Demo's

[gexmex]

I can't speak for other consumers, but I find demos to be quite useful. They've helped me make decisions on several occasions. On the other hand, I can see points y'all make about time taken to make them, expenses and whatnot. Even so, demos have been a good tool for me to make more educated decisions (and to enjoy games I can't afford until the holiday sale ). I suppose I'm in the minority, I just wanted to chime in.

[nicwb]

Fair enough Gexmex,

I guess my experience is different. With strategy games I find that I get more out of a video or a good AAR. For me it comes down to a time factor. I can watch a vid or read an AAR far quicker than bash through a demo in a strategy game.

The thing that sold me on Command Ops was the combination demo video/AAR/tutorial by the developer rather than demo game.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Fair enough Gexmex,

I guess my experience is different. With strategy games I find that I get more out of a video or a good AAR. For me it comes down to a time factor. I can watch a vid or read an AAR far quicker than bash through a demo in a strategy game.

The thing that sold me on Command Ops was the combination demo video/AAR/tutorial by the developer rather than demo game.

Hi nicwb

Actually what I was trying to get across until a few statements got twisted around was that a demo tells me real quick if the format of the game is to my liking or not, if it plays well that's fine too, for example I am looking for a good civil war game and I downloaded the Blue and the Gray and found out in the first couple of moves this game is not for me.

I downloaded Scourge of war demo and saw some really ridiculous movements play out on both sides, maybe some people like that kind of game. Little soldiers moving about looks nice until you see how they act in game play. I would agree that Combat Mission Normandy plays very well, but I am looking for a civil war game and as of yet have not found it.

Brother against brother looks decent but I like more of a strategic game than a pure tactical game. Forge of freedom looks very good but it is 7 years old [ancient for a computer game] with no reduction in price. Civil war 2 looks to me at least, a little like the Blue and the Gray and Civil war 1. I would buy FOF or more likely a remake of it if the price was right.

Bo

[gexmex]

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Fair enough Gexmex,

I guess my experience is different. With strategy games I find that I get more out of a video or a good AAR. For me it comes down to a time factor. I can watch a vid or read an AAR far quicker than bash through a demo in a strategy game.

The thing that sold me on Command Ops was the combination demo video/AAR/tutorial by the developer rather than demo game.

No question, I really use those AARs and walkthroughs as well. Screenshots are great in those. Plus, I can peruse those during breaks while at work (shhhh, don't tell!). Another really useful thing about demos though from my POV is as an indicator of how the game will perform on my machines. Sure, the system requirements provide that info to an extent, but I've had games that didn't agree with my laptop/pc even though I more than met the recommended specs. In that case I would have probably purchased the game and been kind of hosed. Other times, demos have issues that the full version don't have, so that can go both ways I suppose. So that's just another aspect I thought of.

Pros and cons to both approaches [8D]

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Fair enough Gexmex,

I guess my experience is different. With strategy games I find that I get more out of a video or a good AAR. For me it comes down to a time factor. I can watch a vid or read an AAR far quicker than bash through a demo in a strategy game.

The thing that sold me on Command Ops was the combination demo video/AAR/tutorial by the developer rather than demo game.

Hi nicwb

Actually what I was trying to get across until a few statements got twisted around was that a demo tells me real quick if the format of the game is to my liking or not, if it plays well that's fine too, for example I am looking for a good civil war game and I downloaded the Blue and the Gray and found out in the first couple of moves this game is not for me.

I downloaded Scourge of war demo and saw some really ridiculous movements play out on both sides, maybe some people like that kind of game. Little soldiers moving about looks nice until you see how they act in game play. I would agree that Combat Mission Normandy plays very well, but I am looking for a civil war game and as of yet have not found it.

Brother against brother looks decent but I like more of a strategic game than a pure tactical game. Forge of freedom looks very good but it is 7 years old [ancient for a computer game] with no reduction in price. Civil war 2 looks to me at least, a little like the Blue and the Gray and Civil war 1. I would buy FOF or more likely a remake of it if the price was right.

Bo

Does the scourge of war demo you have show version 1.61? The newest patch for scourge of war fixed most of the movement issues, you'll still see strange movements from time to time but that usually only results when you try and cram to many regiments into far too small a space.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Fair enough Gexmex,

I guess my experience is different. With strategy games I find that I get more out of a video or a good AAR. For me it comes down to a time factor. I can watch a vid or read an AAR far quicker than bash through a demo in a strategy game.

The thing that sold me on Command Ops was the combination demo video/AAR/tutorial by the developer rather than demo game.

Hi nicwb

Actually what I was trying to get across until a few statements got twisted around was that a demo tells me real quick if the format of the game is to my liking or not, if it plays well that's fine too, for example I am looking for a good civil war game and I downloaded the Blue and the Gray and found out in the first couple of moves this game is not for me.

I downloaded Scourge of war demo and saw some really ridiculous movements play out on both sides, maybe some people like that kind of game. Little soldiers moving about looks nice until you see how they act in game play. I would agree that Combat Mission Normandy plays very well, but I am looking for a civil war game and as of yet have not found it.

Brother against brother looks decent but I like more of a strategic game than a pure tactical game. Forge of freedom looks very good but it is 7 years old [ancient for a computer game] with no reduction in price. Civil war 2 looks to me at least, a little like the Blue and the Gray and Civil war 1. I would buy FOF or more likely a remake of it if the price was right.

Bo

Does the scourge of war demo you have show version 1.61? The newest patch for scourge of war fixed most of the movement issues, you'll still see strange movements from time to time but that usually only results when you try and cram to many regiments into far too small a space.

Hi flanyboy

I do not know the answer to that one, it probably is not in there which in a way shoots some holes in my demo theory. [;)] A new demo would not show the fixes for the game after being in a way play tested by the people purchasing the game. After a month or two any missed bugs or play enhancement that might benefit the game may very well never make it to a demo. I agree that is not a good thing.

I have been playing the demo The Blue and the Gray, the effort put into the game with statistics, references to all the units in the civil war for strengths, mobility, leaders is excellent but the game play leaves a lot to be desired at least for me. The demo shows me that.

I had a conversation [e-mail] some time ago about how hard is it to make a demo and also cost wise. No names but the game is Strategic Command which has a demo for every one of their series.
I was told [hopefully correctly] that making a demo was very easy, you take the first 8 or 9 moves of the actual game and put it on a demo for download and let the paying consumers judge if they like the game or not.

But I now realize the demo could be slightly misleading because the fixes or enhancements would not be in that demo, I guess it's a tough call. Again I say with common sense about demo's, how many games that are on our never play again shelf would have been purchased if we had seen a demo? Just an opinion.

Bo

[Aurelian]

Forge of Freedom was the first deal of the week.

[histgamer]

Bo if Scourge of War interests you check out the lets plays either on my YouTube channel or Matrix's. I haven't had a chance to check out Matrix's videos in their entreaties but honestly I think a video game-play probably gives you a better sense of the game than strictly a demo.

Also if you have any questions about SOW feel free to jump on over to their forums, the people there are incredibly helpful and willing to address any concerns you might have. They also prowl the Matrix thread for SOW so you can obviously check some stuff out there. Personally I recommend the scourge of war forums if only because there are also a few mods over there you might stumble upon, there is an online competitive campaign which many members frequent on their forum as well as a Napoleonic warfare mod you can get some info on over there as well.

Lastly, if you are wondering about anything feel free to shoot me an email or pm, I helped play-test Brandy Station so I can probably answer any questions you might have about the game, or I can get the you the answers you seek.

Just know that movement was a key upgrade in the most recent patch and it was significantly improved, though you will still see odd movements from time to time (mostly) if you try to cram to many men in too small a space.

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

ORIGINAL: bo



Hi nicwb

Actually what I was trying to get across until a few statements got twisted around was that a demo tells me real quick if the format of the game is to my liking or not, if it plays well that's fine too, for example I am looking for a good civil war game and I downloaded the Blue and the Gray and found out in the first couple of moves this game is not for me.

I downloaded Scourge of war demo and saw some really ridiculous movements play out on both sides, maybe some people like that kind of game. Little soldiers moving about looks nice until you see how they act in game play. I would agree that Combat Mission Normandy plays very well, but I am looking for a civil war game and as of yet have not found it.

Brother against brother looks decent but I like more of a strategic game than a pure tactical game. Forge of freedom looks very good but it is 7 years old [ancient for a computer game] with no reduction in price. Civil war 2 looks to me at least, a little like the Blue and the Gray and Civil war 1. I would buy FOF or more likely a remake of it if the price was right.

Bo

Does the scourge of war demo you have show version 1.61? The newest patch for scourge of war fixed most of the movement issues, you'll still see strange movements from time to time but that usually only results when you try and cram to many regiments into far too small a space.

Hi flanyboy

I do not know the answer to that one, it probably is not in there which in a way shoots some holes in my demo theory. [;)] A new demo would not show the fixes for the game after being in a way play tested by the people purchasing the game. After a month or two any missed bugs or play enhancement that might benefit the game may very well never make it to a demo. I agree that is not a good thing.

I have been playing the demo The Blue and the Gray, the effort put into the game with statistics, references to all the units in the civil war for strengths, mobility, leaders is excellent but the game play leaves a lot to be desired at least for me. The demo shows me that.

I had a conversation [e-mail] some time ago about how hard is it to make a demo and also cost wise. No names but the game is Strategic Command which has a demo for every one of their series.
I was told [hopefully correctly] that making a demo was very easy, you take the first 8 or 9 moves of the actual game and put it on a demo for download and let the paying consumers judge if they like the game or not.

But I now realize the demo could be slightly misleading because the fixes or enhancements would not be in that demo, I guess it's a tough call. Again I say with common sense about demo's, how many games that are on our never play again shelf would have been purchased if we had seen a demo? Just an opinion.

Bo

[histgamer]

Wrong thread

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Forge of Freedom was the first deal of the week.

Hi Aurelian

Do not understand the post, are you saying FoF was on sale this week?

Bo

[JeanAllTrekkie]

ORIGINAL: bo

I do not understand Matrix's reluctance to put out demo's for all of their games, it makes me a little or maybe a lot suspicious that they like to sell their products sight unseen in case there is a few bummers they sell to the unsuspecting war gamers. Not inferring they mean to do that.

I have bought a few of those clunkers believe me. Most of the games that Matrix sells are decent games and I have enjoyed them BUT!

An answer by someone in Matrix [forget who] that a demo does not really show what a game is truly like and that the games demo makers only put the best scenes into the demo, this is probably true.

But I and I am sure many others would like to know the gist of the game, for instance say a civil war game, is it Nato counters or is it figurines moving around a battlefield, what do you get from Matrix, maybe four pictures that are very hard to discern what is going on.

Over at Battlefront every game has a demo, it gives you a feel for the game if not the nitty gritty of the game itself, even though every demo I have ever downloaded and then bought the game seemed pretty accurate to me.

I like Matrix in general and I am a beta tester for Matrix's World In Flames which is shaping into a phenomenal game, of course I have a slight prejudice towards the game [;)]

I like Matrix in general and I do not feel I am dissing them, but someone in authority at Matrix should get on the stick and insist that all games to be sold on their site must have a demo. Like to hear from someone at Matrix or forum posters for or against my feelings.

Bo

Bill Bowen

Beta Tester for Matrix World in Flames
bowenw1@verizon.net

I don't even download demos anymore really. My source of information comes from Youtube gameplay videos. If I like what I see then I buy it

[Neilster]

I really recommend the Command Ops:Battles for the Bulge demo. It comes with excellent video tutorials that make getting into the demo easy and the nature of the system means that with only a few commands you can control your entire force. Also, the game has the best AI in wargaming.

Cheers, Neilster

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I really recommend the Command Ops:Battles for the Bulge demo. It comes with excellent video tutorials that make getting into the demo easy and the nature of the system means that with only a few commands you can control your entire force. Also, the game has the best AI in wargaming.

Cheers, Neilster

Just downloaded the demo of Command Ops Battle of the Bulge and it looks very good, that's why we need more demo's [:D]. I like your world map over at MWIF and I do hope Steve puts it into the game as an option or the main global map. Well done!

Cheers, Bo

[Neilster]

I like your world map over at MWIF and I do hope Steve puts it into the game as an option or the main global map

Thanks, but it's not going to happen for the reasons I'll elaborate below.

What I did was take the 2D MWiF (Matrix World in Flames) global maps, modified them by adding Arctic and Antarctic regions and then used graphical trickery to convert these into spherical 3D objects. I then captured 2D snapshots of these objects from various positions. Although theoretically something similar could be done in the game, it would actually be easier to define an actual spheroidal global map.

Many moons ago I argued that if MWiF was going to unify all the WiF maps into a single global one, we should use the power of computing to make it a spheroid. WiF is based on the hex so that has to remain but the making of the map as close to the actual shape of the earth would have multiple advantages. You would remove the massive distortion near the poles of a Mercator projection and greatly facilitate a Patton in Flames expansion with bombers over the poles etc. I made an analogy with Object Oriented Programming, which seems more difficult at first but pays huge dividends when modelling the real world or when changes or expansions are required.

Anyway, I don't think people really read my posts or were so wedded to the paper maps of WiF that they couldn't comprehend what I was on about. People thought I wanted to get rid of hexes, thought hexes should be replaced with triangles, proposed all sorts of impractical ideas and generally didn't get it that with about 70,000 hexes you can construct a 3D object that is very spherical. My new avatar was constructed from the 2D MWiF global map and is basically a miniature version of my idea.

At first I investigated polyhedra constructed from 70,000 or so hexes but then I realised that such a mathematically perfect object is not required. Each hex is surrounded by a thin black border. By microscopically manipulating the thickness of this and by a tiny adjustment to the hex size to compensate, you can construct a 3D object of the correct dimensions that consists of a surface of MWiF hexes. Note: The Earth is an oblate spheroid but the equator is less than one MWiF hex longer than the circumference around the poles. You could factor that in if you want.

I thought about how the relevant section of this spheroidal global map could be displayed as a 2D "tactical" map but eventually realised that this wouldn't be necessary. All you need is the one map that you spin around in every direction and zoom in and out of to view and manipulate units. When you zoom in enough, the spheroidal MWiF world will look very flat anyway.

Once such a hexy MWiF world is defined, a pretty rudimentary 3D engine is enough to display it. I've written such an engine as part of a university computer graphics course. Essentially you need a 3D object, virtual lighting and a position from which the object is being viewed. The computer does all the nasty matrix manipulation to make it all work.

Steve, who is handling the MWiF development, obviously decided that he had enough on his plate without this leap into the third dimension when I suggested it years ago. He seems to have more of an AI background and unless you've been exposed to 3D graphics programming it seems a bit like black magic. In hindsight, given the gestation period of MWiF, I think a spheroidal map and 3D engine could have been easily constructed by someone as a collaborative project without affecting its development but he's the boss and so, at least for MWiF 1 and probably 2 it won't be happening.

Cheers, Neilster

[Mobeer]

I find demos really useful, but more often than not they persuade me not to buy a game I was previously unsure about.

From a publisher's perspective, they would be better off without a demo more often than with a demo.

[RockKahn]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

I find demos really useful, but more often than not they persuade me not to buy a game I was previously unsure about.

Same here. Especially the demos that don't allow a game save. I have to learn enough of how to play the game in one sitting to decide on whether to buy it. This normally ends in frustration and a no sale.

There should be better ways to cripple games for demo releases. The player needs to finish the demo wanting more, not thinking it'll be more of a hassle learning the game than he wants to deal with.

Generally, I find reading AARs and reviews, watching LP videos, and reading forum chatter about the game much more useful in making a buying decision than playing a demo. Of course, a good demo never hurts either, when available. Some games I don't even bother with playing the demo, though, if reviews, forum chatter, etc. look good.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

I find demos really useful, but more often than not they persuade me not to buy a game I was previously unsure about.

From a publisher's perspective, they would be better off without a demo more often than with a demo.

I agree with you 100% on both statements, the demo tells you quickly if you like the looks of the game, not whether it plays well or not IMO. I am not saying "plays well" is not important I am trying to say is about the feel of the game, like do I like Nato symbols? Do I like hex's? Do I like miniature soldiers running around like in Scourge of War or Combat Mission Normandy, do I like period games like the Civil War or the Napoleon era.

The demo will give me most of that information above I need to make an educated guess as to whether I will like the game or not.

Bo

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

I find demos really useful, but more often than not they persuade me not to buy a game I was previously unsure about.

From a publisher's perspective, they would be better off without a demo more often than with a demo.

I agree with you 100% on both statements, the demo tells you quickly if you like the looks of the game, not whether it plays well or not IMO. I am not saying "plays well" is not important I am trying to say is about the feel of the game, like do I like Nato symbols? Do I like hex's? Do I like miniature soldiers running around like in Scourge of War or Combat Mission Normandy, do I like period games like the Civil War or the Napoleon era.

The demo will give me most of that information above I need to make an educated guess as to whether I will like the game or not.

Bo

+1 I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why not to have one.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

I find demos really useful, but more often than not they persuade me not to buy a game I was previously unsure about.

Same here. Especially the demos that don't allow a game save. I have to learn enough of how to play the game in one sitting to decide on whether to buy it. This normally ends in frustration and a no sale.

There should be better ways to cripple games for demo releases. The player needs to finish the demo wanting more, not thinking it'll be more of a hassle learning the game than he wants to deal with.

Generally, I find reading AARs and reviews, watching LP videos, and reading forum chatter about the game much more useful in making a buying decision than playing a demo. Of course, a good demo never hurts either, when available. Some games I don't even bother with playing the demo, though, if reviews, forum chatter, etc. look good.

Well said, I believe I just read that Civil War2 by AGEOD will have a demo, I have the demo for Civil war 1 the Blue and the Gray and this game is not for me because of the very confusing battle scenes. If Civil War 2 is anything like the first one outside of improved graphics and maybe a better interface there is no way I would want to put out more hard earned money for a system I do not enjoy.

I hope it is a big seller for AGEOD and Matrix, I mean that but it is not for me. AAr's from players and youtube films are very good indicators of how good a game is, and maybe even better than a demo. But someone had to buy that game sight unseen to do the AAR [;)]

Your right, a demo without game save makes you play the game out in one night and really should have you wanting more [buying the game] after you have finished with the demo.

I believe with all my heart and soul that it does not behoove companies to put out a demo. Just an opinion.

Bo

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

+1 I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why not to have one.

Then it must be asked what is your definition of "legitimate"? Not liking or understanding the reasons does not make them not legitimate.