Matrix Games Forums

Here're the reasons why I won't purchase this game now. In the order of importance:

1. No campaign.

2. No multiplayer.

3. No WEGO.

Nice comments dorb, I feel the same way, I get some games and don't always play right away. I sort of like reading about the games.

ORIGINAL: ivanov

Here're the reasons why I won't purchase this game now. In the order of importance:

1. No campaign.

2. No multiplayer.

3. No WEGO.

Veitikka

You have some of the building blocks ready to go for #2 and #3:

You have replay (of the whole game right now) which is the basis for replay of the last x minutes of play. You have round mode where the game automatically stops after x minutes. Plus, you have the ability to save games. The big technical problems to support WEGO, PBEM are part way solved. Obviously that still leaves tons of work but you don't seem to have actual road blocks.

So hears to a successful single player launch that makes you boat loads of $ and additional interest in playing head to head!

Love the potential of the game, but it clearly is a "we got to get it out for the holidays release." With no MP, no single-player campaign (linear or dynamic) and some clanky AI, especially when it comes to movement, immersion and replay value suffer. I'm a little surprised they didn't even cobble together at least a linear campaign ala Flashpoints Red Storm. To be fair, at $40 perhaps that is somewhat discounting what isn't in the game, at least not yet. Longer-term, I think this game is going to be great but it may have to sit on the shelf a few months until a few coats of polish are applied.

"With no MP"

Can you show me where MP was committed to prior to release? I've been following this game since early in its freeware state and knew it was pretty clear MP was not in the cards. Please point out where that is written.

As to AI, I have had no issues with it. Most of AI complaints are some people who don't own the game parroting some who had issues. I have played for a couple hours and not seen anything from the AI that I wouldn't expect to see from an average player. I play in dev mode and see the AI's reactions and plans. I don't see any huge issues.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"With no MP"

Can you show me where MP was committed to prior to release? I've been following this game since early in its freeware state and knew it was pretty clear MP was not in the cards. Please point out where that is written.

As to AI, I have had no issues with it. Most of AI complaints are some people who don't own the game parroting some who had issues. I have played for a couple hours and not seen anything from the AI that I wouldn't expect to see from an average player. I play in dev mode and see the AI's reactions and plans. I don't see any huge issues.

No one is saying that MP was previously committed to. What some are saying is that they will not buy the game without it. The intention of this thread is to encourage the developers and Matrix to consider including online play and PBEM in the future. It is not intended as a way of disparaging the game.

If you, and others, are happy with the game as single player only, and you enjoy it..........that's great. For others, no online play is a problem and this thread is meant to highlight that. As far as the A.I. goes, without the option to play another person it becomes more critical for some. Of course we all have the option to buy or not.

I hope the tone of the discussion continues to be thoughtful and does not become argumentative.

ORIGINAL: actrade

Love the potential of the game, but it clearly is a "we got to get it out for the holidays release." With no MP, no single-player campaign (linear or dynamic) and some clanky AI, especially when it comes to movement, immersion and replay value suffer. I'm a little surprised they didn't even cobble together at least a linear campaign ala Flashpoints Red Storm. To be fair, at $40 perhaps that is somewhat discounting what isn't in the game, at least not yet. Longer-term, I think this game is going to be great but it may have to sit on the shelf a few months until a few coats of polish are applied.

Please note this statement right above mine. I am responding to that. Tell me how you interpret that? I checked and MP and campaign were pretty early on stated as not being part of the release.

No issues if the game is not your cup of tea. Post your feelings and move on to another game. But to claim the game was shoved out the door on false premises deserves a response from someone who has actually played the game.

There is a lot of potential, but I agree that the AI isn't up to the task.

I like Command Ops 2, it has way better AI and it can beat me more than I can beat it. Also Combat Mission, bad AI but it's all scripted so thats fine.
So far I haven't had any match in Armored Brigade that I felt challenged. Not even 1st game ever.

This game needs more well thought out scripted missions and MP.

Funny, I'm the other way - I actually play multiplayer so rarely that I often consider it a minus when buying games... not because I think multiplayer is bad, but because especially when you have a small team, everything from writing a stable and functional netcode to balancing gameplay mechanics towards competitive fairness takes a lot of time and effort. And from my perspective as a player, I'd much rather that time go into crafting an experience I could enjoy and learn from in a single player environment, in my own time and at my own pace. But to each their own!

I totally do believe there's such a thing as "bad AI" - but I also think what gets labeled as "bad AI" is sometimes not quite what it seems. Games aren't played in the "real world" - they're played in a hyper-real environment with way more information available to the player more readily than in most real world situations. Players are often very experienced at playing games as a skill of its own, and think like game players or puzzle-solvers rather than real commanders. The most fundamental thing that often "kills" multiplayer war games and simulations for me is the competitive mindset that many players go into these games with - because it results in play styles that, while intellectually stimulating, challenging, and even creative, don't line up well with "the real world" at all. So I often find that AI behaviour gets labeled as "bad" in situations even where it's actually plausible and lines up well with the real world - just that the player has way more information and free choice than the real world would offer, and crushes the AI as a result, feeling underwhelmed and under-challenged as a result.

For me personally, I like using war games as tools to get an understanding of history or "reality" (whatever one might mean by that term) - and as a result, I prefer to approach games like this with a mindset that would be absolutely disastrous in multiplayer. I set house rules and limits on myself. The game can also help along - whether with things like order delays, scenario design, or by using the same AI behaviours for both player and enemy units. In that sense, Armored Brigade's design already seems to encourage delegating authority to AI. I would recommend anyone who finds Armored Brigade's AI too easy to try and avoid micromanagement and delegate as much as you can for friendly AI to sort out itself.

Ultimately, you can't make a game to please everybody. Doubly so, if you are a small developer. But you shouldn't be trying to make a game to please everybody - and, well, it's true that if you mostly like multiplayer, this might just not be a game for you. However, I would encourage people not to be too quick to make assumptions, and to try to play and enjoy on a game's own terms rather than only your own terms. Sometimes you might just discover something that's satisfying in a different way from your usual. Games like Armored Brigade are not made overnight, and are not made without thought - from its very early free versions, I could tell that a lot of thought went into Armored Brigade's design. It's not as though the developers here had no idea how to make a good game that results in satisfying play, or hadn't succeeded at it. It's just that to get the most out of it, you have to get on level with what it's trying to actually accomplish.

For my preference, I would've liked a campaign mode, but we can't have everything all the time, can we? [:)]

Where did I say they promised ANYTHING? FWIW, I own the game, like the game, but am noting that without any form of MP OR CAMPAIGN, games like this won't last long in term of replayability, which would be a real shame as I enjoy the game. Take a chill pill man, we both like the game, I'm just pointing out things that will likely have to change if the game is going to stay around long.

"we got to get it out for the holidays release."

So what were you implying here? Your very next sentence was saying they left out MP and campaign. What exactly does this mean then? I am more than happy to be shown I misinterpreted your meaning.

If you use the rounds option and choose not to give orders during the round, isn't it pretty much WEGO without the replay.

I'd like to see a PBEM option also, and hope it gets added but it is fun in its current state and i don't find the price out of line. I'm still learning but a lot of my early pathing issues have to do with not picking the right orders and modifiers/formations and plotting way points correctly. It's certainly not perfect and hope it will be continually improved but it's not as bad as all that. I haven't noticed the AI doing anything to out of bounds, but yea it will never be like another human player but there are advantages you can adjust to make the AI tougher.

As with all games, to each their own.

Again, no issues with someone not liking a game that doesn't have their favorite feature. But I want this game to succeed so those features can be added. Accusing the dev of shoving the game out the door is not conducive to doing that.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, no issues with someone not liking a game that doesn't have their favorite feature. But I want this game to succeed so those features can be added. Accusing the dev of shoving the game out the door is not conducive to doing that.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you look around these forums, there are SEVERAL comments from the Dev team such as this one "We planned and hoped we could finish a campaign for the release, but alas it being a whole new feature it turned out to require far more planning and work than initially though. Dynamic campaign is definitely a next big thing to be released."

If you know anything about the retail business, including video games, it they aren't out in time for the holiday season, publishers get very, very cranky. You can't seriously believe that 15 unrelated single missions and a mission generator were the finished product the Devs pitched to the publisher, can you?

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, no issues with someone not liking a game that doesn't have their favorite feature. But I want this game to succeed so those features can be added. Accusing the dev of shoving the game out the door is not conducive to doing that.

What is the matter of releasing ex-free game in cost of $40 without adding there ANY features above its free state? Devs doing everithing to ruin their game by themselve. If there is no any payment for the game as before there is no questions- devs may do whatever they whant... but for selling there should be some *basic* features like single campaighn and\or MP... right now there is no difference between release version, and the free one, that I still coul donload and play... what reason for me to buy something I can have for free?

the thread has been reported for moderation as the topic is getting heated and out of hand, if it carries on, it will or may get closed.

just as everyone is entitled to an opinion, doesn't mean everyone else has to reply with there own, right or wrong, in the end it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

my advice is forget it ( what ever side your on) and move on.

only friendly advice,...

take it or leave it, reported and copied all replies all the same and posted,...

ORIGINAL: actrade

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, no issues with someone not liking a game that doesn't have their favorite feature. But I want this game to succeed so those features can be added. Accusing the dev of shoving the game out the door is not conducive to doing that.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you look around these forums, there are SEVERAL comments from the Dev team such as this one "We planned and hoped we could finish a campaign for the release, but alas it being a whole new feature it turned out to require far more planning and work than initially though. Dynamic campaign is definitely a next big thing to be released."

If you know anything about the retail business, including video games, it they aren't out in time for the holiday season, publishers get very, very cranky. You can't seriously believe that 15 unrelated single missions and a mission generator were the finished product the Devs pitched to the publisher, can you?

Once again, show me where they committed that to being a product. There is a big difference between saying that something was more effort than expected and saying it got pushed out the door for holiday sales. The latter implies a broken commitment and maybe even false advertising. You don't like the game...that's fine. But accusing the dev and Matrix of not meeting their commitments is not quite fine.

Again, please explain how I could have interpreted your comment differently..."we got to get it out for the holidays release."

This thread is kind of rude, to be honest. The developer clearly intends to add multiplayer and campaigns, so if you want to wait, go ahead. The game is pretty good as is. I spent a lot of time playing Close Combat, and I'm thrilled that someone has finally rebooted this genre. Honestly, games like this don't really need multiplayer. Do you have some loyal friend who wants to sit for hours and wait around while you systematically probe his defenses? I'm happy to let the AI handle that. As for a campaign mode, you could easily create your own campaign by simply rolling a few dice and keeping track of your 'score'. The important thing is that this simulates up to an entire brigade (or more?) at the squad level. The core programming appears solid and stable, and I'm sure lots of additional content will be added over time.

As far as not being a successful game without MP or a campaign, take a look at CMNAO. It was over a year before a campaign was released. And CMNAO is fairly successful.

I am thankful that developers make these games. I can waste enough money on Amazon or spend over 4 hours on this game at 10 bucks an hour and I still get a good bang for the buck. You can spend ten bucks for crap at McDonald's. That's how I look at the games. You can spend 100 hours on this game right now and that be a good saving and use of your dollar. By the way, I don't want a Paradox model

Keep up the good work on the new games, plus I remember a time before single player games. Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving.