Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron

MadRussian - Well your last sentence contradicts the first and pretty much confirms what I said, and the 4 vs 25 really is a dishonest comparison. The Plodders and others have proved that. As for the part of 'hit as close to the mark, with as many of our customers as possible', I think this poll and comments answer what customers want to see improved.

So, you want to beat a dead horse. That's fine with me. Complain about the graphics of our maps. You're in good company but months late. This is not news.

There were 4 maps in the original Flash Point Germany. There are 25 maps I made in Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm and a couple made by part of the Beta Test team. Those are facts. I don't know what you think is dishonest about that.

This poll is about anything that our customers think would help the game sell better. This is not a "Do you like the maps?" thread. If you want to make it about maps that's up to you. Personally, I'm beyond that, except to answer questions or comments put to me about why the maps don't fit a particular gamers tastes.

I feel that everyone that paid to play the game has a right to say what they like. Just like I have an obligation to answer their comments.

Now that we have had this little chat we won't need to discuss it again.

Good Hunting.

MR

I think OTS would be well served by getting more articles written in the other online military history forums, like Armchair General.

I'm not strictly talking about AARs, some readers might gloss over those, but articles with historical merit concerning NATO/WP tactics, equipment, organization and training and general mindset might get you a few readers. You could then use the game to demonstrate parts of the article..without it coming across as a sales pitch. [;)]

After all of the research your team has put into this 'game' I know that you have compiled a wealth of data on just about every aspect of the period - weapons systems, tactics, C3. You have the worm, now you just need to bait the hook. [8D]

I don't think outside of the initial release game reviews that I've seen anything else about the game that might get people interested. So my vote is for better marketing, for whatever my 2/100 of a dollar gets you!

I'm not sure where or why this turned into a 4vs25 maps issue. No one is suggesting to go back to the original 4 FG number of maps. The poll outcome is weighted towards make the game look better (maps being one weak area and which is what I commented on), along with more scenarios/campaigns. I'm well aware these are projects of love and a lot of work goes unrewarded financially and/or relies a lot on unpaid volunteer work. I think it is all lessons learned from the original FG to this version and to the next, for you to take or leave for what it's worth. Shrugs.

Ron,

We are looking into a few things to improve the look of the maps for the next game and that is the import part of the discussion.


OldSarge,

Marketing is an import part of expanding our base and Matrix/Slitherine along with us having a Facebook and now an OTS website will need to find ways to better promote the game and get it in front of more people and war gamers. As noted in this thread, we need to have a better look to grab more attention (granted that has no bearing on gameplay, but looks sell). With a better look we may be able to approach Steam (Advance Tactics Gold paves the opening for that) and basically you guys talking us up with other people. Hex map and counter board games are doing well and seem to be picking up in popularity again and hopefully our game will appeal to this growing crowd.

Hell, I think the graphics are good for a hex and counter wargame. I like Plodders maps but I never thought graphics were an issue to begin with. Go look at some John Tiller games and after your eyes start bleeding, come back to this. It's a counter wargame.....what kind if graphics did you want

It's only a 'hex and counter wargame' because it looks like one. If it looked more realistic it would be a 'computer simulation of command', or some such. There are many people out there - like me - who wouldn't buy a John Tiller game just because the maps look like someone took a photo of a boardgame from thirty years ago (when I used to play them). The computer environment can provide richer immersion than that. There are many who are happy with playing board games on a computer too, but surely they won't be turned away if the graphics are spruced up? It doesn't hurt their objectives or ideals to have more detailed realistic graphics on their 'board', no? So I guess, OTS could only increase sales by making more 'realistic' maps.

Regarding the JTS games: while I agree that the artwork in the original games was practically painful to look at, there are numerous excellent graphics mods which turn the games into things of beauty (really!).

Moreover, for the most recent games JTS has apparently hired the modders to do the artwork, so they look good "out of the box".

They're turn-based too, are they not, 76mm? Otherwise I might look at them. Which would you recommend for decent art-work, then? I browsed his site a couple of days ago and thought they all looked much the same, but I might have missed the game you had in mind.

I think it could help if demo was prominently visible - that is linked in a sticky topic on forums and on the game downloads page. Flashpoint Campaigns didn't even exist to me until I have found the demo in news about some competition.

Perturabo, That demo is so old and out of date compared to where the 2.04, 2.05 and soon the 2.06 updates have brought the game system. Very much night and day. It is out there if folks want to mess with it, but from a developer stand point it would be test driving a mini-van compared to a sports car. I'll bring it up in the next Dev call we have and see what the rest of the team thinks.