candy.
Good game play involves the mind and the emotions. The graphics in this game look like an afterthought. This could have really been a great game with some more attention paid to the visual aspects of it. It sounds like your saying that strategy is all important so might as well make the game a series of text messages and have no graphics? Oh well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

[XPav]

Cut scenes?
Video footage?

Would it really make you happier to have a bunch of things you'll skip through after the first time on the CD? Can't you go watch the history channel instead? There you can sit in the nice comfy chair anyway.

[BigJoe417]

Ok so thats a good point but with all the megs this program takes up they could add a variety of different battle animations to change things up. The animated battle feature can be an option one can switch on or off just as it is now. I'm just saying they can do a lot better than what they have now. I realize this is not important to you and thats fine. I'm just saying what would make it a better game for me. Thanks for your input on this.

All the best,
Joe

[Feinder]

I understand what you're saying Joe, and are intending to be constructive rather than critical.

Yes, I think animations would be "interesting", but it -IS- a valid question to ask if would you really watch them, no matther how good they are, after the 10th battle? Being fair, at BEST they would have an animation per class or type of plane. So in the end, you the same thing you've already got, except in 3d mpeg format instead of 2d images. It really think it just would take a day or two longer to turn them off .

That being said, I actually watch the animations for the INFO, and the little pictures make it less painful. And it DOES add suspense when you see Lex sitting there "4 Vals" keep popping up over her. I submit, THAT is why they gave us the pictures. But reading exactly what type of bomb hit (big difference between a 60kg and 250kg), and what criticals is why I watch the animations. I doesn't really matter to me that pics don't move much, because they're only there to "soften" the fact that I'm trying read the ordinance type and critical messages.

As a side note, a big reason (litterally) this game takes up so much space is that most of the images are BMP files. Frankly, I don't know why Matrix didn't use JPGs (because JPGs are ALOT easier on space). The pics aren't THAT detailed (altho they are quite nice, and I appreciate that A6M2 looks different than an A6M3). I don't know why they used BMPs, but it's their game, and they can do anything they want (*grin*).

-F-

[SoulBlazer]

Not to mention you can also go to Spooky's website and get some nice add-ons to enhance the graphics and sounds, such as a actuall satalite image map of the region, new 3D pictures of planes and ships, more realistic icons to use for the bases, and new combat sounds, such as a siren.

[BigJoe417]

Can you post the url to spookys site please?

Those are good points. Actually, when I first posted this I had been playing the game right out of the box without updating it. After I did update it the graphics on the battles were greatly improved as well as most everything else. Myself, I just like a good story. Thats what makes games fun to me. So the more background matterial I get on pilots, leaders and historical background the more fun it is "to me".

Heres a question for you;

I landed no less than 5 1000 lb'rs on the Shoho and at least 3 were followed by below deck explosions. One in the ammo mag and one in the fuel area. It sailed away. It didnt sink???

If it did sink as it sailed out of view would the game let me know?

Also, I keep seeing these messages.. "new ships in thearter" but I cant see any in my ports? And I went to the theatre and all they had was popcorn and a movie... sorry bad joke.
So where are these new ships?

thanks,
Joe

[mogami]

Hi, And you think 50 bucks is a lot of money for a glorified board game? I remember paying 50 bucks for a board game 20 years ago. (I think the closest game to UV was SPI's "War in the Pacific" and I think that board game cost 80 bucks)

[Sonny]

BigJoe, how many times have you watched the newsreel movies clips at the startup?

I think they are great - especially as an introduction to the game (it would have been even more interesting if I had not already read the forum and looked at the screen shots). But as I usually do, after the second or third time I turn them off.

I like atmosphere too but think the graphics are very nice for the game - not over done or too flashy or waste my time with unnecessary stuff.

[Spooky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigJoe417
Can you post the url to spookys site please?


Just check my sig

[Basement Command]

I never watch the animations. Time to move on to decision making and issuing orders. And in reference to another thread.... It would be nice to be able to turn off the pilot action messages (pilot killed, pilot gets 4th kill etc...) They take quite a while to run.

[Grotius]

My favorite graphics in UV are the animations (and sounds) of ships under way. I like to peek at my CVs and listen to the satisfying rumbling sound. In general, I think Matrix has done a very nice job with the graphics in UV.

That said, I wouldn't object to a little more eye candy attached to "big events" in WiTP. E.g., a brief newsreel if the IJN or USN takes a particularly important base, or if a CV sinks, or an Admiral dies, or what have you. As long it occurs rarely and doesn't last long, a little vintage in-game footage would be welcome. (If it comes up every turn, I'll turn it off like everyone else.) Also, a little extra eye-candy might have the side benefit of selling more games, which benefits not just Matrix but all of us who love their games.

[Feinder]

I -love- the news reels at the beginning! Watch them all the time (sorry, but the sparkling "M" and 2-by-3 hex aren't quite as inspiring *grin*).

I might have to download some of those new files for the ships, I'm curious now...

...

And somebody said something abotu little Shoho (ain't she cute, almost hate to sink her) and Fog of War...

10-1, she's dead.

It -usually- doesn't take much to put her under (usually 3 or 4 will kill her if she hasn't got anywhere to beach herself on nearby), but sometimes it does take 5 - 8 1000 lbers to put her down. And then if she's near PM, and getting hit by the 250 lbers and by your divebombers (with 1000 lbers), that just confuses things.

But if your SBDs hit her 5 times, she's probably a gonner. But yes, with FoW on, it sometimes takes up to 30 days for a ship that is sunk to appear on your intel screens (and that's after the addtional 4 days it took her to die of her wounds).

-F-

[Traianus]

50 bucks is not a bad price. I payed about 60 for Carriers at War when it came out. And if you want a boardgame called The Great War 14-18, or something like that, you are looking at $120. For a game that has no AI.....

Given a choice, I would rather have the effort that is put into eye candy diverted to making the game deeper.

As for messages, play Bombing the Reich with message level three and all the eye candy on. The game will dragggggg. Not pretty in a 700 turn game.

[USSMaine]

Seems to me in Talonsoft's Battle of Britain game they had little clips of planes and bombing and all, but my understand was that after a few turns almost everybody turned them off. They were cool but I turned them off too - slowed down the action and even though there was a pretty good variety of clips it just got old after awhile.

[VictorH]

Real Wargamers don't need Eye-Candy!!!

[Pawlock]

While I certainly dont think this is a big issue, Eye Candy is nice and wether we like to admit it or not it does go aways to selling a game.

Lets face it, how many here have spent the time to download some of the Mod's for the graphics? I bet most who have been playing a while have some or other of them.

I'll the first to admit mind, I turn the animations off when Im getting a pasting, but I do find something satisfying when Im on the other end dishing out the dirt by watching the animations.

Anyway, No biggy, to each his own and it is nice to have the choice if so desired.

[pasternakski]

This is where computer wargaming went so far wrong in the early 90s. The games Grigsby and Koger and others did for SSI in the early days were directly focused on being historical simulations. Within the limitations of the technology of the times, information was presented clearly and crisply without distractions. The game mechanics were designed around giving the player (or players) an opportunity to change (or model) the historical battle, campaign, or war that was being simulated.

Sales were not good. Graphics and other visual enhancements became de rigeuer. Computer wargame design began to drift toward real-time non-simulations that were designed to appeal to those who preferred pretty to practical. Of course, these games could not compete with the emerging "plug it into your TV and whack away at your joystick" mania (Nintendo, Sony, et al.). The kids took over. Us old timers sat with our few, flawed, low-tech late 80s and early 90s wargames and grumbled away.

Finally, the past has begun to re-emerge, Phoenix-like. The core of this renaissance is Matrix/2by3. Those old games we few loved are being replaced with new, competent designs that have the same focus - on the game, not on the glitter.

I don't want to see this hobby make the same mistake again. There are enough of us who understand what UV is, where it came from, and its value to keep the flame burning by spending the dough necessary to sustain the companies who produce the games. Let's do it right this time. Please don't cave in to crass commercialism and chasing consumer audiences that demand games designed to be something other than what they are. For an example of a great product gone far wrong due to this kind of influence, just trace the history of Sid Meier's Civilization from its origin as a nifty, addictive little gem to the various messes it has become in its latest incarnations (and be sure to note the dire financial straits of Firaxis, its latest b*stardizer).

Of course, visual presentation is important. The emphasis, however, should be on utility, not appearances. UV, in my opinion, is an example of doing it mostly right (although, to be honest, there are some visual features that I just abhor - the primary example is the pilot kills thing, which does absolutely nothing for me at all).

Furthermore, it's just not as easy as "hey, we've got a game here, let's layer on some cool visuals." The entire fabric of a turn-based game is altered when it has to pause for a movie of a tank rumbling across the screen, or a Zero out-turning a P-39 to get on its tail, or ...

Another thing. WITP will end up taking two years or more in development. Matrix/2by3 have limited resources to assign and a limited amount of time to play around with graphics. I am sure that they will, as happened in UV, mate their approach to visual presentation to the game engine design process. I am confident that what will emerge is another tremendous success like UV in which what you see on the screen is pleasing to the eye, utilitarian, conducive to ease of game play, and not overdone.

Gimme the game. Save the cuteness.

[Mush Morton]

Originally posted by pasternakski
This is where computer wargaming went so far wrong in the early 90s. The games Grigsby and Koger and others did for SSI in the early days were directly focused on being historical simulations. Within the limitations of the technology of the times, information was presented clearly and crisply without distractions. The game mechanics were designed around giving the player (or players) an opportunity to change (or model) the historical battle, campaign, or war that was being simulated.

Sales were not good. Graphics and other visual enhancements became de rigeuer. Computer wargame design began to drift toward real-time non-simulations that were designed to appeal to those who preferred pretty to practical. Of course, these games could not compete with the emerging "plug it into your TV and whack away at your joystick" mania (Nintendo, Sony, et al.). The kids took over. Us old timers sat with our few, flawed, low-tech late 80s and early 90s wargames and grumbled away.

Finally, the past has begun to re-emerge, Phoenix-like. The core of this renaissance is Matrix/2by3. Those old games we few loved are being replaced with new, competent designs that have the same focus - on the game, not on the glitter.

I don't want to see this hobby make the same mistake again. There are enough of us who understand what UV is, where it came from, and its value to keep the flame burning by spending the dough necessary to sustain the companies who produce the games. Let's do it right this time. Please don't cave in to crass commercialism and chasing consumer audiences that demand games designed to be something other than what they are. For an example of a great product gone far wrong due to this kind of influence, just trace the history of Sid Meier's Civilization from its origin as a nifty, addictive little gem to the various messes it has become in its latest incarnations (and be sure to note the dire financial straits of Firaxis, its latest b*stardizer).

Of course, visual presentation is important. The emphasis, however, should be on utility, not appearances. UV, in my opinion, is an example of doing it mostly right (although, to be honest, there are some visual features that I just abhor - the primary example is the pilot kills thing, which does absolutely nothing for me at all).

Furthermore, it's just not as easy as "hey, we've got a game here, let's layer on some cool visuals." The entire fabric of a turn-based game is altered when it has to pause for a movie of a tank rumbling across the screen, or a Zero out-turning a P-39 to get on its tail, or ...

Another thing. WITP will end up taking two years or more in development. Matrix/2by3 have limited resources to assign and a limited amount of time to play around with graphics. I am sure that they will, as happened in UV, mate their approach to visual presentation to the game engine design process. I am confident that what will emerge is another tremendous success like UV in which what you see on the screen is pleasing to the eye, utilitarian, conducive to ease of game play, and not overdone.

Gimme the game. Save the cuteness.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!