Great game but very disapointed with matrix

[Erik Rutins]

Well, let me throw my 2 cents in...

If you followed Korsun Pocket / Across the Dnepr you saw some fine scenarios come out for that part of the series. I expect that we will also see some fine scenarios for Battles in Normandy. I agree that the first one on the request list is the full Normany scenario, but the decision to split Normandy into two separate scenarios is not a game-breaker. The entire purpose of the scenario editor is to make these games more than just their official scenairos - to open them up and make them responsive to user modifications.

Sure, it's always good to have more, but eventually a line has to be drawn regarding when to stop and release the title. Everything necessary for a combined Normandy scenario is in there, why not give it a try? Similarly, many smaller battles in the theater may still be modeled. In the end, for your money you do get scenarios that cover the entire Normandy Campaign, even if the largest cover one half in each scenario. You also get scenario editing/creation tools and a promise of support and future releases through the great Run5 community and us here at Matrix.

Saying that the desire for a long campaign scenario will be filled by a player/designer more likely than not isn't an attempt to dodge things, it's a reflection of the fact that this is exactly the purpose of the scenario design tools that were built, tested and provided with the game- to meet new user needs after release and allow BiN to add new scenarios as time goes on.

Regards,

- Erik

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
Of course, I mean paying for user created scenarios is an industry wide practice, right? And once this vital, extra scenario has ben created we'll have bucketloads of surplus cash, even after paying for our Ferraris.

Gregor

The point is that he doesn't believe BiN to be a complete product without a full scenario. Telling him to make the scenario himself is completely absurd and does nothing to disprove his point or solve any problems.

These guys are giving you precise feedback on why they are or aren't purchasing your product. You can either embrace that and filter it into useful information for your next project or lash out at customers (potential or current) who are apparently barely keeping you in the business of making games.

Where did your last comment come from? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said. Maybe you're lumping me in with someone else?

I did listen to DBeves and I clearly explained the rationale behind our thinking on the subject. He disagrees with our reasons, that's his right, just as we our entirely within our rights to stick by our original decision.

My explaining how easy it is for someone to create the scenario he wants is by no means absurd. As was pointed out before, it's probable that someone in the user community will do it, especially now they've been told that all the unit info is already in the Overlord scenario, which does make it pretty easy.

If DBeves has a problem with anything I said, I expect that I'll hear from him.

My remark to you was an admittedly flippant response to your remark that we should pay royalties for third party scenarios.

And while you're taking us to task for only just staying in business, ask yourself this. SSG has been in business since 1982. How many companies, or entire gaming empires, have sprung up, had their brief moment in the sun and then gone down to dusty death in that time. We must be doing something right, just to stay alive in the face of the industry casualty rate.


Gregor

P.S. Honesty compels me to say that EA started at around about the same time, and we're not quite as big as they are...

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
I did listen to DBeves and I clearly explained the rationale behind our thinking on the subject. He disagrees with our reasons, that's his right, just as we our entirely within our rights to stick by our original decision.

My explaining how easy it is for someone to create the scenario he wants is by no means absurd. As was pointed out before, it's probable that someone in the user community will do it, especially now they've been told that all the unit info is already in the Overlord scenario, which does make it pretty easy.

If DBeves has a problem with anything I said, I expect that I'll hear from him.

My remark to you was an admittedly flippant response to your remark that we should pay royalties for third party scenarios.

And while you're taking us to task for only just staying in business, ask yourself this. SSG has been in business since 1982. How many companies, or entire gaming empires, have sprung up, had their brief moment in the sun and then gone down to dusty death in that time. We must be doing something right, just to stay alive in the face of the industry casualty rate.


Gregor

P.S. Honesty compels me to say that EA started at around about the same time, and we're not quite as big as they are...

I think if you had simply explained how to create such a scenario, there would be no problem. In fact, I think if the time spent arguing with customers was spent on creating a small tutorial for your map editor, BiN would be in a better place. The way it was said, however, was IMO unprofessional in that you claimed the solution to the problem was that users should finish your game. (The game being unfinished in the eyes of DBeves, that is.) Don't tell me that the goal of that post was to get people interested in making a scenario, as we both know there are better ways to do that. Your goal was to "win the argument."

Obviously his own goals are different than yours in that he wants to purchase a full game that is worth the price tag. He is not a game developer nor does he receive a profit for something he creates - therefore the assumption that "if you think its fundamentally worth it, why don't you do it?" is absurd unless you bring everything into the equation - including the rewards for the creation of something, i.e money.

Problem = Customer pays $60 for a product that is in his eyes not finished and not worth the price.
Developer's solution = tell the customer to finish the game himself.

How can you tell me that's a rational thing? That seems like a kick in the pants, to me.

As far as your company goes, that's fine. Your company's goals and your own life's aspirations are completely your own business. If you're happy with where you are, that's your own business - I'm merely repeating what has been said in other threads by SSG employees. I do think that in 20 years of game development however, you should have come to the understanding that some people will not like your product and arguing with a customer's opinion is never the solution. In my own experience, this type of feedback is extremely useful in that it tells us why customers are not buying the product. In my own business, if I was given a reason from each customer why they did not purchase a product, the business would be in a MUCH better place. That type of feedback is absolute gold and it's frustrating to me to see SSG discouraging it.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
I did listen to DBeves and I clearly explained the rationale behind our thinking on the subject. He disagrees with our reasons, that's his right, just as we our entirely within our rights to stick by our original decision.

My explaining how easy it is for someone to create the scenario he wants is by no means absurd. As was pointed out before, it's probable that someone in the user community will do it, especially now they've been told that all the unit info is already in the Overlord scenario, which does make it pretty easy.

If DBeves has a problem with anything I said, I expect that I'll hear from him.

My remark to you was an admittedly flippant response to your remark that we should pay royalties for third party scenarios.

And while you're taking us to task for only just staying in business, ask yourself this. SSG has been in business since 1982. How many companies, or entire gaming empires, have sprung up, had their brief moment in the sun and then gone down to dusty death in that time. We must be doing something right, just to stay alive in the face of the industry casualty rate.


Gregor

P.S. Honesty compels me to say that EA started at around about the same time, and we're not quite as big as they are...

I think if you had simply explained how to create such a scenario, there would be no problem. In fact, I think if the time spent arguing with customers was spent on creating a small tutorial for your map editor, BiN would be in a better place. The way it was said, however, was IMO unprofessional in that you claimed the solution to the problem was that users should finish your game. (The game being unfinished in the eyes of DBeves, that is.) Don't tell me that the goal of that post was to get people interested in making a scenario, as we both know there are better ways to do that. Your goal was to "win the argument."

Obviously his own goals are different than yours in that he wants to purchase a full game that is worth the price tag. He is not a game developer nor does he receive a profit for something he creates - therefore the assumption that "if you think its fundamentally worth it, why don't you do it?" is absurd unless you bring everything into the equation - including the rewards for the creation of something, i.e money.

Problem = Customer pays $60 for a product that is in his eyes not finished and not worth the price.
Developer's solution = tell the customer to finish the game himself.

How can you tell me that's a rational thing? That seems like a kick in the pants, to me.

As far as your company goes, that's fine. Your company's goals and your own life's aspirations are completely your own business. If you're happy with where you are, that's your own business - I'm merely repeating what has been said in other threads by SSG employees. I do think that in 20 years of game development however, you should have come to the understanding that some people will not like your product and arguing with a customer's opinion is never the solution. In my own experience, this type of feedback is extremely useful in that it tells us why customers are not buying the product. In my own business, if I was given a reason from each customer why they did not purchase a product, the business would be in a MUCH better place. That type of feedback is absolute gold and it's frustrating to me to see SSG discouraging it.

But you haven't explained why it is necessary to spend so much time to design and playtest a monster scenario, a much tougher job than a 32 turn scenario, to make one disgruntled customer a little happier. It just seems that to get an extra $60 for a minimum of 10 x 72 hours of playtesting seems to be a ridiculous exchange.

[DBeves]

Yes ... well ... Molotov makes my points very eloquently indeed and I have to say that I agree with what he says.

I have to say Gregor that I feel your response to me was indeed extremely flippant and was as molotov said - nothing more than an attempt to "win the argument" in a "if you think its so easy then you have a go"...kind of way.
I am trying to make what I think is a very valid point about what I see as a seriously flawed decision both on the design of the game and the reasons behind that decision.
Ignoring what your customers say about your products is a very quick road to extinction as a company.I am merely telling you, as a commercial enterprise, that your product as it stands falls seriously short of my expectations and giving you the reasons why, in a perfectly reasonable way, I think that.
I understand that you have to defend your position in relation to that decision but to merely come back with the response that "if you want it, go make it yourself" is frankly bizarre from a commercial company that has, whether you drive a Ferrari or not, accepted my hard earned cash. It seems that you are forgetting the very nature of a commercial enterprise - I did not buy the product as a scenario design tool - I have neither the time nor skills to do that - and I believe it was not sold as that - I barely have the time these days to play wargames let alone make my own.I bought the prodeuct as a wargame on the Normandy campaign - nothing more. To me the lack of a full scenario means it falls short of being that - by quite a long way.

I had no desire to kick off a big row when I made my original post - and this is after all only a game - and I was merely trying to make a point and establish the rationale behind the reasons.I freely admit that I read the details of the game before buying it - the full scenario was indeed not mentioned and that bothered me at the time - I probably sub conciously ignored it as I liked the game system and presentation a great deal (what a true wargame on the computer should be) and I had to justify spending the money. What I was trying to tell you is that upon purchase my initial doubts were confirmed and for me as a customer your product will likely sit on the shelf till someone does produce the full scenario. And also that next time I may indeed not ignore my initial doubts be a bit harder with myself and wait to purchase it until it does meet my full expectations or not purchase it at all if it never does. I do not consider a user community as an extension of your company.

In the UK I paid £40 for this game (I will ignore the manual print costs for now). I have just ordered Full Spectrum Warrior from amazon and paid £25 for it (and that will no doubt come with a printed manual). I am aware that you are in a niche market and I therefore pay a premium - a very large premium over other types of game - I paid it and therefore I am obviously fully prepared to accept that is a fact of life.

What bothered me most was the complete disagreement I held over the reasons you gave for not including one. I disagree that a 70 turn campaign game in this system was anything like an unplayable "monster".
The problem was that your reasons seemed to be based simply on a quite arbitrary decision made without consulting your customers not that it was not do-able but was more to do with the amount of effort it would require and that the user community would eventually create one anyway - I think this fact was even part of your advertising.
There is a lot written on these boards about part of the money we spend on these games being an investment in the people providing us with these games - I agree with that - even to the extent that some initial releases of games are more of a beta test and that this is part of the process. What I would suggest is that this goodwill will only go so far (especially at the prices charged for the games) - it is a two way street - and when you as a company start "assuming" people will finish your game that is where it will end - especially when you come to a board and quite flippantly suggest that is what they should do - merely to score points. It seems to me that perhaps SSG as a company has survived so long due to the fact that they have always put that extra bit of effort in - I see a worrying sign that this is perhaps not the case with this game. I have just loaded up HPS Normandy 44 - they have a full campaign scenario in there. In the description of the scenario they even go so far as to admit that it may be considered by most as unplayable "but that they provided it to their customers for those who wish to try". My original post was nothing more than an attempt to understand why SSG had not done so with a system and scale that was eminently more playayble and truly do-able (and maybe in the hope that they would change their minds). My massive disapointment is when the game stays on my shelf because it seems you decided for me that I would not wish you expend the effort to provide me with one and that someone else out there is likely to do it anyway so why should we....
But then, as I said, I knew this beforehand and still bought the game - maybe not something I will do next time - which was the point I was trying to make to you.

PS... To Prester_John ... your arguments appear to be inconsistent - you criticize me in a earlier post for making assumptions based on lack of research and then will quite happily assume that I am the only disgrutled customer without having done any of your own to establish that fact. When (if) the full scenario is produced by Run5 after many hours hard work and I am the only one that downloads and plays it I shall personally thank the guy that did all that work just for me...How many people agree or disagree with me is not something you can possibly know - what I think is more reasonable to suggest is that if SSG had asked should this full scenario be in there most would have said yes...and therefore that extra effort that you seem to be able to so arbitrarily calculate would seem a better exchange...

[PresbyterJohn]

What arguments? I'm trying to understand why you think it is so essential that BiN be released with a monster campaign, other than "Just because you want one" or now "Just because HPS has one".

[Gregor_SSG]

DBeves,

Your post is too long to quote in reply, so I'll just summarise.

I did mean to flippant with Molotov Billy, but not with you. Sorry about that, we had had a very reasonable discussion up till my last post to you.

I don't agree with your summary of my reasons, they're all in my previous posts, but let me illustrate them again by supposing that we had done what you want us to do and included a 70 turn campaign.

Let us also agree on my premise that the AI system, (which we designed and programmed) is not up to the job of fighting a 70 turn campaign and that AI performance would be well below the standards in the 32 turn scenarios.

You would be happy, but a whole lot of other people wouldn't be. They would naturally take the 70 turn campaign to be the centerpiece of the whole game and I'd be fielding lots of complaints about the 'crap AI' and the 'ridiculous ease' with which people won the campaign.

It was, and remains, my judgement that the downside of the 70 turn campaign was geater than the upside. I freely admit that I could be wrong, but that's the decision that has been made, and I've been very frank and upfront about it.

That being said, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Gregor

[Capitaine]

I can't understand the length either of the posts on this thread or of the thread itself. What's the point? SSG aren't going to go back to the drawing board and work up a campaign scn as desired at this point, so why protest ad infinitum?

One post would've sufficed: "I wish there was a full 72-turn campaign, therefore I won't buy." After that, all one can say is "sorry, it's not in the cards so you have to deal with it." Why all the subsequent "sturm und drang" exists eludes me. [&:]

[DBeves]

Thanks for your response Gregor and I appreciate the apology. As I said this is no reflecttion on the quality of what is there just my own personal disapointment that such a great system and presentation was not converted into a full campaign scenario that I have some hope of playing.
As you say - I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Maybe it is merely my view of the value of computer AI in a wargame. I am a programmer by profession myself and so have some idea how incredibly difficult it is to get a series of 1's and 0's to provide anything like a challenge - one that is anything like worthwhile. That it should drive a design / product decision when invariably posts will appear on boards like this illustrating that (as they seem to already be with BIN) - I simply cannot understand - especially as other commercially produced wargames dont seem to place as much emphasis on this as you do. But hey...guess I will wait to see if Run 5 produce a full scenario and fire it up and have another look at your game then.

Prester...don't know what else I can say to you in order to illustrate my point...

Perhaps this ....

A battle of waterloo game that ended at 1.30 in the afternoon.
A gettysburg game that ended on day two of the battle...
A Korsun pocket game that included only separate scenarios on the encirclement and the breakout/rescue but nothing that linked the two together as a whole so the latter starts from a position that is completely unrelated to the former .

Just my view and my interest in BIN and this discussion is sadly at an end till my wish above is fullfilled.

Capitaine...
If you cant understand the length of the thread why open it and add to it if you are not interested in the subject? - I am... And I disagree with what you said ... you don't get what you don't ask for and I think the whole point of this forum is to do just that - people coming to this forum and asking for improvements to games and getting them happens all the time....I didn't get what I hoped for this time.

[Capitaine]

Disagree, but won't elaborate DBeves. [:-]

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Prester John
But you haven't explained why it is necessary to spend so much time to design and playtest a monster scenario, a much tougher job than a 32 turn scenario, to make one disgruntled customer a little happier. It just seems that to get an extra $60 for a minimum of 10 x 72 hours of playtesting seems to be a ridiculous exchange.

Hey you got the wrong guy Was not my argument..

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: DBeves

... you don't get what you don't ask for and I think the whole point of this forum is to do just that - people coming to this forum and asking for improvements to games and getting them happens all the time....I didn't get what I hoped for this time.

DBeves,

Think there's still a chance to get at what you're looking for...

Really looking for positive reinforcement on this issue rather than "disappointed" discussion. If enough people said, "Wow, I'd love to play a 50-70 turn campaign," then it might well get done sooner, rather than later.

JSS

[benpark]

There was, If I recollect, a full scenario list posted prior to release. So I'm not really sure what this is all about. And if one is to compare this game with any HPS title, it's innacurate. The AI in the HPS titles is woeful.

Mybe an easy solution to this problem would be a "continue playing?" option at the end of the scenario. SOmetimes when I play, I don't give a damn about the score, I just want to capture XYZ. This would be with the expectation that SSG is no longer responsible for the AI moves[;)]

[Pustov]

Yes...DBeves... everyone has their own opinion and it's in my opinion you came to these forums asking for something that was never advertise in the first place...in which you freely admit.. The name of the game is... Battles in Normandy... not the.. Battle of Normandy or The Normandy Campaign. And I see nothing wrong with Gregor telling you that if you want it then make it. That's what the scenario editor is for. Now if your going to put the game on the shelf until you get what you want... and this does kind of remind me of some little kid who doesn't get what he wants in a ball game so he going to take his ball home.. then fine... that's your choice and it's a bad choice in my opinion as you'll be missing out on one of the best operational wargames ever made

[stevel40831]

Gregor... why didn't your team (in your spare time) include a super-duper-colossal-monster-"supersize-it" scenario (with a brilliant, unbeatable AI) which includes the landings in southern France, the capture of Paris, push across the Rhine and possible U.S. & British capture of Berlin? You might as well throw in the eastern front too while you're at it. What about the Cold War? You left that out too... Think of the awesome things you could do with alert points during the Cold War!! Oh, and by the way, IF you added all this in, the price should be around $30.00 with rebates available so that we could all get it for nothing. What the hell do you need a Ferrari for anyway? [;)]

Thanks SSG for an excellent game and game "system". Can't wait for your next release(s), I'll buy them all, don't care about the cost, your games are worth every penny.

The guys who can't stop acting like cry-babies -- get yourself a box of tissues, dry your tears and go back to solitaire -- it has the brilliant AI and endless scenarios that you're looking for AND it's in your price range.

Sorry, I can't help myself...

P.S. Gregor, I hope you have a Ferrari! [8D]

[DBeves]

Reply to the last few posts
One last question...
Why is it that when someone makes a post to this forum about what they consider a valid point some sad people feel it their duty - without quite obviously reading any of the previous posts - to come and post some pathetic "Ive got a great command of the english language and look how I can insult you with it" drivel.
Really I "cry like a baby" and "I'm a cry baby"- you know me do you ?
Is that really the most eloquent reasoned argument you can come up with ?
If you don't like the argument and have nothing constructive to say why post anything at all ?
You de-value this board and what it is mean't to do - I had a reasonable discussion with SSG - the only opinion worth anything and we have agreed to disagree.
To the others whos lives are so empty they can fill it no other way than to post a contribution to an argument they have nothing constructive to say about. try this http:\\www.Get-a-Life.com

[stevel40831]

To the others whos lives are so empty they can fill it no other way than to post a contribution to an argument they have nothing constructive to say about. try this http:\\www.Get-a-Life.com

Thanks for the link, the free copy of solitaire is great!

[DBeves]

mmmmm.... Clever, Clever.

[TheHellPatrol]

@DBeves[:'(]Get a life and please go away...neener...neener...neener...would you like some whine with your cheese?[:D][:'(]

[Paul Vebber]

I don;t want to lock the thread - but lets be adults here. The point of the forum is for people to voice their opinions. If you disagree, there is no need to hurl insults. Just say nothing and let the thread die. The question was raised, answered, and subject to discussion. We don't need the likes of Olympic Gymnastics judges providing opinions on opinions of opinions for score...

So lets show a little more mutual respect...please?[:-]