7 Reasons Why I Hate Matrix Games!

[Larac]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Can someone post a screenshot of these maps that people don't like? I'm trying to see this while hex/line in my head and I can't picture it. Lemme see Lemme see.

http://www.locknloadgame.com/

here is a link,

I could see them here, but had no idea they would cause me the issues they do, until I tried to play.

Also I think these are brighter than my printed maps.


Lee

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You wouldn't believe how he treats us...[:(]

Yes but in your case it's deserved..... [:'(]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Lol Adam I'm waiting for the computer version. I never could play against myself. It takes away from FOW and the guessing fun of the game to me. It would be like playing Bingo and I'm the only player. lol B 15, N 33, G 54 BANGO!!!! lol sorry not fun.

Waiting for the PC game aswell.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Larac

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Can someone post a screenshot of these maps that people don't like? I'm trying to see this while hex/line in my head and I can't picture it. Lemme see Lemme see.

http://www.locknloadgame.com/

here is a link,

I could see them here, but had no idea they would cause me the issues they do, until I tried to play.

Also I think these are brighter than my printed maps.


Lee

Thanks Larac, that site shows the white lines very vividly. So, people are complaining about the white hex lines? It prehaps does make the maps look a little bit more "gamey" in that respect, but, if you had my eyes you would appreciate the white hex lines. If I were still into board wargames, I'd still buy it. I love squad level games like Squad Leader, it was my favorite wargame until computer came about.

[steveh11Matrix]

As an example of how computer gaming has invaded my psyche, my first thought on seeing that image was to wonder why the designer hadn't given us the option to turn them off.... [;)]

I then had a "Ooops!" moment.

Steve.

[ravinhood]

LOL Steveh, you know you have been playing computer games too long when that happens. If you want a computer fix of L&L go watch the "how it works" program on that link above. I watched it and it was enjoyable. Even showed the dice rolling and all, very good I hope that's in the computer version as well.

One thing in the flashy, I didn't understand why the German player advanced to melee, instead of just firing from cover, but, I believe it was to just show how melee worked.

Something else I noticed. A lot of flipping and adding and taking away of counters can go on an on an on. After the first battle and all those units were shaken, then on the following turn everyone rallies, lol, I can see some of these scenarios taking quite some time just to eliminate one unit. At least ground vs ground. The melee part though knocked out a couple. I guess hand to hand is where it's at if you want to eliminate pieces quickly.

[David Heath]

LOL... that was good one.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Something else I noticed. A lot of flipping and adding and taking away of counters can go on an on an on.

Not really because...

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

After the first battle and all those units were shaken, then on the following turn everyone rallies, lol, I can see some of these scenarios taking quite some time just to eliminate one unit...

I'll tell you the essense of this series as I see it. Shaken units lose games!

1. To rally a unit you need a good order leader IN the hex, a good order Medic, Chaplain or Hero IN the hex or some sort of self rally ability. Otherwise units don't rally and flip back to good order.

2. Shaken units alone in hexes entered by the enemy are automatically eliminated.

3. The Impulse/Activation system then makes the whole process nail bitting. Which side wins the initiative to move first? Can you reach that hex with those un-rallied Shaken units or can you reinforce it/abandon it first?

That my friend is how I've always managed to lose to myself so far! [:D] You don't have to kill the enemy with fire - just eliminate him.

Husband your leaders, keep a reserve. Lay good suppressing fire. Maneuver for the kill. But where will units Shake? And will you be lucky enough to do something about it?

As for suppressing fire - you've only got 33%-50% of seeing non-adjacent, unmoved enemy units in blocking or degrading terrain in order to fire on them and cause a casualty or a damage check resulting in a Shake... LOL. Nothing is certain in this game.

(Hey, I think this deserves to be a thread in the BoH forum as it may get missed here and is a top discussion regarding the game itself. Cool stuff Ravinhood).

[*Lava*]

Hi!

Interesting thread.

One of the lures of wargames is the chance to replay history. This is especially appealling to those of us who love history. Unfortunately, "history" is a double edged sword.

If you look at other genres (strategy games or FPS types with a historical theme, for example) you will find that these games basically use "history" as a setting, an enviornment in which the "real" game is played. Here the emphasis is on gameplay, and because of that, most players realize that certain abstractions or "playing loose" with historical fact is necessary for the game to be fun. While admitedly producers seek to put more "history" into their games, successful studios never take their eye off the ball: providing great gameplay which the player finds is "fun." Thus, a person who complains about the lack of realism, especially if it means changing gameplay is given short shift and basically ignored (by pretty much everybody). That occurs because everyone understands that the purpose of the game is not to "recreate" history.

Wargames on the other hand do attempt to recreate history. Because of this desire, historical accuracy is seen as the environment in which the game is set. For many, the more detailed the environment, the more "immersive" is the setting. So, for example, where a blue colored catapult is totally acceptable in setting the stage in a strategy game, in a wargame it is absolute heresy. What many wargamers forget is that the "environment" is really just the setting in which the actual game is played. The developer creates his environment and then seeks to provide "a game" which he hopes players will find enjoyable.

Now if we go to a strategy site and ask them to change the "enviornment" we run the risk of being totally ignored. This is because certain factors of that environment, if changed, will completely alter gameplay, and they are just not prepared to do that. Like I say, they keep their eye on the ball: gameplay, and will not be influenced to screw with gameplay just to satisfy a couple folks who are willing to provide endless arguments and links proving that catapults were not painted blue.

Wargaming, on the other hand, is a totally different kettle of fish. There is nothing that scares a developer more than to have his game labeled "unrealistic." Because of this, a handfull of knowledgeable people can influence the developer into changing the "enviornment", even if the developer knows that that will change gameplay. Indeed, it seems to me that it has now become generally accepted practise that if a wargamer developer has to change his environment, he is also expected to jump through hoops making sure that gameplay not only doesn't suffer, but is somehow enhanced.

The wargame developer (like all other genres) is thus shackled to not one ball and chain (gameplay), but to two (his environment and the concomminent effects on gameplay) unlike other genres. Thus, the wargame developer is doubly burdened, and this could be one of the major reasons we see ever fewer wargame titles being published. The developers just either do not want to expend the resources completely redesigning their games, or just do not have the resources to do so.

It is perhaps because of this double burden that we see wargame developers seek to make their environment ever more detailed in an attempt to thwart individuals from playing havoc on their "game" by finding historical inaccuracies. (Personally I think it is all for nought, as finding such inaccuracies has become a "hobby" of its own by certain gamers.) With the developers forced to focus so much time just creating their enviornment, its no wonder we get games with poor gameplay or are so complicated that even an encyclopedia sized manual would still leave us confused.

I personally think that wargaming has charged off in the wrong direction. The price of admission is just too high for developers to make such games. And even if they do.. is it really all that profitable? I would suggest, the return on investment is just not there.

So where does that leave us?

Well, for me, what it means is that, like all other games developers, wargames developers need to change their emphasis and put their eye on the same ball as everyone else: good, fun gameplay. To support that, we as wargamers must also change our emphasis and challenge whether "changing the environment" is really worth the havoc and cost that the developer must pay.

Having said all that (given that you have had the patience to read this looong post..apologies), I must admit that I long for lots more "beer and pretzels" type wargames, where yes lots of abstractions are used, and no, no weapon database can be found, but which is a kick in the butt to play. A perfect example of such a game lies quietly buried in the "games under development" section of Matrix Games: Frank Hunters World War I game. To tell you quite honestly, I am not a big fan of WWI, as most people out there are not either. But, having had the chance to test the pre-beta of that game, I can tell you that it was a hoot to play.

All in all, I think we as wargamers need to set back and reassess our position and to try to understand how difficult we have made it for developers to "please" folks who are all too ready to jump up and down and bash games as "unrealistic" or "broken." We need to get back to basics, and that means making compromises so that we can have more "fun" games to play. I believe not only will that be of benefit to us all, but also result in the expansion of our dwindling community.

Ray (alias Lava)

[petdoc]

Excellent post Lava. You hit the nail on the head. The diificulty of course is deciding what is fun for the majority of your customers. Euro board games are hugely popular, but I find them too abstract for my liking. RTS games (I mean the prototypical ones like AOE, not the brilliant ones like HTTR) bore me very quickly, although they seem to be driving the entire computer strategy game market right now. WITP I found just too much work. Everyone is different, and I think that finding that 'sweet spot' must keep game developers up at night - extremely difficult work I would think. Having said that, I think that Mr. Walker has hit one 'out of the park' (yay WhiteSox!) with LnL. I find it to be the perfect blend of realism, complexity, ease and speed of play and fun, all wrapped up in a gorgeous package (all this from a long time ASL and more recently, ATS player).

[mbatch729]

ORIGINAL: Lava

A perfect example of such a game lies quietly buried in the "games under development" section of Matrix Games: Frank Hunters World War I game. To tell you quite honestly, I am not a big fan of WWI, as most people out there are not either. But, having had the chance to test the pre-beta of that game, I can tell you that it was a hoot to play.

Ray (alias Lava)

I too, am looking forward to this game. However, the lack of any news about it is somewhat disheartening. The forum for it showed there was some interest in the title. But it is a ghost town now... Here's hoping for the best.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: wobbly
Pasternakski has his opinion and we must all recognise it. As he also states he paid his 80 bucks and so that gives him the right to vent his spleen.

I said nothing of the kind. Please be so kind as to read and understand what I actually say before you summarily join forces with some imaginary band of heroes and tell me to "bugger off."

Really? From post #18 (yours)

What nonsense. I come to the defense of my clearly stated position after being attacked by innuendo for holding it, and I get further criticism for repeating myself. I will say it one more time: this ain't no "warm and fuzzies" club. This is business. My 80 bucks bought me just as much air time as anyone else, and if I feel that the product fell short not only of being perfect, but even of being marketable, I'm going to say so. I am still a Matrix customer, but I have learned to be wary. If my comments have any lingering value, I hope it will be to help others avoid expensive disappointments and to serve notice on Matrix and other computer wargame vendors that not all of us are willing to just sit here and shell out for any and all junkware that comes along. Seen in that light, I think there is room to argue that constructive criticism based on experience with, and reasoned analysis of, the product's merits will have a far more positive effect than mere sycophantic fawning.

Now what "air time" did your 80 bucks buy you then?

[bordric]

Veldor

Do they pay you to make such post?

Or

Are you self appointed?

Then again no company would want to be part of what you wrote in the first post.

Now me? I use to b!tch too. One need only read my original Game Design Philosophy to realize I am not that happy with a lot of games out there. But I’d like to think that I rose above that and decided to actually do something about it.. Hence I started my own Game Development Company.

Good for you, but people like me the ones who have NOT "rose above" being people who actually buy games, well I am going to complain and praise when and where I see fit.

As a few of you may know, I’ve been developing my own wargames for the past year now. I have a well paying full-time job and have absolutely no real reason I am forced to develop wargames. And even though I do plan on making money, there are probably far quicker and easier ways in which I could do so. While I am sure that may come across to some as a bit arrogant, it is stated as background and preface to the following:

I am sorry you are "forced" to develop wargames. Must be sad I guess. How many wargames are you developing, you use plural wargames and not wargame.

I did find your post arrogant but mostly I found it naive.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I said nothing of the kind. [...] My 80 bucks bought me just as much air time as anyone else, Now what "air time" did your 80 bucks buy you then?

If you will take the time to notice, there is nothing in there about "spleen venting," whatever that is. I merely stated that I have as much business posting here as anyone else. That has nothing to do with "spleen venting." I always intend my comments to be constructive, informative, and occasionally humorous. Again, please read what I actually say before jumping on my case. I have no idea why you people get so much pleasure in that. I was perfectly happy to let this go and forget it, but you have to hang on - and on - and on.

This thread has wandered around considerably and seems to have lost itself in bashing.

I suggest we all shut up and go on to more fruitful pursuits.

And I remain a dissatisfied UV and WitP customer. But I remain a Matrix customer.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hi! .... Ray (alias Lava)

Lava, I've read many similar posts from you. I've never responded because I agree with all of your conclusions, think they are well formed and logical, and don't really have anything much to add. Too often only those that oppose a view respond but let me say you are dead-on in these last couple of posts like this one that you've made, in this thread, and in some of the others.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Lava

I personally think that wargaming has charged off in the wrong direction... We need to get back to basics, and that means making compromises so that we can have more "fun" games to play...

I'll give a quick .02 on "a" future of wargaming - and it has something to do with this recent experience. A guy at an acquaintance's work saw another guy dressed in green and yelled out "hey Kermit"! Someone chimed in "hey if you're Kermit I'm Miss Piggy" and let forth with a "Hi-yaa"! They all noticed a 21 year old lady looking at them as if they were mad and she asked what they were doing? They replied "we're the Muppets". To which she responded with a flash of brilliance: "The Muppets? Oh yes! I think I've heard of that".

Seasoned wargamers are now in their 60's, 50's, 40's and mid-late 30's. We've seen Squad Leader and its maps go from visual nirvana to 2-d so-so, we've seen pink and blue unit counters from Bulge 65 morph into today's multi-colored, scanned photo-realistic luminance. And we've seen Nirvana morph into a rock group and the word "morph" enter our vernacular.

Life has just changed. The world is smaller and faster. 100+ page rule books cater for the minority hard core gamer. People can virtually commit barbaric one-on-one murder and rape on hand held playstations. The ranks of WW2 veterans are now thinner than those of WW1 when I was a kid. Vietnam has been lost, then won on the home front and then lost again in the mountains of Afghanistan, the shores of Somalia the deserts of Iraq - and in the total wastage of generations of elite Special Forces, fighting set-piece, large-scale battles for which they were not aimed.

In PC games like Civilization and Europa Universalis - we call this "war-weariness". The point where the population starts to burn things and stops growing crops.

So the aging amongst us will still game out war because VE Day and VJ Day, the Baby Boom and Flower Power were our childhoods. But few in the "I think I've heard of the Muppets" crowd will take up the torch as we've known it.

To them, war gaming is a "real time click fest of wondering why Germans are in a place called Cyrenaica - where the hell is Cyrenaica anyway - and why are the Germans so angry that they're holding guns?

So imho it's nothing to do with abstractions of history. Rather its more to do with instant gratification, absolute violence or a quest for peace.

And bugs.

Cheers
Adam.

[*Lava*]

Hi,

Thanks to those who had the patience to read my post.

You know, I have had the opportunity to pre-beta test and beta test several games now. In doing so, I was allowed the unique opportunity to glimpse inside the world of game development. (That is a pretty awesome thing for a fairly computer illerate person like myself.)

All the while I have been trolling about on different gaming forums and actually reading what people have to say about the games. I really have been trying to understand the real atmosphere in which not only games are created, modded and perceived from as many different viewpoints as possible, but also have tried to probe into the minds of those who have no interest what-so-ever in wargames.

It's a really difficult task, and I assure you I am no expert on the subject and have no idea whether or not the conclusions and observations I have made are really significant or not. Most likely, not. Trying to put yourself into the shoes of an 18 year old is probably beyound my capabilities as a *cough* fifty something. [X(]

But I really have enjoyed wargaming all my life and hope that future generations will also have the opportunity to do so as well. I dunno, I kind have this feeling the hobby is entering an alarming stage, and trying to figure out how to reverse that, is just probably too much for this old man to achieve.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: bordric

Veldor

Do they pay you to make such post?

Not so far, but I can provide a mailing address if they'd like to send me a check (Or some free games!)
Really though, I haven't said anything that plenty of others haven't said here or elsewhere before. I merely summarized it all in one post and attempted to be a tad bit more organized with its overall format, however successful or not. Also realize my original posting was made on another forum, as mentioned, and not here.

Good for you, but people like me the ones who have NOT "rose above" being people who actually buy games, well I am going to complain and praise when and where I see fit.

I suppose you might have missed my main point, though it is a notably angelic view.

I am sorry you are "forced" to develop wargames. Must be sad I guess. How many wargames are you developing, you use plural wargames and not wargame.

Hmm. No I'm not "forced" to develop wargames. I'm not sure where you got that from. I do think many designs have gone in directions I do not prefer. And I had complained about it..but its ultimately more useful to do something about it. The list of wargames I am working on is 3 assuming a fantasy wargame counts, otherwise 2. Though, like any small outfit, its hard to keep or get anyone good... so much of the work you'd best be capable of yourself.

I did find your post arrogant but mostly I found it naive.

Well, rather than dispute your name calling, all I can say is... If my opinions and statements are so mis-guided then why is it that all you can find to do is label me "arrogant and naive" rather than debate my actual statements?

And just because a person states how things should be doesn't mean they believe that situation could ever possibly happen. As stated above, I know I proposed an overly-angelic view of the wargaming community. That we could all work together in supporting one another and the hobby in general. Most people are too selfish for that, even if it ends up getting them what they ultimately wanted in the end...

The simple fact is, we are all better off with Matrix Games in existence than not, regardless of anything else. This statement is true for any wargame publisher as there are few enough. The loss of one has much farther reaching consequences to "our hobby" if I am allowed to call it that.. Especially one the size of Matrix....

I never said anyone didn't have a right to complain. And while I do think many complaints out there against Matrix are unfounded, the point was that I'm not sure what some hope to achieve by attacking the Matrix name elsewhere. How does that help give you want you want? Even if it did in the short-run it could very well achive the opposite effect over time.

Companies, Stores, People have all become completely selfish and one-sided these days. Its no longer "What can we do for each other", its "What can you do for me?" No value is placed on anything besides the product itself. Who cares if Store A offers better service and advice if you can buy it cheaper at Store B? In order to combat the effects of that stores grow in size to keep undercutting one another so that they can ultimately not have to care 2 sh!ts about you either as your now an insignificant dollar value to them no matter how pissed off you become. Similar "evolutions" have occurred throughout many areas, including the attitudes of and too most employers. Though it may be naive to think we as a people can ever change this, I think its equally naive to pretend that the situation doesn't exist in the first place.

I mean I thought "us wargamers" were at least agreed on the fact that EA was some money-grubbing goliath that could care less if their games were innovative or fun as long as they could "addict" us with flashy graphics and gameboxes and "lure" us into throwing away our money on a total piece of crap uninspiring game?

But, if i have to keep it simple, I suppose all I'm trying to ask is that If Matrix Folks are the bad guys from the Evil Wargame Publishing Company, then who exactly are the good guys?

And if they aren't in fact the bad guys, then why post things elsewhere (or even here) that would lead some potential fans or buyers to think that they are? What purpose would that server?

Calling me naive does not make me wrong nor my statements any less true...

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

To them, war gaming is a "real time click fest of wondering why Germans are in a place called Cyrenaica - where the hell is Cyrenaica anyway - and why are the Germans so angry that they're holding guns?

So imho it's nothing to do with abstractions of history. Rather its more to do with instant gratification, absolute violence or a quest for peace.

I've always been a very patient person. I wonder how many other wargamers are as well? I think, perhaps, with today's impatient world and much much faster pace, that potential wargamers simply lack the patience it takes not only to learn the games, or even play them, but to get good at them?

I've always gone back to the statement that people only like games that they are good at. And most wargames are designed in such a way as to make many potential players not very good at them at all. I won't delve into a long list of reasons why... as that topic probably needs its own thread.

But "click fest" type games have always existed. They are really just the modern version of arcade games to me. Though perhaps containing a half ounce more strategy than those earlier counterparts. It's hardly a new trend.

I strongly feel it isn't other gamers that have moved further and further away from wargamming... Its wargamming that has moved further and further away from other gamers...

And that, Like Lava elluded to (albeit better in another thread where tutorials and the like were mentioned), is something that can be changed though I wouldn't propose it to be an easy task...

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Matrix Folks are the bad guys from the Evil Wargame Publishing Company

Veldor, I don't want to fire up an argument, but could you please cite an example of anyone on these forums who has asserted this or anything like it? I know that, over the years, we have had a few numbskull troublemakers wander in and do nothing but wreak havoc, but I can't remember anyone who has legitimately tried to make a contribution to the discussion here ever badmouthing Matrix.

All in all, I think the ongoing discussion here has been intelligent, positive, and useful to both the company and its customers. I think you have mischaracterized the statements and intent of the many posters - who are also paying customers - not satisfied with simply saying, "We are better off because Matrix exists, so let's ignore their mistakes and product shortcomings."

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Matrix is a good thing - perhaps even the best thing. I enjoy a number of the products they have marketed and hope for better design process and end results in the future. My criticism has been specifically directed toward what I think are severe shortcomings in Matrix's production and quality control policies. I believe that the delays we are seeing in release of games like EiA and GoA reflect an increased concern by Matrix management in these areas - if so, good for them. I would like nothing better than to see Matrix lead the way to a future where computer games are not released half-baked and without principled oversight of the designers, some of whom (not necessarily those who have created games for marketing by Matrix, mind you) just want to "get it over with," "get the danged thing out there so I can make some money," and "move along to the next chop job."

I am a staunch supporter of Matrix and have been since I first became aware of their existence and started participating in these forums (a review of my posts would substantiate that, although many hundreds were lost in the infamous hacking disaster of 2004). I will continue in that support, and will, as I have in the past, come to Matrix's defense when I see it being unjustly attacked.

That is not to say I will roll over and play dead when products do not meet my expectations as a consumer.