Maybe Im too harsh?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmm heresay....heresy.

Missed that one it appears.

Then again, it might not matter to some other

[von Murrin]

This whole "Paradox smackdown" is just bizarre. Here's an interesting perspective for y'all.

Paradox is accused of, among other things: Poor or non-existent testing. Rushed production. Awkward, buggy coding and poor UI. Poor attendance to history and the modeling of such. Poor AI. Lack of desire to fix products. Rushed patching and untested tweaks that unbalance the game or render it unplayable. There's a whole slew of other things, but those are the biggies.

UV brought complaints to Matrix of: Poor testing. Poor modeling of history. Awkward, buggy coding and poor UI. Poor AI. Rushed patching and untested tweaks that unbalance the game or render it unplayable. Lack of desire to fix problems.

Matrix was NOT accused of rushing production, but then they're not Strategy Worst.

Oh, and one other similarity; both companies have continually patched their products to add new features and fix minor bugs well past the point at which said games could be considered playable.

Standard conclusion:
Niche gamers are really, REALLY picky. Nay! Impossible to satisfy.

My additional conclusions:
1. Publishers cheat consumers, and so consumers abuse developers and the few good publishers. If the average price of a movie ticket is $8, then it's rediculous to assume you're entitled to more than 10-20 hours of entertainment from a game. People need to realize the industry as a whole gives them precisely what they pay for, and abusing the good guys, demanding the impossible, and dismissing a particular game's inherent value is counter-productive. They can and will give up to find something more rewarding as well as lucrative.
2. The game industry is the new welfare state. Consumers are entitled to entertainment when and how they want it and for as little as they feel they should pay.

Paradox has deadlines and limited funding. My presumption is they, in an effort to make games their dedicated player base want, hit a brick wall. Complexity reached a point they could not achieve given their earnings and SF's inane and insane publishing requirements, so they couldn't properly finish them. A classic dilemma, really; go broke or alienate your dedicated players.

Cut PE some slack.

[Tactics]

You lost me when you compared Paradox to Matrix.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I have heard the UV comments, and won't out of hand deny them. Because I expect all game producers to stand on their own two feet.

But while I won't leap in and say "not so" where UV is concerned, I will say this much. It didn't attempt to simulate a war in rediculous terms under rediculous conditions in such a flagrantly rediculous environment as to completely turf all credibility.

Could Brazil have attacked and successfully defeated Germany in WW2? Sorry you lost me there just asking such a moronic question. Only a science fiction writer would give a damn.
Would I a routine wargamer want to play it in real time with no option to tell the stupid AI to get lost, not one iota. HoI was garbage the second it exited its creators mind.
But some people like garbage eh. One man's junk is another man's treasure. But sorry, not everyone wants to invest in junk and portray it as valuable resources.

I have said it elsewhere, and I can say it here, I don't know of a single wargame design, that has ever been created, and not altered after day one. There is always something to improve.
Board games, computer games, doesn't matter. Both Squad leader and Third Reich, my most played to death games didn't remain as they were originally made. Some say it was a bad choice to improve them.
Steel Panthers did not remain Steel Panthers. I know some that will only play the original version eh.

Big difference between an improved game and a fixed game though, is a fixed game originally would not even run after you bought it out of the box.

UV ran out of the box, but it was not perfect. HoI in most cases was inert and just plain worthless.
They don't make for perfect comparisons.

Now to compare companies, one has a bad reputation, the other doesn't. And I don't care if you can get the order correct.

[DerekP]

You know, I thought this thread was about the challenges and issues facing the computer based wargames industry in general.

Apparently its a slag off HoI thread again.[>:]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well threads wander, its inevitable Derek, but if you read the first post, which is technically where the topic started, it most certainly does not appear to be

"about the challenges and issues facing the computer based wargames industry in general."

But is entirely about the people that made HoI and Vicky and how they have done a fine job of dropping the ball as far as making historically accurate super detailed software.

[DerekP]

Well if slagging other people efforts floats your boat then be my guest. Guess I'll return to the Paradox boards then.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

It doesn't float my boat to be mean just for the laughs Derek, I require a reason to be unhappy with someone.

If you don't like that I don't like a game, and if you don't like my reasons, can't help you there.

I am not saying "go to your Paradox boards" though.

I have nothing against you personally. But then you didn't make HoI did you?

[Frank W.]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

It doesn't float my boat to be mean just for the laughs Derek, I require a reason to be unhappy with someone.

If you don't like that I don't like a game, and if you don't like my reasons, can't help you there.

I am not saying "go to your Paradox boards" though.

I have nothing against you personally. But then you didn't make HoI did you?

Les, the last man on earth should now know
that you don´t like HoI and Paradox.

Get over it , man ![;)]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well actually Frank, I never bought it, so it has not really been something I have had to recover from

I do do feel sorry for those that did though

Kinda also feel sorry for those that have it and are trying to defend it. Not a task I would want to be burdened with hehe.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Tactics

You lost me when you compared Paradox to Matrix.

How so?

My point revolves entirely around the fact that both companies have put out games far superior to their competition and got hammered for minor issues. Both are dedicated to improving their products.

As for Paradox, what Johan meant by the "less complex" announcement was that they will now be keeping their games on the EU2 level. That's in direct response to the criticism received on their forums, most of which amounts to mindless screaming about HOI or Vicky being broken or unplayable because one ship is missing or some really minor happening is not modeled by event. I like complex games and I think it would be a disaster if the whiners win and PE games become just another set of RTS clones. Crusader Kings will likely be the last of the truly immersive "nation simulators" which have become a PE trademark. Hopefully they'll be able to find a happy medium and keep going.

Further, I think most of PE's woes are a result of being paired with SF. Poor marketing, poor distribution, pittance royalties, and impossible deadlines will wreck anyone in the industry. Hopefully that will change as they're offering their next product via direct purchase, but it remains to be seen how much revenue that will generate for them.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I have heard the UV comments, and won't out of hand deny them. Because I expect all game producers to stand on their own two feet.

But while I won't leap in and say "not so" where UV is concerned, I will say this much. It didn't attempt to simulate a war in rediculous terms under rediculous conditions in such a flagrantly rediculous environment as to completely turf all credibility.

Fair enough. We obviously differ in regard to what we expected from HOI.

Could Brazil have attacked and successfully defeated Germany in WW2? Sorry you lost me there just asking such a moronic question. Only a science fiction writer would give a damn.
Would I a routine wargamer want to play it in real time with no option to tell the stupid AI to get lost, not one iota. HoI was garbage the second it exited its creators mind.
But some people like garbage eh. One man's junk is another man's treasure. But sorry, not everyone wants to invest in junk and portray it as valuable resources.

I take it you would've rather seen HOI as a turn-based war simulation with a hot-seat option? In that case you're right, HOI isn't your game. However, it is something of value to those of us who were looking for a WW2 nation simulator. Again, I think we just want different things from a game of this type.

I have said it elsewhere, and I can say it here, I don't know of a single wargame design, that has ever been created, and not altered after day one. There is always something to improve.
Board games, computer games, doesn't matter. Both Squad leader and Third Reich, my most played to death games didn't remain as they were originally made. Some say it was a bad choice to improve them.
Steel Panthers did not remain Steel Panthers. I know some that will only play the original version eh.

Big difference between an improved game and a fixed game though, is a fixed game originally would not even run after you bought it out of the box.

Here I will differ. While I agree that games evolve, I think HOI was rushed by SF. PE patched it to what I would've expected as a release state with v1.03. My comparison with Matrix lies in the adjustments brought in with the later patches, which mainly tweaked the game in response to player feedback. The next patch will supposedly have further modifications and overhauls based partly upon player-made mods and partly on revisions by PE. PE games do indeed evolve; just look at the beta patches for EU2, the last of which came out last week. It helps to keep in mind that EU2 is nearly 26 months old.

UV ran out of the box, but it was not perfect. HoI in most cases was inert and just plain worthless.
They don't make for perfect comparisons.

Now to compare companies, one has a bad reputation, the other doesn't. And I don't care if you can get the order correct.

No, UV and HOI don't make for perfect comparisons, but the companies themselves do make for valid ones, if not perfect. PE and Matrix both keep improving their products well after release and use the feedback of their customers for that purpose. Given the state of the industry as a whole, I'd say PE is in the top ten list, and that hardly gives them a bad reputation in my opinion.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: von Murrin
As for Paradox, what Johan meant by the "less complex" announcement was that they will now be keeping their games on the EU2 level. That's in direct response to the criticism received on their forums, most of which amounts to mindless screaming about HOI or Vicky being broken or unplayable because one ship is missing or some really minor happening is not modeled by event. I like complex games and I think it would be a disaster if the whiners win and PE games become just another set of RTS clones. Crusader Kings will likely be the last of the truly immersive "nation simulators" which have become a PE trademark. Hopefully they'll be able to find a happy medium and keep going.

Ah yes the ever powerful arguement that people on a forum are responsible for failure [8|]

Rather than "mindless screaming" there are many people spending their time finding bugs and trying to figure out exactly where the economy is broken, but if you want to attribute Paradox's decision to the power of a handful of ranting posts then why not rant yourself and convince Paradox they are wrong.

Look to the non-existent sales and poor reviews before you have the audacity to blame people on a forum.

[von Murrin]

Oh there were plenty of posters providing constructive criticism. However, I saw far more of "X is broken and the entire game is unplayable! I'm never going to buy another PE game again!". I largely quit posting in the game forums after I had a number of threads hijacked by whiners who absolutely had to state for the 100th time how feature X wrecked the game and ruined their life. [8|]

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Oh there were plenty of posters providing constructive criticism. However, I saw far more of "X is broken and the entire game is unplayable! I'm never going to buy another PE game again!". I largely quit posting in the game forums after I had a number of threads hijacked by whiners who absolutely had to state for the 100th time how feature X wrecked the game and ruined their life. [8|]

Try reading the Victoria boards before making an assumption so sweeping as to blame posters on a forum for the perceived failure of a game. Aside from a small number of rants the place is very positive.

Or again, if you feel that fora are so powerful that a few posters influence game designers, then go lobby.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well reasoned rebutal Von Murrin.

By that, I mean you stated your case without attacking me. But rather sufficed to rebut my position and leave it at that. That I appreciate.

On the matter of nation building games, I prefer they remain games of the Civ variety ie no real dependence on forcible confinement in a historical simulation at the same time.

If I wanted to know if Brazil (just using them as an example eh), could rule the 1940s era, I would rather it was done in a Civ type game.

I don't mind "what if" games to a point. But my own personal "what if' thresshold is limited to what actually really could have happened.
Thus, in 1939, there are only so many variable what ifs I want to consider.
What if Germany had not gotten their way in Czech conquest for instance. What would the game's starting point look like on the atack on Poland under those conditions.
That is an interesting a viable "what if" that doesn't stretch the notion of "what if" into "what ever".

It all comes down to suspension of disbelief. Games that look stupid to a scholarly player, will be immediately dismissed as such.
Thus, even if HoI had been done as turns with hotseat, if the game had allowed the "what if" to much leeway, it would still have gotten grief from a large sector of the wargaming community.

When I first saw the game, I was hoping for a grand strategy game of the level of complexity it attempted, but of a seriousness that is found in Advanced Third Reich. It lost me when it looked like a silly you can play any region as your starting force game of Axis and Allies.

As "simple" looking as Strategic Command is, it still retains what a wargamer would call a more serious attempt to be a wargame, and not a silly diversion. SC has some design errors to be sure. But they don't prevent the game from being entirely fun to play. They are just notions to be weeded out (hopefully) in its next version.

[Golf33]

You can't actually compare Matrix and Paradox. Matrix is a publisher and should be compared to Strategy First; Paradox is a developer and should be compared to, e.g., 2by3games or Wargaming.net.

Regards
33

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I find this to be a "fascinating thread".

The latest remarks being interesting to me in one particular way.

The phrase "heresy"

If a reviewer says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a like minded person says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a forum mate says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a friend say, nah you won't like it, is that good enough?

Generally speaking, is the opinions of people you know, or the views of people you can relate to, not adequate?

Or are you the sort to stupid to accept that only you can really know the truth of a matter?

Me, I can't afford to be that category of person. Finances in my case are incredibly finite.
So I have to stand with the skeptics, to take a pass on a game if it hasn't got a sterling reputation.
The market has plenty of games, and there are more than a few that have more than enough people glowing about it. And if those people tend to mirror my own normal expectations, why should I assume I can't value their views.

I can't afford the arrogance that only I can be a proper judge, that I must absolutely buy a game first before I can make a reasoned opinion.

Everyone that has participated on this thread is already well aware of which games are good and which games are not. The views of rabid fans won't alter any of that.

I so agree with you here LES, and even though you don't own the games or ever played them, you really didn't miss anything. They aren't like your normal historical board game simulations. They are recreations as best as these developers can research them, then thrown together and called a historical simulation and/or strategic wargame as in the case of HOI. It's just a different type of niche. I thought I would give it a shot, but, it's nowhere near to my board gaming style of play, strategic or tactical. If feels more like playing an advanced version of RISK, with the same crappy AI.

For one thing you have to put hours, days, even weeks to finish one of these games. It's not your typical weekend of fun, set a new game up next week type game. It's micromanagement moreso than it is strategy and tactics. And Vicky is like playing Financial Tycoon, just a different time period. lol

You are also right about which company has a good reputation and one that has a bad one. Matrix makes wargames. Paradox makes simulations. I believe the market is bigger for wargames than mere simulations with very ahistorical outcomes, like Brazil whipping Italy and Germany with no help from the allies, except Russia. I know, I did it, it was a laugh and nothing else.

I also don't think build a game and relying on the community to "make it work" is the proper way to build a game either. As I've said before, there's people out there that don't even own an internet connection and they lose out even more, because they don't get patches or the mods. The "silent" consumer can make you or break you in the long run.

I played HOI and beat it the very first game on hard. I downloaded the demo of EYSA and got smoked the very first game, which one do you think I enjoy more? The one that is the most challenging, not just one with pretty pictures and micromanagement out the ying yang and with no challenge.

I can play either wargame or simulation, but, I determine whether it is good or not by the challenge first and foremost.

[von Murrin]

I read the forums. I have roughly 250 posts in them and maybe 3-5 times that much in OT. Want to know something interesting? I would say probably 150 of those are in the EU2 forums, 75 in the HOI forums, and the rest in the Vicky forums. I was pretty active in the HOI forums until the whining got bad about 2 months after release. I was just starting to get back into the game boards, particularly Vicky, when the whining started again with the 1.2 patch. There was a day when the constructive threads were outnumbered about 3 to 1 by rants and flames. That's the last time I bothered to look in there. Your post, so wonderfully suggestive of your smug, self-righteous opinion of me, has been read and noted. Let's leave it at that.

[von Murrin]

[:D]

Yeah, I figured you as a more "traditional" gamer, and I agree HOI does not a wargame make. I like my wargames too, but somewhat implausable, wild romps to Rome as Mexico suit me just fine every now and then. Thus my enjoyment of HOI. [:D]