Poor old game designers.....

msvknight · Post by **msvknight** » Fri May 31, 2002 2:15 am

I've just spent an hour looking at the bugs/complaints section of the forum and I'm thinking what a hell of a hard life it must be to be a game designer. You put a year or more of your life into designing a game and then within a week of release you have people hacking into it and saying how terrible it is. I feel really sorry for them.

Don't get me wrong. Reporting of bugs is important and needs to be addressed, but the people who are complaining that the game isn't Carriers at War are just being frivolous. It seems to me we got just what was advertised. Pacific War with daily turns and more realistic movement. Supreme Commanders not task force commanders. I'm sure Yamamoto meant for Nagumo to mix his raid poriorities up instead of allocating two carriers exclusively for anti-shipping duties. Three carriers disabled in half an hour. Way to go Chiuchi! Carriers at War made you the Carrier commander and incidentally had one of the worst surface combat routines I have seen.

Junior commanders mucking up is part of life. Live with it!

This game delivers on all levels. Tweaking patches will continue to enhance what is already a great game, but it is already a classic of its type. You don't buy a tennis racket and complain you can't play golf with it.

von Murrin · Post by **von Murrin** » Fri May 31, 2002 2:45 am

Heh, good point.

I think the problem is that this is the first PTO game to see the light of day in years. That being the case, people's expectations were/are incredibly high, and everyone (including me) is trying to mash this particular square peg into their round holes (eh, I know it sounds really bad, but it makes my point.

). If CAW was my idea of a perfect PTO game, I'd be a little disappointed, too. Until I got used to the game that is.

In short, everyone was starved, and we all wanted our perfect game. I know I speak for many here when I say that I was initially rather frustrated, but after giving it some time, UV has become a game I will likely play for the next 5-10 years.

msvknight · Post by **msvknight** » Fri May 31, 2002 2:54 am

I understand what you mean. Although I raved about the CAW people, it was the people who claimed to have been ripped of by a pay for beta test scam who really stuck in my craw. This game is not bug free - surprise suprise, but it is very playable and that is far more than I have been able to say before.

I paid about $30.00 Aust more for this game than I ever have for a game, and I am completely satisfied. Why? Because I am entirely confident that this game will be completely supported and we KNOW that there will be patches. There are not too many gaming companies that you can safely say that about.

I just think that the poor game designers who have to read the bug threads to provide that support must get disheartened by some of the people there who are not reporting bugs, but having a general whinge because they don't like it. That's not a design flaw. That's a preference flaw.

I thought they needed some different support other than the skewed "totally loved it unconditionally" and the "totally hated it unconditionally" types of support. I would hate to think WITP didn't come out because one of the designers spat the dummy due to people venting their spleen on a forum site.

von Murrin · Post by **von Murrin** » Fri May 31, 2002 3:02 am

Ahhh...

In that case, well said.

Rob Roberson · Post by **Rob Roberson** » Fri May 31, 2002 5:22 am

This is easily the finest Pacific war simulation I have ever played. And I have played them all. (I'm old). I think a lot of the complaints are coming from people who are still stuck in the first turn omygod overwhelmed syndrome. The interface takes a bit getting use to. I now go through turns in a matter of minutes (the first time I played it took me an hour a turn). Things we dont understand we tend to bash...just my opinion.

Rob

Paul Dyer · Post by **Paul Dyer** » Fri May 31, 2002 5:55 am

Well said, Mr Knight. Be glad everyone that you don't have to pay for this in NZ$ (it will cost me about $145 all up - ouch), but I'll do it cheerfully for the above reasons.

Its easy to zero in on minor glitches. Fair enough, these need to be fixed, but remember how much the early versions of PACWAR got improved. Both Grigsby and Matrix give us every reason to expect that follow up will be top notch.

Instead of moaning, think for a momemt about the vision and energy needed to create the concept and get it this far. My spin is that there are an incredible number of factors ay play - the balance of sea vs air vs land power, subs etc. I'd say getting these right, in a game that is both historically accurate and fun to play, is a work of near genius. If the most we can complain about is that mines seem a little too potent of that some function could be done with a few less clicks then I reckon the thing is a success.

In terms of development, there is an obvious tradeoff between getting every single parameter just right and the complexity and challenge of the game. From where I sit the outcome looks darn good. I also wonder if it is actually possible to totally fine tune a game without exposing it to the ruthless scrutiny of the gaming community. Exclusively in house testing would either take prohibitively long or else limit us to pretty basic games. Those who want games of this calibre perfect from day 0ne are probably expecting the unachievable. Good luck in your quest for a crime free world or perpetual motion.

I remember somewhere that PACWAR had around 80,000 lines of code. God only knows (and perhaps Grigsby

) how many UV has.

msvknight · Post by **msvknight** » Fri May 31, 2002 7:13 am

Hear Hear

coach3play4 · Post by **coach3play4** » Fri May 31, 2002 8:30 am

A chime in here - in defense of Matrix. It seems to me that almost all the minor complaints I've had so far are in fact answered in the manual, and i just didnt see it. For example, i couln not get CV's to do anything - and thought something was wrong - until someone pointed out chapter and verse in the manual - and sure enough it works. Same for a compalint about antisub activity.

I still would like one scenario added - an AI hard wired (for major moves) historical re-creation. I realize this request is for a non-game - but it would be a useful addition. Of course I'm the type of player who used to take CAW and replay it over and over again at historical moves to make a case that the US would have lost at Midway about 75% of the time.

stubby331 · Post by **stubby331** » Fri May 31, 2002 9:03 am

Yup, seems a hell of a lot of answers to peoples questions & "bug" reports are in the manual, if people read it.

I just hope that Matrix dont rush into any patches and fool around too much with the mix. (apart from the real bugs of course).

brisd · Post by **brisd** » Fri May 31, 2002 8:51 pm

Mr. Knight - great thread, thanks for putting in words my thoughts after reading the dozen threads saying "but I want to turn the carrier into the wind and lead the attack myself!":(

Basement Command · Post by **Basement Command** » Fri May 31, 2002 8:51 pm

Yes, This is the game that was advertised, it runs well on my system, and is what I thought I was buying, which can be stated as either... an Operational level PTO game, or Pac War with a cleaner interface, reflecting the advances in technology since that classic was released. Ya'll did good 2by3/Matrix.

The Gnome · Post by **The Gnome** » Fri May 31, 2002 10:24 pm

Hear Hear! As a programmer I sympathize!

kaleun · Post by **kaleun** » Fri May 31, 2002 10:40 pm

Yes this is the game I was expecting. The manual is thick and will take time to learn. The AI might not be that clever, that's what PBEM is for. Based on this game,
Can I preorder WPAC?
Gold star to matrix for this.
K

Von_Frag · Post by **Von_Frag** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 8:09 am

While I think alot of us have complained about some aspect of the game at one point or another, as has already been said, it is the finest wargame to come out in sometime. I quit buying games because no one was producing wargames like this. I am totally addicted and play every chance I get ( you should see my yard

). Everytime my wife hears explicitives coming from the computer room she says "did you get blown up again?" with as much sympathy as she can muster.

Thanks Matrix, don't let our "suggestions" and critisizm's effect your fine work.

Von Frag

AlvinS · Post by **AlvinS** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 8:49 am

I've stopped shopping for Computer Wargames off the shelf a long time ago. Nothing out there could come close to UV, or anything else that I have bought from matrix.

The manual with this game is good, but I have learned more from this forum than the manual could possibly cover. Its hard to match that anywhere else.

Great Job Matrix and 2by3! I look forward to WITP:)

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:01 am

I have to say that I am still learning things about the game and I am on turn 153 of a very hard fought PBEM game. You can not appreciate the finer points of the game until you spend a lot of time playing it.

Rick

Mark Ezra · Post by **Mark Ezra** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 6:07 pm

I'm not a big fan of operational games. Although a seasoned wargamer I just never seem to hang in there long enough to get the hang of the big Ops. In fact I passed the pre order discount! But I've got to PBEM buddies (SPWAW/CM) that wanted to try this out. Now all I can say is...WOW...what a fine Game Grigsby and Matrix have put together. It's simple to learn the basics but one must really study the manual to learn the true depth of the game. UV is a grog's dream and an action Junkie's utopia. I couldn't be more pleased. Well back to my coffee and the manual. Next week I start two PBEMs...

Poor old game designers.....

Poor old game designers.....

I have to be honest

hear hear

5 stars

Thank You Matrix