Matrix Games Forums

Hello

An UV review by Gamespot :
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/re ... 40,00.html

Spooky

BTW, GameSpot gives an "reader review" rating based on the reader vote (surprising !)

So if you enjoy UV, please vote for UV by clicking on "review this game"

Spooky

Edit : GameSpot is probably one of the computer game sites with the widest audience ... so if we want UV to be a success outside the grognard community - we need UV to get a "reader review" rating as good as the game is !

You have to read the article, the guy who wrote it obviously is a bit shy on his knowledge of the Pacific War...hehe. That last paragraph kills me..ABCD...American, British, China....and DENMARK....lol:D I guess I better watch out for them Viking ships when I play the Japs again..

He brings up a few good points...but paying $30 to print off the manual...I think he better find a more efficient printer:)

Anyways...not too bad an article..I got a few good chuckles.


Andy

I think he must have looked at some threads in the forum - all the points he raised (mousewheel, ASW planes, ...) were discussed quite a lot of times !

However, he likes the game ... so it is positive review

I just read through and thought the review itself was very fair and favorable. I notice that our rating got hammered in sound and graphics - the logic of that is beyond me, even though we've gotten this kind of split before.

UV has, in my opinion, some of the best graphics and sound in any operational wargame ever. If we are being weighed against 3D graphics and Surround Sound, I can't figure out how that makes sense. What would you use 3D graphics and Surround Sound for in an operational wargame?

Regards,

- Erik

Hi Erik

I think people have got spoiled with the graphics and sound that are now available in most genre's of gaming...and somehow come to expect it even in wargaming. Us old diehards know better though....the gameplay is what is important for a wargame (although I would probably even complain if I saw old 8 bit graphics)...and for an operational level game..what kind of sound can you expext...maybe the theme to "Victory at Sea" playing in the background would be cool...you know...mood music..hehe...but I don't need this game to do that:)

Andy

PS When you guys gonna add the Viking ships:)

That's cold, that's really cold...

Originally posted by Spooky
BTW, GameSpot gives an "reader review" rating based on the reader vote (surprising !)

So if you enjoy UV, please vote for UV by clicking on "review this game"

Spooky

Edit : GameSpot is probably one of the computer game sites with the widest audience ... so if we want UV to be a success outside the grognard community - we need UV to get a "reader review" rating as good as the game is !

As of this moment, there were 28 reviews -- score of 8.0
My review (10s across the board, of course) raised the score to 8.1

By the way, I thought the carping about the pdf manual, the sound and the graphics were sillly and anyone smart enough to play UV will see that.

Originally posted by IMJennifer


As of this moment, there were 28 reviews -- score of 8.0
My review (10s across the board, of course) raised the score to 8.1

By the way, I thought the carping about the pdf manual, the sound and the graphics were sillly and anyone smart enough to play UV will see that.

The unfortunate part is that 90% of the readership over there probably aren't smart enough to understand that =(

While I think the review is favorable overall, I do think that the deathnell for the game is the lack of positive review for graphics/sound. While most of us have no problems with it, the largest buying block of game players do.

I also rated it with 10's accross the board being and hope other's here will do the same to hopefully boost sales through readership reviews.

Reiryc

Originally posted by IChristie
That's cold, that's really cold...

heh,heh. Well that is a tough category for a game like this.
I gave it an 8.

The map is beautiful, and the pop ups are great with the ships and plane pix.

My gripes (small ones) would include having bigger buttons, having better info on the pop up you get when simply holding the cursor over a base/TF. (I don't really need the victory points I don't think). Destination would be good(TF).
Personally , I have a bit of trouble distinguishing the ship icons and would like them to be more distinct. I would also like to see by colour code or something if their supply situation was bad rather than having to click on the base/tf. An at a glance thing.

Anyway , I did my part for raising the ratings, and I love the game.

I think the reviewer could have done a better job of articulating his problem with the graphics.

I dont recall clearly, but didnt three Danish transports make it out
of Copenhagen when the germans came marching in?
(transports == merchant ships)

I could be wrong but I recall that grabbing the merchant fleet
was one of the goals.

Probably moot.

Originally posted by Sabre21
...but paying $30 to print off the manual...I think he better find a more efficient printer:)
Andy

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...

Erik and IChristie :

I love your game.

However, I do think you could have, with a minimum of effort, done a slightly better job with the graphics. Specifically, I'm talking about the battle graphics : task force and carrier combat.

If you have planes attacking individual ships in groups of no more than 4, why not have 4 (or however many their are) plane icons in the box, so we can see the result of each plane's efforts? You know, whether the plane hits anything with its ordnance and whether it gets damaged or destroyed? Instead we have the "x4" scheme with little text messages that are hard to follow. Wouldn't it be great to also see the pilots name above each plane and their current experience rating? You could do that couldn't you? With air to air combat you couldn't do this because of the number, but with the critical carrier attacks you could do this.

Why not have dive bombers at an angle where its clear that they are dive bombing, torp bombers at an even angle when they are launching torps, same for level bombers. Instead, all of the graphics there look like they are falling directly on the target.

Torp launches during task force combat could be much more dramatic if torp trails were going across the box and given some .5 second delay or something. Also, the sounds of the guns firing could be improved with the big guns sounding really devastating. Don't get me wrong, I think you did a good job here, I just want more better dammit

With just a little effort and some inspirational re-use of existing stuff, you could make the battle sequences much more interesting than they are currently. I'd be more than happy to provide what I think is a more detailed scheme here, with all recommendations looking for code re-use or efficient object development in case something new is needed.

The battle graphics is the part where most players really are paying attention to the graphics. Had this part been given a little more thought and code, your rating would assuredly have skyrocketed into the 9 + category by even the Game Spot reviewer.

P.S.: GameSpot charges for things like downloads and posting text reviews, so don't waste your time trying to do more than rate UV if you're not willing to pay.

The guy who wrote that obviously didn't play it very much, otherwise he might have better understood some of the nuances of the game (i.e., the reason you need to set a destination for a convoy because it is already at its destination. So, if the transports finish loading in mid-turn, the TF would think it has arrived at its destination, and commence unloading...)

Dgaad,

Thanks for the constructive advice. I know that a number of different approaches to the air combat screens were tried (I was not directly involved but I did prepare some graphics that, in the end, were not used).

It's a tough choice because, as per usual, you can easily spend much more time on the interface and graphics which are supposed to be there to support the gameplay (not the other way 'round as is typical of many game genres) than you do on getting the "under the hood" stuff right.

I'm not really upset at the graphics rating on gamespot - it could hardly have been otherwise when you consider the source. I should emphasize that I had only a really small part of the UV grahics (Marc and George are the real talent - I just lucked out alphabetically in the credits) but I am proud to have been a part of the team and I think the graphics do a good job of providing an attractive environment without getting in the way of the game (which is their proper role in this kind of game, after all).

Still, there's always room for improvement. I'm not sure what changes are planned for the combat graphics in WITP but I'm sure these comments will be considered.

Thanks again

Originally posted by dgaad
The battle graphics is the part where most players really are paying attention to the graphics....

It would be interesting to know how many players are using the battle graphics. I personally have turned them off after 2 days of playing... they consume too much time for me.

Great game. I just submitted my review and saw the rating go from 8.3 to 8.4 <grin> Some pay back for all the hard work Matrix and GG etc put in. Thanks.

I am very pleased with UV.

IChristie : Let me emphasize that I do think you guys did both a good job overall on the graphics, and you are certainly right to say they are among the best in an operational level wargame (Though I think the SSI Campaign series is probably the best - but thats more of a tactical game even though you can control up to a Corps).

I'm not advocating spending a huge amount of time here, or creating a veritable Smithsonian Catalog of new art. Just from what I see of the stuff that already exists, it could be used in a way that is somewhat more dramatic and graphic, and would actually add a bit to the gameplay aspect.

Originally posted by Mark W Carver


It would be interesting to know how many players are using the battle graphics. I personally have turned them off after 2 days of playing... they consume too much time for me.

Probably most. However, for the really important battles I do leave them on. I like the second to second drama of strikes coming in in Midway style. But, can you see that this is the part that could be improved, which would not only add to the graphic aspect but also add to the gameplay aspect in that

1) you would more easily see the detail of what each plane does on its way in and out (AA hits as you go in, ordnance targetting success, and AA on the egress).

2) you could see each pilot's individual performance on target if we had the names over each strike plane with the current exp rating.

It would be interesting to know how many players are using the battle graphics.

...is my command.

Started a new poll to answer just this question. Thanks for suggesting it.