Fun game but...

[David Heath]

As being someone behind the wall here let me jump in. The interface is one of the most important parts of UV or any game. The interface in UV is good and that is the direct result of Mike Wood and Joel Billings.

The other fact is this is not the 1980's and graphics are important. No we do not need everything 3D but part of the fun is watching your plans come together or fall apart. I also feel the sounds play a even greater part.

We want our games to bring to that point and place in time. I know some of you gamers could play with just text but many others want that little extra effect. The nice things about our games that we always go for the option waty of doing things. You can always turn on or off what you like. If wargamers want to see our hobby grow and companies like Matrix make it, then it must move forward so new gamers and stores feel there is value in our style of games.

Many new gamers who have now purchased UV say they love this game and ask if there are any more games like this....... its sad guys but I feel like I've taken someone out of the dark ages.

Graphics and sounds are not everything but it important and we need the new blood.

David

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by David Heath
As being someone behind the wall here let me jump in. The interface is one of the most important parts of UV or any game. The interface in UV is good and that is the direct result of Mike Wood and Joel Billings.

The other fact is this is not the 1980's and graphics are important. No we do not need everything 3D but part of the fun is watching your plans come together or fall apart. I also feel the sounds play a even greater part.

We want our games to bring to that point and place in time. I know some of you gamers could play with just text but many others want that little extra effect. The nice things about our games that we always go for the option waty of doing things. You can always turn on or off what you like. If wargamers want to see our hobby grow and companies like Matrix make it, then it must move forward so new gamers and stores feel there is value in our style of games.

Many new gamers who have now purchased UV say they love this game and ask if there are any more games like this....... its sad guys but I feel like I've taken someone out of the dark ages.

Graphics and sounds are not everything but it important and we need the new blood.

David

Amen to that too !!!!!

I for one could not live with text only games in this day an age, maybe at one time , but not now. Its all about a right mix , that gives the game a "unique atmosphere" and Matrix/2by3 have got it spot on with this beast and I expect the same from WITP when it is released.

[mogami]

Hi, LOL remember these txt only reports

24 Vals attacking CV Lexington
................bomb hits CV Lexington***.........................
.............bomb hits CV Lexington*.....................***Explosion on board CV Lexington.....................

I think I like the display in UV much better.

This game has been done right. First make everything work, and then add graphics to the degree required.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, LOL remember these txt only reports

24 Vals attacking CV Lexington
................bomb hits CV Lexington***.........................
.............bomb hits CV Lexington*.....................***Explosion on board CV Lexington.....................

I think I like the display in UV much better.

This game has been done right. First make everything work, and then add graphics to the degree required.

Ah, the memories (how about "planes explode on deck"). This is absolutely right on, Mog, and I couldn't agree more. David's remarks are heartening, because they are based in the same "visuals are good as long as they are relevant" that made UV such a success.

WITP ... WITP ... WITP

[David Heath]

When Joel and I were working on the visuals we talked about how the text results of the older game kept you on the edge of your seat and how we wanted to capture that..... Oh days gone by.

David

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by David Heath
When Joel and I were working on the visuals we talked about how the text results of the older game kept you on the edge of your seat and how we wanted to capture that..... Oh days gone by.

David

That edge of your seat effect, not to mention the sheer level of player involvement by actually "seeing" what was happening was what made those old txt results wargames so much better than the mid 90's real-time candy simms where you couldn't even begin to keep track of what was going on.

UV preserves this effect and matches it beautifully with the interface. The sounds also greatly add to the immersion effect. I have particularily enjoyed the enhanced dogfighting sound-bit for the air to air routines

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Mogami
This game has been done right. First make everything work, and then add graphics to the degree required.

Game don't need no stinkin' graphics. If you want graphics, go play "Age of Bill Gates Wonders" and leave the wargames to wargamers!!!!!!!!

[SoulBlazer]

And I happen to love Civ 3 and EU 2 as much as I do UV, thank you very much.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
And I happen to love Civ 3 and EU 2 as much as I do UV, thank you very much.

I have played both those games to death. Good games. But no match for UV........

[tanjman]

Originally posted by dpstafford
Game don't need no stinkin' graphics. If you want graphics, go play "Age of Bill Gates Wonders" and leave the wargames to wargamers!!!!!!!!

Sounds like you miss 'Grey Seas, Grey Skies' That game had so few graphics it even came with a paper manuvering board to plot attacks! But back in '86 it was the best modern naval simulator until 'Harpoon' came out.

Eye candy is like broccoli, some love it, some hate it and some are indifferent to it. If Matrix/2by3 want to spiff up the grapics in UV/WitP with some news reel footage to attract new (and young) players, then great. Like David Heath said we always have the option of disabling them. I think what some of us old time gamers are worried about is that form will take precedence over function. I personnal doubt that will ever happen.

Game on!

[Marc von Martial]

Originally posted by dpstafford
Game don't need no stinkin' graphics. If you want graphics, go play "Age of Bill Gates Wonders" and leave the wargames to wargamers!!!!!!!!

This is plain stupid. I tell you, I´m playing wargames for some time now and despite a good gameplay graphics were allways a point to actually buy the game. Do you even think sombody that picks up the game box out of curiousity will buy the game if he sees "text only" on the screenshots ??? No, he will not, not wil you attract new gamers to this genre. And we need new guys here just for the mere reason to keep wargaming alive through sales. It´s easy maths , no sales, no money nobody doing wargames, no wargames, no games for you.

My personal oppinion is that most wargaming companies don´t emphasize enough on eye candy. That was/is IMHO one reason for the dying market for wargaming. Not every grog is a dusty sheet and numbers analyzer. Alot play wargames to get emerged into the thrill of battle and like a kind of role playing. Nice graphics, animations, sounds and original footage do add to this immensily.

As for UV, I would have liked more eye candy on it but the engine has it´s limits as sad as it is.

The "real wargamers need no eye-candy" attitude is exactly what will kill this genre for the PC and you´ll end up with board games only one day. Not that board games are bad, but very hard to play over the internet

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
This is plain stupid. I tell you, I´m playing wargames for some time now and despite a good gameplay graphics were allways a point to actually buy the game. Do you even think sombody that picks up the game box out of curiousity will buy the game if he sees "text only" on the screenshots ??? No, he will not, not wil you attract new gamers to this genre. And we need new guys here just for the mere reason to keep wargaming alive through sales. It´s easy maths , no sales, no money nobody doing wargames, no wargames, no games for you.

My personal oppinion is that most wargaming companies don´t emphasize enough on eye candy. That was/is IMHO one reason for the dying market for wargaming. Not every grog is a dusty sheet and numbers analyzer. Alot play wargames to get emerged into the thrill of battle and like a kind of role playing. Nice graphics, animations, sounds and original footage do add to this immensily.

As for UV, I would have liked more eye candy on it but the engine has it´s limits as sad as it is.

The "real wargamers need no eye-candy" attitude is exactly what will kill this genre for the PC and you´ll end up with board games only one day. Not that board games are bad, but very hard to play over the internet

Its really refreshing to see you guy's at Matrix/2by3 arnt stuck in a time warp. I too would class myself as a "Wargamer", but according to a FEW, I cant call myself that cos I do like Eye Candy and everything that goes with it.

Trying not to get personnal, but the guy your obviously referring to in your reply has for a better word ,"got his head stuck so far up his ***, he cant see the wood for the trees" .

[VictorH]

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
This is plain stupid. I tell you, I´m playing wargames for some time now and despite a good gameplay graphics were allways a point to actually buy the game. Do you even think sombody that picks up the game box out of curiousity will buy the game if he sees "text only" on the screenshots ??? No, he will not, not wil you attract new gamers to this genre. And we need new guys here just for the mere reason to keep wargaming alive through sales. It´s easy maths , no sales, no money nobody doing wargames, no wargames, no games for you.

My personal oppinion is that most wargaming companies don´t emphasize enough on eye candy. That was/is IMHO one reason for the dying market for wargaming. Not every grog is a dusty sheet and numbers analyzer. Alot play wargames to get emerged into the thrill of battle and like a kind of role playing. Nice graphics, animations, sounds and original footage do add to this immensily.

As for UV, I would have liked more eye candy on it but the engine has it´s limits as sad as it is.

The "real wargamers need no eye-candy" attitude is exactly what will kill this genre for the PC and you´ll end up with board games only one day. Not that board games are bad, but very hard to play over the internet

Marc,

You misunderstood my remark about "eye-candy". I'm not advocating text only wargames. I just don't think 3-D or even Command & Conquer type graphics are necessary(or even appreciated in my case) in a game such as UV or any other board game for that matter. I'm happy with graphics such as those in the Panzer Campaign series, Europa Universalis, and even the older games like War in Russia. These are all boardgame type formats, I don't need to see aircraft explode on the deck of an aircraft carrier and crew men running around in flames screaming!

[Marc von Martial]

3D is not a matter of "eye-candy" but of if you think that an 3 dimensional enviroment is applicable for your game. Even if it looks like 2D it still can be a 3D engine under the hood. You would be surprised how many "2D" games work that way.

Command and Conquer stlye graphics, well I personally wouldn´t make this state of the art .

Of course nobody here would even think about having crewmen on fire or such stuff. That´s part of the 2D action RTS business. But people here "complain" about the eye candy in UVs "Combat Animations". Well, I think we´re far away here from an action RTS set but yet it helps to invision the battle going on and (whats even more important) attract people to the game that are not "typicall" spreadsheet wargamers. I personally would love to have it more "action based" in the graphics department. After all you would still able to turn it off if you don´t like it.

I have the distinct feeling that some of our "real" wargamers here are in fear that the eye candy fraction or "flash-bang kids" will be dealt with more then the realism and historical accuracy fraction. Don´t worry guys, you can combine both if you want.

[pasternakski]

First, I think y'all are being too hard on dpstafford, whose post invokes the classic line from "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" in an obvious hyperbolic sally into ironic humor, the victim of which could be just about any of us and our silly beliefs. My guess is that he's just trying to suggest the same thing most of us are saying here, that graphics and audio of any kind are only desirable as they enhance the playability of the game and add a REASONABLE amount of "kick" to the game experience.

I also agree completely with what VictorH has suggested in his posts, that utility is good, fluff is not. Perfectly reasonable, as far as I'm concerned.

I believe from your statements, Marc, that you feel pretty much the same way, and that Matrix/2by3 is not about to wander off into the XBox wilderness.

If, however, the indication is that the emphasis is going to shift from precisely designed, intellectually challenging historical simulations to "graphics and gee whiz rule, man" principles, I can only refer you to my initial post on this thread that attempts to depict the sorry history of computer wargaming when cute conquered competent and stimulation overrode simulation, all in a failed attempt to improve sales. This, as I see it, will never be more than a niche market. You can't afford to lose the "niche-niks" who are already on your side in pursuit of an uncertain and ill-defined market. I wish you success and hope you'll be around feeding my computer wargaming habit for a long time.

The early games, like Grigsby's Carrier Force and War in the South Pacific, were marvels to me because they had to work within the constraints of 40k of computer memory and those 5 1/4" floppies plugged into what didn't amount to much more than a pitiful portable picnic record player. Before long, half a megabyte was available to designers, and things got real sloppy. Economy of effort and conciseness of design got lost. So, we got such things as maps with individual search planes crawling around on them like a bunch of ants and making no sense at all in their reports. When carrier combat took place, you got a half dozen stock videos showing explosions, planes flying about willy-nilly, sailors' faces with panic-stricken looks on them, and the rest of that nonsense. Now that gigabyte-sized games are possible, what do you do with all that power? I say, "Devote your efforts to improving the game." If that also means improvement in video and audio, great, but the game's the thing, as far as I'm concerned.

UV has done a good job with its visuals and audio. Remember, though, the discussions that took place soon after UV v. 1.0 came out over the "disappointing" nature of the visual representation of surface battles, with what I call the "junior high school dance" configuration (the boys line up against one wall and the girls line up against the other one and nobody crosses the middle of the dance floor). At that time, in response to a player's suggestion (modestly advanced by yours truly, of all people), Matrix took the position that more "realistic" depiction of surface battles was not in the cards, because what you were seeing on the screen was just about what was happening in the code. Okay, I'm cool with that.

Anybody noticed anything funny about the relative sizes of aircraft in the aerial combat screen? If a B-17 is a heavy bomber, P-39s must be the size of the alien mothership in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

And so on. These things do not bother your dedicated players of UV (and firm believers in Matrix/2by3), because we are more interested in playing, not watching.

Of course, I agree that Matrix/2by3 should be on the cutting edge in all aspects of computer game design. I have suggested in the past that I would like to see you on this edge with regard to AI design, which I think would be a far more fruitful area of endeavor than creating prettified graphics and "gee whiz" noises (by the way, has anybody else had his submarines attacking to the sound of a fighter plane making a shooting pass?).

I just hope that priorities remain in reasonable order and that future designs are not adversely affected by concentration of effort on peripheral, not central, concerns that can stand in the way of effective simulation design.

[Piiska]

Don’t know about eye candy, but I could use some mind candy

I too belong to the category of war gamers that are very quick on skipping the eye candy in favour of getting into the business so to speak. However, I do like immersion and feeling of being there which can be created by the use of eye candy among other tricks.

I was just thinking that if Matrix decides to improve the player immersion for WITP, then perhaps one thing they could do, is to put newsflashes in form of old newspapers after significant battles. For example, if old newspapers telling about sinking of carriers could be found, they could be used as a template to report losses of capital ships in game. Similarly, if newspapers about the battles of Midway, Okinawa, Wake and such could be found, they could be used to report losses and gains of bases. Even better, if there are old newsreels somewhere available they could be used, but then there would of course be copyright issues and such and finding them could also be hard work.

I don’t know about you guys, but I think it would be cool to have newspapers popping up once a blue moon to praise or judge your war efforts for immersion’s sake. Maybe some fans here with lots of historical knowledge might be able to help finding suitable articles… And if such feature could be added with reasonable effort, it could improve the gaming experience.

[BigJoe417]

All great points really!

I think the game designers did a GREAT job all in all. You can combine both more so called eye candy graphics with the terrific game play that already exists. I think the newspaper headlines grahics idea is great too. Also the idea about short video clips when major ports get captured or the Enterprise sinks maybe.
I think even more than 3d graphics what I enjoy is a good story, following the growth of characters. So thats why I think the newspaper headlines idea could add to the game. I'd like to see a historical database file you could access to read about the leaders in the game.

Hey guys, please bare with me with this question as I am still new to this game. What good is the Mc Aurther HQ unit? How does one best use it?

Thanks for all the great input on this thread.

Joe

[gamer1958]

I like UV better each time I play it. This is the first computer game I've purchased in years, and I was impressed with it, so I will in all likelihood be a repeat Matrix customer in the future.

As for price, $50 is a bargain. I'm an old throwback to the 1970s boardgame era, and I was a big buyer of Avalon Hill issues. AH went out of business a few years back, but I wish I'd held on to most of those games, as they're only available today on e-Bay at 5-6 times (or more) the original prices.

The suggestion of enhanced graphics, newsreels, 3D effects, etc: IMHO, it doesn't belong in a strategy game where most grognards are more concerned with historical accuracy and the challenge of changing the course of history, as well as the gratification of seeing their own "warplans" succeed or fail....

I guess I rather like the game as is.

[Drongo]

To help attract the kiddies (without using lollies or flash bang graphics),

Maybe you could add deposits of Tiberium to the UV map for the 2 sides to fight over (who would now be known as GUI and NOD). Would that be breaching any copyrights?

Just a thought.

[XPav]

To appeal to a wider audience, UV doesn't need stupid sci-fi additions or cutscenes or 3d graphics.

It just needs a better interface.