Review @ Out of Eight

[Nemo121]

Well I think his harsh review of the interface was valid. Speaking as someone who spent a few hours trying to tweak German production I can assure you that things are unnecessarily buried in the bowels of the game and little thought was given to making the interface efficient and accessible.

With that said I do think that if you are reviewing a revamp of an old Grigsby game you have to take that revamp on its own merits and make allowance for the fact that this isn't a game which was designed in the current age.

For what it is the revamp is extremely successful ( albeit I still have to play it in a tiny window on my desktop due to the 1024x768 issue ) but, understandably, the focus was on bug-fixing and fixing a few other errors and not on redoing the entire interface. Unfortunately reviewers on most sites nowadays are unlikely to take such a nuanced view.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well I think his harsh review of the interface was valid.

I brought Grigsby's clunky interface treatment up on USENET a while back, and was kind of surprised that so many folks agreed with me. He makes games that many of us are interested in, but the GUI functions are like something from DOS-days. And I'm not talking about the graphics, but their overall system of menus, object selection and manipulation. They are so hard to use that they can darn near ruin the whole experience (for many gamers). I bought WitP-AE when it was released and was quickly reminded of how cumbersome the GUI really is, a flaw which is only magnified by the gargantuan nature of a campaign in that game. Thus far, I've passed on this latest game because the interface appears so similar to the originals.

Kindly attribute this post to simple feedback from someone who buys a LOT of computer wargames. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Erik Rutins]

Honestly, I think reviews that focus on the interface (which is the same or better than the original) are missing the point of these remakes. Yes, the interface feels clunkier now than it did in the 90s, but you do get used to it as we did with the originals and the gameplay is better than ever. These games are undeniably based on an old engine and while it now runs on modern systems and is supported, expecting it to behave just like a game designed and developed in 2008 or 2009 is unreasonable.

I think it's absolutely fair to suggest that, as the game continues to be supported, we should make further interface improvements. But expecting an interface overhaul that was never promised comes a bit out of the blue for me.

Regards,

- Erik

[Hard Sarge]

trying to be a good boy, but, most of our type of games are going to be menu driven, so what kind of UI do they expect, that isn't going to be using menu's

the Civ's are menu driven, the TW games are still Menu driven, The Witcher, is menu driven, Sword of the Stars is menu driven, this forum is menu driven, there websites are menu driven, how are you suppost to design (which we weren't) a UI that doesn't use menu's

[Rekm41]

I think maybe a short cut to the OOB. I believe you mentioned you were working on that in another post. I think people have become too used to windows and just clicking where they want to go immediately and not having to go through steps. Windows 3.1 and DOS were what I first played with..

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Honestly, I think reviews that focus on the interface (which is the same or better than the original) are missing the point of these remakes. Yes, the interface feels clunkier now than it did in the 90s, but you do get used to it as we did with the originals and the gameplay is better than ever. These games are undeniably based on an old engine and while it now runs on modern systems and is supported, expecting it to behave just like a game designed and developed in 2008 or 2009 is unreasonable.

I think it's absolutely fair to suggest that, as the game continues to be supported, we should make further interface improvements. But expecting an interface overhaul that was never promised comes a bit out of the blue for me.

Regards,

- Erik

Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface. Such person is also much less likely to know which aspects were promised to be polished and which were not and maybe he's just not willing to buy a game he'll literally fight with while playing and which could have been so much better with few simple solutions known from other games. And why should he even care about those promises? It's like somebody would release today a renewed Sensible Soccer 96/97, with some tweaks and ability to play it on modern computers, ask for it a price of a new game and then act surprised when reviewers are pointing out clunkiness or ugliness or any other -ness that fails when compared with the latest FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. It doesn't change the fact that Sensible was and still is a really fun game. Forgive this example but I couldn't find better.

A person that was already acquainted with the original game will simply ignore obvious parts of the review (if he is even going to read such review in the first place) and as an old fan of the game he will be well aware of what to expect.

[Nemo121]

HS, to be fair to the reviewer ( and others ) I don't think that this is an issue of not wanting menus. I think this is an issue of there being a BETTER way to present the menus than we currently have.
 
E.g. Imagine, if you would, a menu for production featuring, along the top, generic pictures of "single-engined day fighter", "twin-engined day fighter", "night fighter", "Jabo"
 
Click on "night fighter" and below these generic pictures a new page pops up with pictures of the planes on the left in one column, a second column showing a picture of avionics etc ( parts ) and a third column showing a generic picture of plane engines ( 1 engine for single-engined planes, two engines for twin-engined planes )
 
There's a number below each plane, part and engine which shows the number required at present for that plane type and the total number being produced in total.
 
Click on a picture and a new box pops up showing you a list of the factories ( and their sizes ) producing that plane assembly or avionics or engine. If you want to change production you can select more than one of the factories at a time and then when you select change all of the selected factories will change to whatever you want at the same time. When you close this sub-menu the main page will update all the figures letting you instantly see the effect of what you are doing on night-fighter production, assembly,m parts and engine requirements.
 
 
 
On one page you have all of the data you need to change production for ALL of your night fighters. Same for the other types. It is displayed somewhat graphically with a clear communication to players of what engine and parts types are required for which planes, how many of each you need and what the total production for each is.
 
 
Is the current aspergery menu a game-breaker for me? No but neither is it even close to being as user-friendly as something along the lines of what is outlined above.
 
 
Bottom lines:
1. The issue isn't with menus it is with the user-unfriendliness of menus.
2. If you want pretty menus etc don't get a Grigsby game.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: rekm41

I think maybe a short cut to the OOB. I believe you mentioned you were working on that in another post. I think people have become too used to windows and just clicking where they want to go immediately and not having to go through steps. Windows 3.1 and DOS were what I first played with..

but you can just click were you want to go ? (if your talking about the map)

a short cut to the OOB, well, it would save you one mouse click ?

now, you go to the summery page, then to the OOB page, a button for the OOB, would just skip the summery page to go to the OOB page, but if he can add it, great

[Hard Sarge]

Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface

I could agree with that, if it was focus on all aspects of the game, fine, but they weren't

and both reviews, that is there view of the interface, most people who played the game don't notice it, when they know what they are doing

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: wilecki
Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface. Such person is also much less likely to know which aspects were promised to be polished and which were not and maybe he's just not willing to buy a game he'll literally fight with while playing and which could have been so much better with few simple solutions known from other games. And why should he even care about those promises? It's like somebody would release today a renewed Sensible Soccer 96/97, with some tweaks and ability to play it on modern computers, ask for it a price of a new game and then act surprised when reviewers are pointing out clunkiness or ugliness or any other -ness that fails when compared with the latest FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. It doesn't change the fact that Sensible was and still is a really fun game. Forgive this example but I couldn't find better.

A person that was already acquainted with the original game will simply ignore obvious parts of the review (if he is even going to read such review in the first place) and as an old fan of the game he will be well aware of what to expect.

I think a key misunderstanding here is that my objection is that reviews should not _focus_ on the interface. I feel that the two posted here did focus on that and meanwhile did not really address what it is that players of the originals would find improved here, which is a pretty substantial list. It's also worth noting that we are releasing two games here for the price of one of the originals, having updated both to the final version of the engine plus many improvements.

I certainly think the interface should be part of any review, but I think it should not be the focus of the review for an updated release like this one, especially when it was not promised to be substantially different from the originals. It's worth noting that unlike some other game niches, in wargaming these kinds of definitive treatments on a subject are rare and it's often a long time before they are revisited. That's the main reason why it makes sense to extend the life of definitive games like these when a replacement for them is not really on the horizon. There are limits to what can reasonably be done with older engines though and I believe what the team focused on and promised to do, they did very well.

I'm sure some interface improvements will be possible post-release, but an interface overhaul is asking too much of the engine itself.

Regards,

- Erik

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: wilecki
Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface. Such person is also much less likely to know which aspects were promised to be polished and which were not and maybe he's just not willing to buy a game he'll literally fight with while playing and which could have been so much better with few simple solutions known from other games. And why should he even care about those promises? It's like somebody would release today a renewed Sensible Soccer 96/97, with some tweaks and ability to play it on modern computers, ask for it a price of a new game and then act surprised when reviewers are pointing out clunkiness or ugliness or any other -ness that fails when compared with the latest FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. It doesn't change the fact that Sensible was and still is a really fun game. Forgive this example but I couldn't find better.

A person that was already acquainted with the original game will simply ignore obvious parts of the review (if he is even going to read such review in the first place) and as an old fan of the game he will be well aware of what to expect.

I think a key misunderstanding here is that my objection is that reviews should not _focus_ on the interface. I feel that the two posted here did focus on that and meanwhile did not really address what it is that players of the originals would find improved here, which is a pretty substantial list. It's also worth noting that we are releasing two games here for the price of one of the originals, having updated both to the final version of the engine plus many improvements.

I certainly think the interface should be part of any review, but I think it should not be the focus of the review for an updated release like this one, especially when it was not promised to be substantially different from the originals. It's worth noting that unlike some other game niches, in wargaming these kinds of definitive treatments on a subject are rare and it's often a long time before they are revisited. That's the main reason why it makes sense to extend the life of definitive games like these when a replacement for them is not really on the horizon. There are limits to what can reasonably be done with older engines though and I believe what the team focused on and promised to do, they did very well.

I'm sure some interface improvements will be possible post-release, but an interface overhaul is asking too much of the engine itself.

Regards,

- Erik

Hi Erik,

Well I haven't read the other review but in the Out of Eight review the general focus was most certainly not put on the interface. Interface was just recognized as the most annoying of the three 'not so good' aspects and I am grateful for that being pointed out since recently I've become more easily frustrated with clunky games. Either I am getting old or I value my free time more, that I don't know, but the fact is that this review helped me to make a decision not to buy this game, at least for now. Seeing few posts that only complain about some emphasis put by the reviewer on the weakest side of the game only assures me that I've made a correct decision. There were much more positive things said about this game, describing interesting gameplay and the rating was not bad in the end. I find this review a fair one, just as many others from www.outofeight.info.

By the way can a potential buyer like me take your words of 'some interface improvements' as a promise?

[fthein]

What worries me more as the bad interface are the high bomber casualties when playing against the allied ai which the last reviewer mentioned. Is this true or bad luck? In the old verion so far as i remember you could kill several hundert B17 bomber within a few days because the ai was overly aggressive.

[invernomuto]

We are focusing too much to the GUI and not talking about the gameplay.
The GUI of this game is taken directly from the '90s and feels old.
But the game is good. It's another WITP, very addictive.

The only critic I can move to this game is the release date, too near to AE's one.

Back to play, I have to won the air battle over Britain

Bye!

[oldspec4]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Well I beg to differ. I think that a fair review should focus on all aspects of the game. A person that didn't play the original game, like myself, might still want to know everything about it including the clunkiness of the interface

I could agree with that, if it was focus on all aspects of the game, fine, but they weren't

and both reviews, that is there view of the interface, most people who played the game don't notice it, when they know what they are doing

Well, I didn't play the original but I have played many other GG titles. I actually expected some learning curve time to get a handle on the UI.

The manual, the forum, and some initial test games got me through the UI essentials quickly.

I'm still a noob re: strategy/tactics but I'm havin' fun w/ the gameplay.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: wilecki
Hi Erik,

Well I haven't read the other review but in the Out of Eight review the general focus was most certainly not put on the interface...

Seems we interpreted the review differently.

[vils]

Every military operation has a D-Day, and then D-Day+1, D-Day+2 etc, so it is not specific to Operation Overlord, even that many people has learnt just that (faulty).

[Justascratch]

I guess I've just grown used to learning the interface of a complex wargame as part of the fun. Even stylized games like HOI have several routines that require multiple clicks to do simple tasks. However, I can't think of any reason a programmer would expect, and therefore make provisions, for a player in a realistic game to do anything as silly as changing all production to a single plane type and then be pummelled by a reviewer when such a preposterous thing can't be done with a single click.

This is a 700 turn, deep strategy game, you don't buy it to improve your hand-eye coordination. Even the best animations and menus get dull after the first few times around.

I feel sorry for every armchair general who passes on this gem because of a private post on a blog site where the reviewer also complained that this (a game representing one of the bloodiest battles in human history) was too bloody. Because, it is exactly the challenge to win "without all the blood" that is the strategic challenge. Of course, that basic truth requires more than a casual glance to appreciate so it is not suprising that reviewers in the age of animation usually miss the target.

with all that said, I really do wish Gary would consider starting from scratch on a new version of this battle for release 2011 or 2012!

[JaguarUSF]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
expecting an interface overhaul that was never promised comes a bit out of the blue for me.

Just because it was never promised doesn't mean you shouldn't expect it, especially if you did not know it was never promised. Or something [:D]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: JaguarUSF
Just because it was never promised doesn't mean you shouldn't expect it, especially if you did not know it was never promised. Or something [:D]

Nobody expects the interface inquisition! [;)] [:D]

But seriously, we'll see what we can do post release to improve the interface, within the very significant limits the engine has in that regard.

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: fthein

What worries me more as the bad interface are the high bomber casualties when playing against the allied ai which the last reviewer mentioned. Is this true or bad luck? In the old verion so far as i remember you could kill several hundert B17 bomber within a few days because the ai was overly aggressive.

The AI is better than it was before, but it is still an AI.
In certain limits it will be a good opponent, but if a human player overpowers the AI, with concentrating hundreds of planes on single units it will break, because that is outside of the historical limit.