Warspite1ORIGINAL: Froonp
I don't think it is a good idea to release an unfinished game, or even only a short scenario. I even think it is the worst of the worst ideas.
Some people won't know it is a non finished game, and this will ruin its reputation for when it is really finished.
I hope Matrix never agrees to do that.
MWiF should stay unpublished until it is finished.
I`m surprised by some of these responses - although as an "outsider looking in" maybe I am missing something and the game is further ahead in its schedule than I believe to be the case.
Previous queries and responses from Steve have confirmed that this idea would be to sell a clearly defined Gamma test game - not the finished product - and so unlike EIA for example, no one could buy the product without that caveat. It should be clear to a buyer that they purchase at their risk but that in return for continued feedback on errors/problems, Matrix will support via continuous patches and updates.
Learning from the EIA I think there are three key things that need to be addressed (by the way, none of the points below is designed in any way to disparage the efforts of Steve or the playtesters to date but rightly or wrongly, reflect my thoughts - and doubts - on the ability to get this game out in 2009, if the route decided upon is to continue on the current course). The game requires:
1. A stable, user friendly basic system where each phase does what it is supposed to do e.g. no units "disappearing" and other such bugs that make the game unplayable.
2. An at least sensible AI that presents something of a challenge - although in the first instance will be little more than a tool for learning to play the game.
3. An ability to play by Internet, PBEM or whatever.
For such a complex game, No.1 alone is frightening in its complexity and needs to be thoroughly playtested to ensure robustness - this cannot happen without serious hours being devoted to playtesting the millions of possibilities in unit set up, battles and the political events. Read the EIA forum if you doubt what can go wrong.
For the second point to be achievable, this too will take huge effort once No.1 is working properly and in my view will take the input of experienced players to identify what can/should be done given the myriad of possibilities that exist. Peter has done sterling work on the country set ups but as the old military maxim states "no plan survives contact with the enemy" and ensuring that the AI gives a decent account of itself through a whole game surely can only be developed over time?
The third point I know less about but is dependent anyway on no.1.
As I said in previous posts, I am a huge supporter of this game and Steve`s efforts to bring the final product to fruition. I hope the above is treated as simply my 2 cents based on thoughts and observations - not as some huge downer on what Matrix, Steve and the betatesters are striving to achieve. I am a betatester myself and have perhaps not devoted the time I originally hoped to the job a) because of work and family commitments and b) the time taken up with the unit write ups (rest assured you will know all you ever wanted on the RN and Commonwealth land units during WWII!!) - which are taking up much of my spare time at present - rather than de-bugging the game.
Whatever the chosen path - I will still support Steve and Matrix in getting this fine game finished.
