Matrix Games Forums

Having just read the review it’s obvious that the reviewer is a mouse twiddler with very little knowledge of WW2 or wargaming. Denmark indeed! He has probable seen ABDA written on a map somewhere.

Who else thinks the interface is somewhat complicated? Oh I see; more than five fingers worth of places to click the mouse does make it complicated.

Is the learning curve steep? Yes it is, buts its one of the reasons wargamers play wargames like this. To think.

Did he take a look at scenario #16. Couldn’t have done otherwise he wouldn’t have written this.
‘But strangely enough, the setup for Decision in the Pacific, the game's grandest campaign, does not incorporate the results of that battle (sic. Midway): It's a hypothetical scenario that assumes that the Japanese did not suffer the devastating losses in carriers and pilots that forever changed the course of the war.’

Why is mousewheel support essential?

Map graphics and pics in the game are very good. Sounds all appear to be accurate and convey a sense of combat. As Erik Rutins said ‘some of the best graphics and sound in any operational wargame ever.’

Having said all that the review was mostly favourable, pity about his WW2 knowledge.

I thought that was a very fair review, and clearly either the reviewer read the forums or actually had the same issues. Got to agree with him on the Manual., but that has be debated to death.

I gave the game on 8 for graphics. Not comparing it to a FPS, or an RPG game, but rather to a strategy game like Civ3. Sorry the animation etcs just aren't up to 2002 levels.


One day I'll learn to proofread my own posts

Originally posted by strollen
I thought that was a very very review

What's a very very review?

Just a note from the development side. Originally David had some grand plans regarding the combat animations. As programming started it dragged on and on. Eventually 2 different programmers ended up spending at least 5 man months on the animations. It was one of the major reasons that the game was released later than planned. I think David did the best that he could given the resources available and the difficulty of doing the animations in the system. Yes they could be better (and my understanding is that Mike and David have improved on some of them in the patch), but since we live in a world of limited resources, there's always a trade off between getting the game working better, getting the AI to work better, and getting the fun eye-candy to look and feel better.

My guess is that the low graphics rating came as much from the fact that most of the game is spent on a 2D map with small icons and no animation and that spicing up the combat animations wouldn't have done much to improve the rating (unless of course we had the battles playing in real time 3D). I'm certainly happy with the gameplay and tilt ratings.

IChristie,

You may want to wait on that poll question.

Now that the combat sequences are being redone in the patch to give a lot more information, it may significantly change the number of people who view the animations. If people don't receive all the new text messages about "Crossing the T" and "Climbing to Intercept" etc. without having the animations on, they may be willing to keep them on much more often. I know I would!

Methinks they have been reading the forum. :p

All in all, a rather fair review.

Iain,

They're not exactly thumping your graphics, it's more due to the fact that they use the same system to rate all the Quake-based shooters, and games like Empire Earth. Go look at how they rated the graphics of some other wargames and give yourself a pat on the back.

For those of you who like a bit of nostalgia, you might like to compare the UV review with one about Pacific War from many years ago

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zon ... acwar.html

It is startling how similar these two are.

David Kurtz, reviewing pacwar, wrote "it is an enormous and sometimes daunting proposition to attempt to manage a war covering so much area. But if you are willing to stick with Pacific War and surmount the steep learning curve, you will discover one of the best war/resource management games ever released. "

Both reviews emphasise the complex interface and that graphics and sound are not the emphasis. They also stress that although the games is complex, the underlying gameplay is absorbing and that one mastered the game becomes utterly addictive.

Fortunately, some things never change.

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan

Sounds like he went to an Office Store of some sort or a short-notice print shop.

I just took about 70 sheets of paper, printed odd pages on one side, flipped it over, and printed, even on the other. Granted, I do own an HP LJ5MP...

Did the same thing on a Lexmark Z52. Used up about 3/4 of a new color cartridge.

Von Frag

Originally posted by Paul Dyer
For those of you who like a bit of nostalgia, you might like to compare the UV review with one about Pacific War from many years ago

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zon ... acwar.html

It is startling how similar these two are.

David Kurtz, reviewing pacwar, wrote "it is an enormous and sometimes daunting proposition to attempt to manage a war covering so much area. But if you are willing to stick with Pacific War and surmount the steep learning curve, you will discover one of the best war/resource management games ever released. "

Both reviews emphasise the complex interface and that graphics and sound are not the emphasis. They also stress that although the games is complex, the underlying gameplay is absorbing and that one mastered the game becomes utterly addictive.

Fortunately, some things never change.

Hi, Funny but I used to think PacWar was large. But after 10 years of playing I no longer view it as a monster. (I can do turns in 5-10 minutes PBEM games covering 150+ turns in 3-4 weeks) I really liked the part of his review where he said in order to win as Japanese you would need to take the help options on highest settings (LOL) I'm not going to comment on the UV review.

Iain, Marc, et al... the UV maps are THE most beautiful maps ever created for a pacific theatre game, period (be it computer or board). At least that's my opinion, having played all of them over the last thirty years or so...

As far as the manual printing costs are concerned, Kinkos quoted me $0.89US/page... that's way over the price he quoted in the review. It took my ancient HP deskjet over 8 hours to complete the job!!

Iain, Marc, et al... the UV maps are THE most beautiful maps ever created for a pacific theatre game, period (be it computer or board). At least that's my opinion, having played all of them over the last thirty years or so

I appreciate it. Like I said, the main role of the graphics in this kind of game is to make it easy to look at

Originally posted by Mogami



Hi, Funny but I used to think PacWar was large. But after 10 years of playing I no longer view it as a monster. (I can do turns in 5-10 minutes PBEM games covering 150+ turns in 3-4 weeks) I really liked the part of his review where he said in order to win as Japanese you would need to take the help options on highest settings (LOL) I'm not going to comment on the UV review.

Yes, us long time pacwarriors developed a feel for the game, not to mention dexterity, that meant we could create and assign TFs faster than a Wall St analyst recommends hot stocks. Whadaya you mean difficult interface? The fact that we still love it tells us about the relative importance of gameplay vs packaging. Only hope UV/WITP leave us feeling the same way.

I must say that the specific order for pressing buttons had eluded me.

On the interface there are a number of buttons to press and usually I pressed “load troops” and only then pressed the destination.

The point might be in the manual but I supposed I missed it.

If the order is important I suppose they ought to be positioned that way. Or else an error message pops up if we press them in the wrong order.

-

Pretty acceptable review given the source. Last I checked, 8.7 overall. Darn good.

I know what is missing...blood and gore in the combat screens! Big blobs of it splattered all over the screen when combat is resolved. High pitched death screams and Duke Nukem voice tracks instead of text messages!;)

Go show, guys.

I think the knock on the graphics and sound is completely bogus. Sure, compared to Half-Life or some of the other 3-D shooters out there, UV is not even in the same category (but isn't that the whole point - )

The game should be judged by the standards of other operational (and even strategic) wargames out there - and UV certainly blows them out of the water.

As far as some of the issues (including the Catalina vs. Submarine issue) - I had two of them hit a sub last night (and sink both of them). Since the vast majority of the games they review anyway are either RTS pieces of crap or 3-Shooters, I think they have a hard time evaluating UV for what it really is - the definitive operational wargame of the last decade.....

Hello...

The reviewer was mistaken. The order of button pressing is not important. You must assign a destination before the ship finishes loading or it will start unloading where it is. That's all. You can give all load orders at all the bases, if you like, and then go back through and assign all destinations. It really does not matter. On the turn the ship is finished loading, it will go to the assigned destination and start unloading. If the assigned destination is the current destination, fine, it unloads there.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
________________________________________________

Originally posted by Joe 98
I must say that the specific order for pressing buttons had eluded me.
On the interface there are a number of buttons to press and usually I pressed “load troops” and only then pressed the destination.
The point might be in the manual but I supposed I missed it.
If the order is important I suppose they ought to be positioned that way. Or else an error message pops up if we press them in the wrong order.
-

The reviewer was mistaken. The order of button pressing is not important. You must assign a destination before the ship finishes loading or it will start unloading where it is. That's all. You can give all load orders at all the bases, if you like, and then go back through and assign all destinations. It really does not matter. On the turn the ship is finished loading, it will go to the assigned destination and start unloading. If the assigned destination is the current destination, fine, it unloads there.

And actually this sounds logical too me !

I can really live with the graphic marks. I know we have done our best considering the time I (we) had, the splitting with other projects and of course the limitations of the engine. Some stuff will be "different" with the patch. Please do not expect drastic changes , will you.

Iain don´t be shy, maybe George and me did more graphics (number wise) for the game but your great map is what you look at most of the time, and it´s really a killer !

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck


And actually this sounds logical too me !

I can really live with the graphic marks. I know we have done our best considering the time I (we) had, the splitting with other projects and of course the limitations of the engine. Some stuff will be "different" with the patch. Please do not expect drastic changes , will you.

Iain don´t be shy, maybe George and me did more graphics (number wise) for the game but your great map is what you look at most of the time, and it´s really a killer !

I have to be honest, I thought the graphics were the best I had ever seen for a project like this. The map is visually stunning (to the point where I have a framed copy on photo paper above my desk for reference) and the animations actually serve their purpose well (carrier sub attacks...and surface engagements). For the reviewer to take the graphics to task tells me he really didnt understand the genre of what he was reviewing. Its just one man's opinion, but if you use the same map/unit graphics in WITP players will love it.

Rob

Hi

I think the reviewer did a good job... understand that the game been out a month and he read the rules, played the game, came to this forum and took the time to ask us about a few rules. I hope every reviewer takes the time to do this.

This is a deep game and he clearly states this. He also says the most important thing about the game its FUN and worth the gamers time. I can not ask for a better comment then that.

He didn't like the graphics as much as we do that is ok by me. We got to remember that a review like this should help grow the wargame communitly.

David

Hi

I agree with David that this was indeed a good review for he wrote that it was fun and could be rewarding even for people outside the hardcore community that most of us here belong to but the majority of gamers dont. But like most members I was quite angry about the sound/graphics grade. This shows, just like my PBEM buddy Rob stated, that the author simply have not been playing "heavy" wargames for the past twenty years. I have simply never seen graphics and sound like this in this type of wargame since I started playing 13 years ago.

BTW: Matrix should really try to sign Norm Koger for his Russo-Japan war 1904-05 project if its not too late.

Again many thanks to Matrix for making a great game better.

Dan