Norm Koger's Distant Guns: Russo-Japanese War sets sail

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I will not defend many many aspects of DG (marketing, distribution scheme, tech support, community service, price etc etc) but this I cannot let pass!

DG is about bazillion times better, more detailed, more realistic than any of the HPS naval games.

I also find it more enjoyable, although this is subjective.

Agreed. Some strong opinions based on the demo only...

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
The tactical/battle portion of Distant Guns is little more than a 3D version of this:

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/N ... shima.html

If you're truly wowed by 3D graphics, if that's what floats your pre-dreadnought, then you're gonna be mighty happy with DG. Apart from that, however, Koger's game is just as boring as Tiller's. There's nothing to do. You just sail around with the camera and watch the battle. Simple battle functions, such as torpedo work, are out of your hands. And, in that Tiller's includes a 2D map to plot movement on, I consider his work superior.

I will not defend many many aspects of DG (marketing, distribution scheme, tech support, community service, price etc etc) but this I cannot let pass!

DG is about bazillion times better, more detailed, more realistic than any of the HPS naval games.

I also find it more enjoyable, although this is subjective.

@Oleg,

Every EFFECTIVE naval simulation and/or wargame that I've ever played, devoted to task force level combat, has employed a 2D map for plotting moves, PERIOD. I know of no exceptions to this. It's worth noting that, in real life, ship movement has traditionally been tracked on such maps, whether it be on the old-fashioned, paper kind, or on a high-tech display in a modern combat information center. And while a lot of folks will indeed by wowed by the graphics in Distant Guns, there's simply nothing else going on, excepting a couple of lines of ships plinking away at one another. It's like watching paint dry on a wall. And I'd assert that modern game designs have to offer more, or else they will fail.

PoE

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Keke
Agreed. Some strong opinions based on the demo only...

Yes, indeed, and thank goodness for the demo. I normally do all that I can to support fledgling developers, but the ONLY thing that this company did right was give folks a taste of the real-deal prior to making an otherwise ill-advised purchase. And if anyone out there wants to shell out eighty-bucks to be a beta-tester, then, by all means, have at it, you've found yourself a home.

PoE

[JJKettunen]

Well...

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
1) a 2D map for accurate movement plotting. The GUI for plotting movement of TF and individual ships is clumsy, and most damningly, hopelessly imprecise. Players shouldn't lose games because of klunky interfaces, IMO.

That's a strange opinion since the interface is not clumsy at all, and I fail to see why it need more precision. Your opinion seems to based only on the fact that there are no 2D maps.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
2) A bridge view with some nice binoculars would go a long way in introducing some effective FOW into the battles, not to mention the immersiveness that's sorely lacking in the game.

Since I find the game to be very immersive and its campaign very addictive, I have no idea how some binoculars would help. OK, it would be nice to have a binocular view, but it would be chrome only. I see no problem with the FOW at all.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
3) Full player control of guns and torpedo directors and targeting.

Personally I don't like the idea of more micromanagement (in any wargame ever), but I understand the desire for more control over those poor pre-dreadnought torpedoes.

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Keke
Agreed. Some strong opinions based on the demo only...

Yes, indeed, and thank goodness for the demo. I normally do all that I can to support fledgling developers, but the ONLY thing that this company did right was give folks a taste of the real-deal prior to making an otherwise ill-advised purchase. And if anyone out there wants to shell out eighty-bucks to be a beta-tester, then, by all means, have at it, you've found yourself a home.

PoE

Well the $60.00 bundle is still listed and they just announced Jutland as the new game to be released.

http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public ... tland.html

As regards the demo I have played it once and enjoyed it as the Russian. I was simply interested to hear from people about the campaign and their overall satisfaction with the game.Yes i enjoy the graphic eye candy. Also I play WiTp so I don't suffer from short attention-span syndrome.

About marketing and distribution I agree that SES is shooting themselves in both feet. Personally I would have thought if Norm wanted to sell games he might have approached Matrix or another distributor but such is life.

As to patching policy at least they went through 50 patch/fixes there are game companies out there that do a "one patch" fix-all policy and walk out the door with your $.

Lack of a dedicated forum also seems a blunder for SES.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Every EFFECTIVE naval simulation and/or wargame that I've ever played, devoted to task force level combat, has employed a 2D map for plotting moves, PERIOD.

Name a few.

I could name some - for ME - very good or excellent naval games on tactical or simulation level that employ 3D and do that very effectivelly. Dangerous Waters, Silent Hunter 1-4, Battlestations Midway (OK this one is "lite" and arcadish, but it's not 3D that makes is automatically arcadish), Distant Guns, Fleet Command, Fighting Steel.... all 3D.

Except for Battlestations Midway all those games are pretty hardcore in their approach to realism etc.

3D is just a harmless eye candy, there is nothing inherent in 3D that would automatically make the game less realistic or more stupid or shallow. It may help to make the game more approachable, or it may not, but there is nothing bad in trying to add this additional "layer" to the game.

I know of no exceptions to this. It's worth noting that, in real life, ship movement has traditionally been tracked on such maps, whether it be on the old-fashioned, paper kind, or on a high-tech display in a modern combat information center. And while a lot of folks will indeed by wowed by the graphics in Distant Guns, there's simply nothing else going on, excepting a couple of lines of ships plinking away at one another. It's like watching paint dry on a wall. And I'd assert that modern game designs have to offer more, or else they will fail.

Your criticims are pretty vague IMO. "Modern game designs need to offer more" - more of what, in your opinion? One thing that I'd personally like to see in DG is player-managed damage control (as in Silent Hunter 3-4 or even already mentioned arcadish BSM - which has excellent implementation of player-controlled DC).

Besides, since you argue for 2D games that simulate "real life ship movement tracking" you will agree that in real life there is "simply nothing else going on" as you say.... do you mean to say all naval sims and tactical games are inherently boring?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Every EFFECTIVE naval simulation and/or wargame that I've ever played, devoted to task force level combat, has employed a 2D map for plotting moves, PERIOD.

Name a few.

I could name some - for ME - very good or excellent naval games on tactical or simulation level that employ 3D and do that very effectivelly. Dangerous Waters, Silent Hunter 1-4, Battlestations Midway (OK this one is "lite" and arcadish, but it's not 3D that makes is automatically arcadish), Distant Guns, Fleet Command, Fighting Steel.... all 3D.

Oleg, I'm kind of surprised by this response. Pardon me, if I don't quote myself, but I didn't say that 3D is a problem. I do insist, however, that a 2D map is a necessity for plotting the movements of a task force. Dangerous Waters, SHx, Fleet Command, the Harpoon series, and many others ALL had a 2D, overhead map upon which to plot movement. I traded in my copy of "Farting Steel" at EB, btw, after SSI abandoned it. I guess I have a bit of an attitude about developers and publishers dropping unfinished wares on me, but I'm not alone in that regard.

Now, let me digress for a moment...

Do you want to know what the real problem is with ***almost*** all of these games that are being published today, ones that might hold your interest or mine? Well, the truth is that a segment of the computer gaming industry that used to routinely generate sales in the six-figure range, rarely sees sales in five-figures, now. And along with the EVAPORATION of all that revenue, went the resources, talent and business culture that might otherwise sustain even the smallest, most modest of development houses.

The money for production and programming and the will to "do it right," simply are no longer there in many instances. And when enough corners get cut, the unfortunate progeny is typically no "keeper," if you get my drift. I don't particularly enjoy outlining the particulars of this situation, BTW. I find it all kind of depressing, given what my expectations were ten years ago. But, I'm too old to countenance painting lipstick on a pig. You see, I don't suffer mendacity well, either.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[JJKettunen]

Sorry, but that sounds bullshit to me. 

[Terminus]

Don't apologize... It IS...

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I shall catalog both of those comments under my list of "deep thoughts," and commend you both for using the spell-checker before posting. Those multi-syllabic words can be a real challenge.

PoE

[Erik Rutins]

Actually, Prince of Eckmuhl does have a point regarding the changes in the market. Although the developers we work with are excellent and quite professional, many have been in the field for quite a while too and got started in it when true wargames (rather than just war-themed RTSes or FPSes) were a more substantial portion of mainstream gaming. For a new programmer out of college looking to work on games, starting a wargame development studio is probably not at the top of the "sane things to do" list if you want to maximize financial success. They'll be thinking about working with a more mainstream developer and publisher, on titles that sell more copies, likely designed for one of the console gaming systems.

To that extent, things have changed and as the older professional wargame developers decide to move on, I don't see a long line of younger developers waiting to replace them. There are some, but not as many as I would like to see.

Anyway, that's a general point, I'm not commenting on Distant Guns here, just on game development trends. I have an extremely high opinion of Norm and his work as most here know.

[JJKettunen]

nervermind

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
The money for production and programming and the will to "do it right," simply are no longer there in many instances. And when enough corners get cut, the unfortunate progeny is typically no "keeper," if you get my drift. I don't particularly enjoy outlining the particulars of this situation, BTW. I find it all kind of depressing, given what my expectations were ten years ago. But, I'm too old to countenance painting lipstick on a pig. You see, I don't suffer mendacity well, either.

...and so it turns into yet another "wargaming is dead, dying or in terrible agony" kind of thread.

Could be you're right about that, but I've seen far too many threads like those in my years, and am too tired to participate in them. I thought this is a thread about Distant Guns and/or Jutland (recently announced successor to DG). Indeed, if you fail to see basic difference between HPS Tsushima/Jutland offering, and - in my opinion - VASTLY better, more realistic and improved game(s) by Norm Koger, covering same topics, then, indeed, wargaming might be dead from your POV. From where I stand, there is HUGE improvement in the recent batch of naval (war)games and sims.

Now, my question would be why this improvement is not turned into dollars? As I said, in my opinion almost everything about DG except the basic coding of the game engine was done terribly wrong.

Now excuse me, I have half a dozen of excellent war and strategy games on my PC to play, call me when the funeral for wargaming industry is over [:'(]

[8D]

[Erik Rutins]

By no means is wargaming dying! However, there's no question that it would be a good thing for wargame players, developers and publishers if wargames had a larger share of the market. It's remarkable just what can be accomplished on the development budget of an average wargame these days, but it does make one realize how much more could be done by the same talented people with a larger, more mainstream-sized budget.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Now, my question would be why this improvement is not turned into dollars? As I said, in my opinion almost everything about DG except the basic coding of the game engine was done terribly wrong.

I can't separate the former from the latter. I don't believe that a developer can be financially successful if they're unwilling to pay even the most cursory of attention to QA. And if the underlying code was that good, DG wouldn't be on version #50, now would it?

There are indeed some excellent games that have been published in the last couple of years, but they are, IMO, far and few between. And what else can you expect when the budgets for these projects are a tenth of what they were a decade ago?

Finally, and this is where you have me, Oleg, I don't have any answers. I buy darn nearly every lipstick-adorned sow that pops out of the chute thinking that, if I do so, it'll make a difference somewhere along the way. Well, my Distant Guns experience has given me cause to rethink that position. I'm not seeing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow on this one, now or ever.

PoE

[Procrustes]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812


hmmmn,
So the campaign,GUI and tech support are not enough to make the game attractive? I also find the payment method less than optimal,but the period and Norm being a designer/develper has me thinking hard on it.

Hi,

It’s not the payment method, it’s the licensing the bothers me. I have several computers and I travel a lot – I want to be able to keep installs on a couple of machines at once. (Even Micro$oft lets you keep two installs of the personal editions of Office, etc. at once.) I also want to be able to uninstall and reinstall with few hassles. Perhaps I’m missing something with the way their system works??

I am a big fan of Mr. Kroger’s games, and I’m intrigued by the period this game is covering. I’d love to give it a shot – we’ll see.

Best,

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
By no means is wargaming dying! However, there's no question that it would be a good thing for wargame players, developers and publishers if wargames had a larger share of the market. It's remarkable just what can be accomplished on the development budget of an average wargame these days, but it does make one realize how much more could be done by the same talented people with a larger, more mainstream-sized budget.

Yep, put together the right team with the right financing and you could have a hell of a game. The problem is that "the money" is convinced that there's no market for wargames, and their research appears to support that conclusion. If it were otherwise, NO ONE would be happier than myself. Having grappled with the possibilities for years, now, I can't help but be reminded of that old saying, "if wishes and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas."

PoE

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I can't separate the former from the latter. I don't believe that a developer can be financially successful if they're unwilling to pay even the most cursory of attention to QA. And if the underlying code was that good, DG wouldn't be on version #50, now would it?

This "version #50" has been used maliciously by Koger haters and enemies with no reason whatsoever.

It is merely v1.050. Patch version. No big deal. Some other games use v.1.1 for the first patch, and get to 1.75 or something by the time patching is over. Matrix Games WITP is currently at 1.804 and it's *still* being developed and patched further. That for me is a sign of dedication to the game.

Koger used his (much criticised) server based method of game distribution to make patches available to users immediatelly after they were released. Traditional publisher using traditional methods of distribution would perhaps release every 5th patch, making it seem the game "needed only 2 patches".

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]

This "version #50" has been used maliciously by Koger haters and enemies with no reason whatsoever.

It is merely v1.050. Patch version. No big deal. Some other games use v.1.1 for the first patch, and get to 1.75 or something by the time patching is over. Matrix Games WITP is currently at 1.804 and it's *still* being developed and patched further. That for me is a sign of dedication to the game.

Koger used his (much criticised) server based method of game distribution to make patches available to users immediatelly after they were released. Traditional publisher using traditional methods of distribution would perhaps release every 5th patch, making it seem the game "needed only 2 patches".


[/quote]

Well said Oleg...

And didn't you said on wargamer forum that there is not a one company that went out of business so that we cannot play their games anymore?
I think that you said this and I applaud you for that but stick with that [:D]
So there goes all this anto e-license, or anti activation rants...

To repeat myself if games become unavailable due to bancrupcy of said companies all those Moons, Charles, Kogers, Madmatts etc... will LOSE all their credibility in wargaming (publishing) eyes of the public! So they will actually shoot themselves in the foot.

Example no. 2 I am EA and want to buy Battlefront.com assets after they lost money to the bank etc...
What I WOULD DO???

Would I buy SES or Battlefront.com, invest big money and then say to the PUBLIC, look guys you are toasted those games will not work and we will not release any patches to change that.
Simple reasoning. No fanboyism that is extremely popular here and everywhere.
I would not invest 1$ into such companies and THEN terminate those games effectively.

So your saying that EVERYTHING else was done wrong is actually WRONG and I don't agree with that [:'(]
It's just different. There is only small inconvinience there but that is price to pay because of pirates. And they hurt wargaming market more than mainstream maybe.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain


And didn't you said on wargamer forum that there is not a one company that went out of business so that we cannot play their games anymore?
I think that you said this and I applaud you for that but stick with that [:D]
So there goes all this anto e-license, or anti activation rants...

Hardly. How long has e-licensing been around? Just because no company using it has gone tits-up yet is no argument that one won't.

As has been stated previously any claims that there will be alternatives in that event (i.e releasing an unprotected executable) are so much hot air.. the right to do so will not vest in the people making those claims, and as long as there is any possibility of those games making money for somebody else in the future following any bankruptcy/liquidation it will not happen.

To repeat myself if games become unavailable due to bancrupcy of said companies all those Moons, Charles, Kogers, Madmatts etc... will LOSE all their credibility in wargaming (publishing) eyes of the public! So they will actually shoot themselves in the foot.

At that point it will make little difference to those concerned whether they have any 'credibility' or not. The only credibility at risk will be that of those businesses using the same system. You seem to be implying that in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation they would have some sort of choice.

Example no. 2 I am EA and want to buy Battlefront.com assets after they lost money to the bank etc...
What I WOULD DO???

Would I buy SES or Battlefront.com, invest big money and then say to the PUBLIC, look guys you are toasted those games will not work and we will not release any patches to change that.
Simple reasoning. No fanboyism that is extremely popular here and everywhere.
I would not invest 1$ into such companies and THEN terminate those games effectively.

Firstly, you would be unlikely to be investing "big money", at least in EA's terms. It will be whatever the liquidator (or US equivalent) can get. Secondly, you will only invest in patches if you think you will get the money back and more in terms of the games concerned and future games (through customer goodwill). In the case of games more than a few months old there isn't a prayer of that happening, the dev team has almost certainly been scattered and 90% of lifetime sales have already been made.


[/quote]