View Full Version : Sorry guys, too expensive for me :-(
I have been waiting in vain... have a nice time playing.
And may Hitler, Stalin, II World War, Yalta Treaty and the 45 years of communist economy be cursed forever
Thats a real shame I was looking forward to hearing your comments on the forum. Hope you can save up for it and get it later.
Bloodstar
28 Jul 06, 04:32
I have been waiting in vain... have a nice time playing.
And may Hitler, Stalin, II World War, Yalta Treaty and the 45 years of communist economy be cursed forever
Maybe Jim and Norm could lower the price for our Polish friend... :)
You are right bloody communists have screwed us all... and now nationalists, same idiots.
Mario
Or we could all donate a few bucks each, just this once. Don't know how one would do that in practice, though.
Vigilante
28 Jul 06, 05:44
If Norm and L'Empereur will let us chip in to get our Polish friend a copy, I'm in for $10.00.
Rhetor - have you at least played the trial version, no charge for that. What did you think of the demo?
I will help out too, will somebody let us know how to do this please?
Thank you guys for your support; however, I cannot accept what you are proposing. I would not feel good with it.
With 65 (60)$ price I need first to play the demo extensively to see if I really like it, and, as currently I don't have money to spare, would have to save up for a few months.
But 90$ (65$ +25$ for the campaign, when it's no longer free) is too much. No computer game, however good it might be, is worth that much to me. Sorry.
As my internet connection allows max 18kb/s downloads, downloading would take more than 4 hours, and today I cannot keep my PC on for such a time. I will download the demo, and write about my impressions after the weekend - tomorrow is my brother's engagement party, therefore on Sunday I' affraid that I might be pretty much "hors de combat" :-D
Thank you very much again, and, meanwhile, keep playing!
I have to agree with Rhetor. I was thinking I would pick it up, but not for $65.00 bucks. I can get 2 HPS games for that from NWS. Sorry folks, but that is a bit on the high side for me, I won't be buying.
I'm with you Rhetor, this game is ridiculously overpriced. I will give the developers the credit though it is a unique and innovative game but not on this earth should it be worth 65-90$ Whoever is in charge of marketing this game has lost a few marbles (in my opinion). I'll be very frank, when I first played the limiting trial demo (Which is also absurd) I though wow a fun game, that by the looks of its' mediocre graphics and near-the-like gameplay, could only run but AT THE VERY MOST 25-30$ if not freeware, yes I said freeware. Also the game is based on a portion of history so extremely unknown to the relative masses, (not counting anyone with a good sense of history, which is unbelieveably very few) that to a degree it draws from the possiblity of the game's success, unless like I said , you have a fascination of early 20th century naval warfare, (which I do). This game only appeals to a very small portion of fans in the overall picture that (to me) it is almost robbery to ask this much for a game of it's nature. When I first took notice to the price I said to my self, "WOW, ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!". And yes I know that these developers are not a massive infinitely funded behemoth like EA or Activison or the similar, but still it just defies my understanding as to why they would charge this much. Also i'd like to add about absurdity of a "limited" trial demo "30 days or 30 executions of the game" , I'm not going to waste my breath on how ridiculous that is. I mean seriously you could atleast give us a full demo for our own keepsake to play and enjoy if we didn't want to shell out 65-90$ to this moneyracket.
I will bring my gripe to an end, I don't want to bring about alot of flames, (and I know I'm asking for them) , I just want my humble opinion to be known and possibly I may speak for others . To the developers, I do not mean to offend you even know I'm sure I already have , but you have offended me to begin with the overprice of this game , so I feel justified posting this message.
I'm with you Rhetor, this game is ridiculously overpriced. I will give the developers the credit though it is a unique and innovative game but not on this earth should it be worth 65-90$ Whoever is in charge of marketing this game has lost a few marbles (in my opinion). I'll be very frank, when I first played the limiting trial demo (Which is also absurd) I though wow a fun game, that by the looks of its' mediocre graphics and near-the-like gameplay, could only run but AT THE VERY MOST 25-30$ if not freeware, yes I said freeware. Also the game is based on a portion of history so extremely unknown to the relative masses, (not counting anyone with a good sense of history, which is unbelieveably very few) that to a degree it draws from the possiblity of the game's success, unless like I said , you have a fascination of early 20th century naval warfare, (which I do). This game only appeals to a very small portion of fans in the overall picture that (to me) it is almost robbery to ask this much for a game of it's nature. When I first took notice to the price I said to my self, "WOW, ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!". And yes I know that these developers are not a massive infinitely funded behemoth like EA or Activison or the similar, but still it just defies my understanding as to why they would charge this much. Also i'd like to add about absurdity of a "limited" trial demo "30 days or 30 executions of the game" , I'm not going to waste my breath on how ridiculous that is. I mean seriously you could atleast give us a full demo for our own keepsake to play and enjoy if we didn't want to shell out 65-90$ to this moneyracket.
I will bring my gripe to an end, I don't want to bring about alot of flames, (and I know I'm asking for them) , I just want my humble opinion to be known and possibly I may speak for others . To the developers, I do not mean to offend you even know I'm sure I already have , but you have offended me to begin with the overprice of this game , so I feel justified posting this message.
You must not buy many wargames
50-70 is the going rate these days for wargames and with DGs high production values 60 seems about right.
You are probably going to storm back with the response
'I buy lots of wargames!!!!!111'
If so I would like to know which ones (that are new games and new series, not remakes or exsisting engines) you pay less than $50 for.
If anyone shoul direct their wrath towards wargame pricing, then let it be HPS Sims
They charge $50 for engines that are more than 5-10 years old and keep ollllld games at full price.
They are the pirates of the industry and I will never buy a game for them.
But in the current economic market $60 for a brand new 3-D wargame is right along with the rest of the industry.
When you say wargames that covers a wide category I play every thing from bf2 cod2 to the total war series and so on strategy war games. I have never payed over 50american $ for any and everyone of them were right off the shelf new.All of which are new engines that are superior to there older counterparts in almost all aspects.
regardless of category , just the mere calibar of this game is no where near deserving of a price that extravagent. There is no argument against this undeniable fact.
Vigilante
03 Aug 06, 01:44
[T]he game is based on a portion of history so extremely unknown to the relative masses, (not counting anyone with a good sense of history, which is unbelieveably very few) that to a degree it draws from the possiblity of the game's success, unless like I said , you have a fascination of early 20th century naval warfare, (which I do). This game only appeals to a very small portion of fans in the overall picture that (to me) it is almost robbery to ask this much for a game of it's nature.
Respectfully, the limited appeal is the very reason that the developers must charge an enhanced price for this game. Look at the price asked on Amazon for the recent reprint of "The Tide at Sunrise" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0714652563/sr=8-1/qid=1154583366/ref=sr_1_1/103-4310970-3670258?ie=UTF8). Last time I checked it was around $120. If they did not charge this much, they simply could not afford to print another edition of a book that appeals primarily to specialists. If you are truly fascinated with esoteria, you have to pay for it.
vigilante I suppose your right in a sense but it still seems that the game would maybe be 40 -50 but 65- to 90 $ for this game I mean I really don't want to hurt alot of feelings but these graphics are stoneage, the action is just barely entertaining enough to hold me interested.
Another thing I forgot to mention and with some humor the intro is the most action packed edge of my seat expieriance i've had in along time (gross sarcasm) lol .
Considering I paid about $60 for SSG's Carriers at War way back in the C64 days, and there wasn't even a campaign, $59.95 for DG sounds about right.
You could pay $49.95 for HPS's Tsushima. Of course you get no campaign and the ships on the map look much like they did in SSI's Battlecruiser. ( I bought Jutland, oh was I ever disappointed.)
There is Action Stations!, if you can find it. A great amount of detail. But the graphics are like looking at a tactical display. Which was fine to me. But the CPU controlled Royal navy running aground on the land blob kept me from ever using land again.
When you say wargames that covers a wide category I play every thing from bf2 cod2 to the total war series and so on strategy war games. I have never payed over 50american $ for any and everyone of them were right off the shelf new.All of which are new engines that are superior to there older counterparts in almost all aspects.
regardless of category , just the mere calibar of this game is no where near deserving of a price that extravagent. There is no argument against this undeniable fact.
vigilante I suppose your right in a sense but it still seems that the game would maybe be 40 -50 but 65- to 90 $ for this game I mean I really don't want to hurt alot of feelings but these graphics are stoneage, the action is just barely entertaining enough to hold me interested.
Another thing I forgot to mention and with some humor the intro is the most action packed edge of my seat expieriance i've had in along time (gross sarcasm) lol .
First of all, Distant guns graphics are by no means stoneage, especially for a wargame. If you think so you are either colorblind or haven't played games very long.
Battlefield 2, cod2, total war were all developed by large gaming corporations such as EA, Activision which all have many more funds available to them to create the whizbang graphics to capture the short attention spans of the new generation of gamers. Distant Guns is not going to sell like the Sims and is priced accordingly. 15 to 40 dollars more than a mainstream pc game is just not extravagently priced considering the subject matter and quality of product.
Besides, when was the last time one of the chief developers of a game like Call of Duty or Total war offered to call someone to help with a technical problem?
Bloodstar
03 Aug 06, 02:59
You must not buy many wargames
50-70 is the going rate these days for wargames and with DGs high production values 60 seems about right.
You are probably going to storm back with the response
'I buy lots of wargames!!!!!111'
If so I would like to know which ones (that are new games and new series, not remakes or exsisting engines) you pay less than $50 for.
If anyone shoul direct their wrath towards wargame pricing, then let it be HPS Sims
They charge $50 for engines that are more than 5-10 years old and keep ollllld games at full price.
They are the pirates of the industry and I will never buy a game for them.
But in the current economic market $60 for a brand new 3-D wargame is right along with the rest of the industry.
And Norm Koger has a name and reputation so it's not that this game just appeals to a small group of people. There is lot of people like me who will buy EVERY Norm Koger's game from now on. TOAW COW I've received complimentary from Take 2 Europe back in those days :)
Mario
And Norm Koger has a name and reputation so it's not that this game just appeals to a small group of people. There is lot of people like me who will buy EVERY Norm Koger's game from now on. TOAW COW I've received complimentary from Take 2 Europe back in those days :)
Mario
Well, if I had the money, I would have bought the game this instant. The problem is that I don't have it. 60$ is about 190 Polish Zlotys, and that's quite a part of my average monthly income. No wonder that I have to think twice (thrice... many times more) before I buy. And I won't be able to buy "Distant Guns" second hand, as I usually do with computer games. I buy one or two games a year.
If the price remained 65$, I would get "DG" in few months, or as my Christmas present. But 90$ is a luxury I am too poor to afford.
Sadly, there was some interest on Polish discussion boards. But at such a price, and with this amount of bugs no one will buy it here.
Hi all, only my two cents on this topic: 60$ are not a cheap price, but if I look at what has been realized out there in the last five years and more I don't see anything comparable to DG, so I conclude that the market is not demanding anything like this. The majority of the games that people buys are consoles games ported to pc: sims and wargames are a niche category (I know you all know it, just can't help it...), so it's difficult to make money with them, and if developers cannot earn a fair amount of money they simply have to choose another job.
I don't mind spending 60 bucks for a very good niche sim like DG, especially if I have to spend from 50 to 70 for any other game. I'm not rich, but I consider myself fortunate because I can buy about 3 or 4 games per year at full price.
What I find unfair is spending more than that to get the campaign as well: I expect to buy a sim that ALREADY has a campaign in it, no matter if now it went free for me, because I bought my copy immediately.
I hope that developers will keep the campaign free. It would be an act of correctness. What about the people that are saving their money to buy DG eventually in the next months? Will they have to spend near to 100$ to get the complete game? Be rational, a sim sells in the first months: people that are not interested to buy it now, won't buy it in the next six months at a higher price.
And please, if you can, set us free from all those irritating protections, I don't see the need to protect so strictly such a niche sim, targeted to only few people... I don't want to talk about bugs, I'm sure they will be fixed soon.
I'm willing to pay for the next addons and future developments, please don't discourage me!
Regards
J
Bloodstar
03 Aug 06, 03:49
Well, if I had the money, I would have bought the game this instant. The problem is that I don't have it. 60$ is about 190 Polish Zlotys, and that's quite a part of my average monthly income. No wonder that I have to think twice (thrice... many times more) before I buy. And I won't be able to buy "Distant Guns" second hand, as I usually do with computer games. I buy one or two games a year.
If the price remained 65$, I would get "DG" in few months, or as my Christmas present. But 90$ is a luxury I am too poor to afford.
Sadly, there was some interest on Polish discussion boards. But at such a price, and with this amount of bugs no one will buy it here.
I know, situation in Croatia is not blissfull as well. I have a business a web shop for selling computer games but as pirating rate is high it's not very good for me. Fortunately I have some investors that will put at least 100000 English pounds (out of millions they have) really soon into some other projects of mine so it's not all bad. Even that is not that big money for serious business now... but my business partner will also invest a lot money. Any private, enterpreneur venture is with bigs risks involved and lot of work. You just pour money into business and sometimes all can not return that investment. And also making games and that included Distant Guns is not cheap sport as well, we must be aware of this.
But I know how is it to be without much money. Right now I also am not flowing with hard cash, but at least paying the bills :)
DG - 65 US$ I could have lived with that. Yes, it is high price but I also sell game for that amount some titles so I can rationalize this somehow.
The period of only few days to get game and campaign for 65 $ should be maybe extended.
Mario
PS: We must not forget that Distant Guns game is game that Norm Koger and Jim somewhat worked on for 5 years. That is five years. It's original design and have some innovation. That is better than what Matrix is charging for TOAW 3, 40 US$. TOAW 3 is remake of TalonSoft game, Matrix had one programmer PART TIME on a job and slave labour of many scenario selection team. I guess. So rightly they should have charged 19.95 up to 24.95 US$ for that game.
Distant Guns at least is NEW game so I don't mind that much giving 65US$ for a new game. Because they need to somehow break even.
I know, situation in Croatia is not blissfull as well...
Well, at least your National Football Team failed to qualify to the second round of the World Cup with class, as opposed to the Polish "Eagles" :-)
Anyway, I am paying the price of some choices I have made a few years ago; in a few years time, if everything goes as I wish (ie I will write my PhD and get a job in my University), I would probably be earning only three - four times less than my high school friends who went to work to Ireland.
Bloodstar
03 Aug 06, 04:51
Well, at least your National Football Team failed to qualify to the second round of the World Cup with class, as opposed to the Polish "Eagles" :-)
Ah, yes, those amateurs! I also knows some football rules, you must be close to the ball :)
Anyway, I am paying the price of some choices I have made a few years ago; in a few years time, if everything goes as I wish (ie I will write my PhD and get a job in my University), I would probably be earning only three - four times less than my high school friends who went to work to Ireland.
Ah, what I am here to say... I have only high school diploma. Such intelligent man like me and only high school! :) So my only choice is business.
Well, there was war and all sort of that and those idiots on Zagreb University didn't let me study history, now they can go to hell. :D
I study history by myself, bought dozens and dozens a book on WW2 and WW1 and I am happy.
But, I respect you and many others that actually are teaching on Univesity or studying there...
Maybe later I will pesuade myself and finish history University somehow...
What I find it strange that there are some idiots so called HISTORIANS that lecture something on Croatian TV and plays a smart ass... All that on really non-creative, non-intelligent ways, really stupid... So I just thinking that a thinking man cannot be everyone. And that God didn't granted a good thinking mind to everyone.
History is big research, like Sherlock Holmes. And certanly only good for creative minds. That's why I don't feel so much handicap because I don't have University diploma. I would be amateur historian, that's my wish.
Mario
Vigilante
03 Aug 06, 05:08
If the price remained 65$, I would get "DG" in few months, or as my Christmas present. But 90$ is a luxury I am too poor to afford.
Sadly, there was some interest on Polish discussion boards. But at such a price, and with this amount of bugs no one will buy it here.
Rhet, that sucks. I wonder - and because I don't know how or if it could be implimented I only wonder - if there could be a reduced price available for the presumably larger Eastern European fanbase that would have difficulty with the pricing because of the exchange rate - sort of like the area codes in DVDs?
Rhet, that sucks. I wonder - and because I don't know how or if it could be implimented I only wonder - if there could be a reduced price available for the presumably larger Eastern European fanbase that would have difficulty with the pricing because of the exchange rate - sort of like the area codes in DVDs?
I don't believe it's possible with direct download distribution system.
But there is a company in Poland called Nicolasgames, which manages to publish in Poland excellent wargames (and other genres) at a price of 19,99 Zlotys, ie. about 6,5$ each. They have published "Fighting Steel", "Crown of Glory", "Gary Grigsby's World at War" and others. Currently we are waiting (for a long time) for "War in the Pacific" and "War Plan Orange", and they are planning to publish Battlefront's "Histwar: Les Grognards", when it's finished
Ah, what I am here to say... I have only high school diploma. Such intelligent man like me and only high school! :) So my only choice is business.
CUT
History is big research, like Sherlock Holmes. And certanly only good for creative minds. That's why I don't feel so much handicap because I don't have University diploma. I would be amateur historian, that's my wish.
Mario
To be a historian in Poland requires finding a second source of income. Otherwise you end up earning not more than 600 - 700$ a month. That is why I earn by translating books from English to Polish. Or will start a business, who knows? :-)
To be a good historian you don't need to have a diploma :-D There are many so-called "amateurs" who published masterpieces of historical books. And in ancient times everybody was an "amateur", since there were no diplomas. And yes, eg. Plato's works would not meet any of today's academic standards :-D
Bloodstar
03 Aug 06, 09:23
To be a historian in Poland requires finding a second source of income. Otherwise you end up earning not more than 600 - 700$ a month. That is why I earn by translating books from English to Polish. Or will start a business, who knows? :-)
To be a good historian you don't need to have a diploma :-D There are many so-called "amateurs" who published masterpieces of historical books. And in ancient times everybody was an "amateur", since there were no diplomas. And yes, eg. Plato's works would not meet any of today's academic standards :-D
Excellent Jan...
Well, at least Poland is bigger market (Rumania as well). 38,5 million...
Interesting on a side note even Turkey have very developed Internet...
I met some Polish game journalist before while I was game journalist as well. And I am still on a mailing list from Rebelmind Studios, good game developers from Poland... There are others as well...
Nice to see that there are developed game market there and some organization...
Yes, price is a big problem for games if we talk about Eastern Europe. In Russian some western companies as well are offering quite cheaply their games as standard is lower. In Croatia not and that is a big problem, and piracy, and in fact population was used to play pirated game and it will took much time to educate them how this is wrong.
Mario
WallysWorld
03 Aug 06, 10:39
...but these graphics are stoneage, the action is just barely entertaining enough to hold me interested.
Stoneage? What are you kidding me?:freak:
The ship and damage graphics are fantastic.
I guess you can't please everyone.
$59.95 USD turned into $69.58 CAD and to me, worth every penny. Games released at retail stores cost anywhere from $40 to $55 CAD up here anyway so the extra cost for such a fun and unusual topic (RJW) is greatly worth it to me. Plus my faith and experience in Norm and his games also was a deciding factor.
Funny but just three years ago with the low Canadian dollarat that time, the game would have cost me about $84 CAD.
If any game company is overpriced, I say it's Matrix Games as they charge easily up to $90 USD, albeit in extreme cases, on their webstore for sometimes just refurbished and updated games. Like TOAWIII for $40 USD, I have TOAW, TOAWII and TOAW-COW and have no desire to pay about $50 CAD for just an updated version of TOAW.
Yes, I am serious these graphics ARE stoneage.The damage models are good? decent at the very MOST. the only damage I've noticed is the blown away turrets and the black marks all over the side of the ship from shells and the seemingly automatic and random smoke stack angling. I know you people are in love with this game and are mezmerized to a point in which a outsider like me coming and bashing it is just unheard of but seriously , you people need to open your eyes. Yesterday playing the demo Ryurik is near death and being pelted constantly on its starbourd side. The japs move in for the kill and launch 1 torpedo at it and it hits square in its midsection on the starbourd side. she begins to sink and as 30 seconds cuts to 10 seconds she outta of the blue (very quickly) turns over on her port side and rolls and sinks before I even realized what happend. Not even taking hardly any shots at all on that side mind you . And to top it off the was listing 10 degrees to the starbourd to begin with. When ships sink it is horribly unrealistic. There are NO slow sinkings they are all at the blink of an eye. I've yet to see a bow first or stern first sinking, just rollovers. For example when the sinking clock is going down, SO SHOULD THE SHIP. Not just up and sink when the clock reaches 5 seconds or so, cheap is the only thing to describe this design. You tell me "this" game has been in development for 5 years? that is almost worth to cry for. I have tryed to be polite but you people still continue to protect this game as if its the masterpeice of the year. I will give you its put together well and the time of history is what is so unique and appealing but price and like I've mentioned, game design overall ARE NOT worth 65 not 60 65-NINETY AMERICAN $$$. I would have expected this to be a 10 $ or 5$ game if not freeware.
Ok, your opinion, you got some good points, but remember that for people willing to play a sim on this historical period there are not many choices, second, I cannot figure how we could have it without paying a relatively high amount of money, (I agree that 65$ + 25$ for "basic" game + campaign is too much...) this is a niche game, not COD2... We can ask for more for our bucks, I agree, but if one likes what he has he doesn't need you to open his eyes...
Regards
J
well I grow weary commuting back here to continue to discuss this so hopefully a point or two has been made , if not , its all the same . Have fun playing this game I would to if I could, but seeing how my demo's use will expire in a few more days I guess I won't. To be truthful the format of the demo can tell you the kind of people your buying this game from.
WallysWorld
03 Aug 06, 12:14
Well maybe in the demo weequayx has seen only fast sinkings. But I know that in the game, I've seen all sorts of sinkings. The Chin Yen after being hit by a Russian torpedo at the port stern took 15 minutes to sink. I watched as the ship slowly listing to port and had the bow rise out of the water. It finally very slowly rolled to port and lastly turned turtle. That was pretty cool to watch!
Hmmm...is it me or do I feel like I was preached to or else talked down to by weekquayx?
"...you people need to open your eyes" :bite:
"I would have expected this to be a 10 $ or 5$ game if not freeware." :rolleyes:
The moral is: You can't please everyone.
Bloodstar
03 Aug 06, 12:28
well I grow weary commuting back here to continue to discuss this so hopefully a point or two has been made , if not , its all the same . Have fun playing this game I would to if I could, but seeing how my demo's use will expire in a few more days I guess I won't. To be truthful the format of the demo can tell you the kind of people your buying this game from.
You must know that wargames are lucky if they sell 10000 these days. Only mainstream wargames reach 100000. HoI 2 was exception, it sold above 200000 or maybe even more but it reached wider audience.
So wargaming companies cannot charge games at 5 $ or give it to you as freebie CD :)
It's pure economical math.
BTW, take Battlefield 2 for example. Yes, it's brilliant game and maybe 30 or 50 people worked on it. And yes huge marketing budget was involved. But, it was EA game and it sold in such a big numbers that their risk paid of. It sold at least few million units.
Wargaming is niche within niche. I agree that older games within this genre should be much cheaper but new games must cost 40 - 60 US$. This game is highly specialized game and except Yamato grandson and few other people is hardly attractive to FPS and RTS kiddies.
OK, I exagerrate in fact game could be attractive to many but unfortunately many will not hear about it and many just like more simple games.
So in fact charging game at this price is nececity. Would you work on this game and charge it for 5 US$ and then end up in bancrupcy and not covered initial costs let alone gas, eating, bills etc? :)
No, you wouldn't. In fact it is labour of love, and they would earn a lot more money making some other type of games or software.
Well, Norm know that every artist must get himself in state of utter misery if he want to create something. That Joe Strummer said and that is true. You cannot be creative and at the same time very enjoying the life and have a full stomach. :p Every creative mind had some things that buggered him... etc...
Mario
Stone age graphics? I lived in what can be considered the Stone Age of computer graphics. (The stunning graphics of SSI's Gettysberg anyone?)
Even in SHIII, which is highly praised for its look, has its shortcomings. Using the deck gun, I can shoot off the mast or deck cargo of a cargo ship, but yet, no matter how many times I shoot at the hull, superstructure, whatever, not a single hole appears.
Slam a few torpedoes into one. View the ship. Not a single hole. Ship breaks in half, where are the decks? Ship looks solid. Get depth charged, damaged, outside of bent guns, what damage do you see.
I must agree.
I too was waiting for what seems like months for this game to come out and was shocked when I saw the pricing. Not to mention the pain-in-the-ass protection scheme.
I don't agree that the game is only worth $5-$10, a fair price would be $29.95 - $39.95. Standard pricing for most pc games.
I would never pay >$50 for a game, because the fact of the matter it is just a game, a luxury. Close to $100 and you start getting into the range of a lot of other "stuff" you can buy. Add another $100 and you can own a PSP, not just have a license to "use" some software.
If they lower the price point of the game+campaign to at least $39.95, I think they will get many more buyers.
SSi? Gettysburg? Now your talking. I bought nearly all their titles. And quess what? I've still got them. Shilo was another. There was a WWII squad game as well, can't remember the title but the infantry were just *'s. Kids today? They don't know they're born!
I like what I have seen so far but like some of you I would not pay more than $40 for this one.
not cheap but...
I bought WITP from Matrixgames 2 years ago for 75$ if remember correctly
still I spend 5-10 hours per week in my PBEM - looks like 0.01c / hour of pleasure
so quality counts
I doubt DG will occupy me as long as WITP but if it willbe few month of campaign & multiplayer games I positive on money spent
SSi? Gettysburg? Now your talking. I bought nearly all their titles. And quess what? I've still got them. Shilo was another. There was a WWII squad game as well, can't remember the title but the infantry were just *'s. Kids today? They don't know they're born!
I had the Amiga version. The good part? The units did not cover the terrain they were in. The bad? You couldn't play the second day scenario as when you picked a unit, it jumped across the map.
Standard prices for a computer game? Fine, if you want a standard computer game. Anyone remember Avalon Hill's Tsushima? The battle map gave you a letter for ech ship? No smoke, no shell splashes, no night or day. Certainly not much of an AI. The enemy ships always charged you. It was quite expensive too.
How about B1 Bomber? Those graphics:laugh: All text.
$59.95 is too much for a game like this? Compare it to Steel Beats pro personal edition..................$125.00
How about WiTP? $70? Compare that to Decision Games War in the Pacific. $420, and it doesn't have an AI. I remember when table top war games were cheaper than computer games. Now, it's the other way.
timetraveller
03 Aug 06, 22:50
Some very good points, all, on both sides.
Everybody has their own "price-comfortable" point for a game. There's a huge group that will pay up to about $50. Not such a huge group over that. Consider this: you can set the price so high that ONLY a niche group will buy it.
I am hearing the scuttlebutt from a lot of places about DG and there are a lot of "fence-sitters" on this game, due to the price and the obscure time period of the naval action. I think many of them would buy it if it was $40-$50. I would. If the devs want to sell to just the hardcore niche naval gamer group, then so be it. But there is money to me made in getting those fence-sitters to buy.
One other thing to keep straight. This is not a $59.95 game, a $60 game or a $64.95 game. If you want the full game and all it's wonderfulness, you will pay $90 real soon. I don't care what WITP costs, or any other. Doesn't matter that some very old games cost much and were silly little icons or textual-based. There are plenty of strategy/war games out there now, nice ones, for $40-50. Doesn't matter who developed or published them, or whether it took 5 years or 2 years.
Who knows, I may buy this yet. It looks good.
TT
Cost vs. Play Value.
To me it's not the cost, it's the play value, I purchased Witp for $69.00 and the game has provided great play value. I don't think there are any two games purchased at ($39.00 or more) that have come close. The editor let's you play out countless what if's.
Right now I'm not convinced Distant Guns has enough play value. The game doesn't have any type of editor, you can't setup a battle between specific ships only random battles. You have very limted control over ships once weapons are free, you only control course and speed. I still think the campaign is weak, once you play through both sides what else is there to do? The game maybe historical, but that's the issue, once you played history, you are very limited what else you can do with it, you can't edit the campaign.
There is also not a lot to do in the campaign, I don't understand why naval movement of troops from Japan to the front or port bombardments aren't part of the campaign. Every major PC wargame released has included an editor and for the cost of Distant Guns one should been included. To me no editor equals = limited play value.
Over the last few years Matrix has led the price push for war games, most of which fall into a small market niche. Paying $60 to $80 and more for a single good game (as you may personally define it) is simply too much, especially if:
a. It concerns an obscure period in history that is not of prime interest to the potential customer, and/or
b. It is not something that will be played a great deal for at least a year; and/or
c. Does not possess excellent depth and re-playability, such as the CM series or TOAW (if you haven't already bought the 56 prior versions and expansion packs) and/or
d. Does not come with a printed manual and/or
e. Is infected with a restrictive activation/anti-piracy program and/or
f. Cannot be installed and played without hassle on at least your main home computer and your laptop for play on the road.
Matching DG against this matrix (pun partially intended), it does not score well for the high dollar price that they are asking.
Commodore Rob
04 Aug 06, 04:02
I just wonder how many people buy the off the shelf games play them for a few days get bored and stick them on the shelf and never play them again. This is something I used to do, however I tok a decision that I was buying to many games so stopped and would only buy the odd one or two a year so it means that when a game like this comes along I can afford it as I have not wasted my cash on some second rate pap that this produced for the mass market.
saddletank
04 Aug 06, 09:31
I just wonder how many people buy the off the shelf games play them for a few days get bored and stick them on the shelf and never play them again. This is something I used to do, however I tok a decision that I was buying to many games so stopped and would only buy the odd one or two a year so it means that when a game like this comes along I can afford it as I have not wasted my cash on some second rate pap that this produced for the mass market.
A good point. I saved myself some cash by avoiding the dungpile that was Imperial Glory.
I paid £32 pounds for this [$59] and have played it for about 32 hours so far. I guess I'm going to get 100's more hours as the updates keep coming in. Great value for money. I paid £30 for a depressing 4 hour game of golf the other day!
cheers
David
timetraveller
04 Aug 06, 10:50
A good point. I saved myself some cash by avoiding the dungpile that was Imperial Glory.
Good points, saddletank and Commander Rob. I got stung by Imperial Glory myself. Now it sits is a heap of other games just like it.
TT
:D
Some overdue royalty has just appeared on my account. Have just bought the game, expensive as it is.
Bloodstar
04 Aug 06, 11:19
:D
Some overdue royalty has just appeared on my account. Have just bought the game, expensive as it is.
Great to hear that Rhetor!
Mario
Well, I do appreciate the debate and the points made. Thanks not catering to a flame war. Someone earlier hit the nail right on the head about only selling to the hardcore naval niche opposed to the "fence-sitters". All in good, Rhetor I hope you enjoy the game.
PS. why does the demo have a trial period? Whats the advantage of doing it and is it fair? I don't think so.
What exactly isn't "fair" about it? They're giving you a free chance to evaluate their game, regardless of what the trial period is, it's free. They could have followed the Matrix example and not released one at all.
Commander Klank
06 Aug 06, 22:17
... I love this time period and I'm more then happy to fork out the money for this game... especially when they threw in the campaign for free.
Ultimately I'd love to play online with other players.
Whats not fair about it ? lol OK well they ask for 90 $ for the full game and then they put a time limit on a single scenario demo. A 30 days or 30 plays(A joke) . First of all look at the other side of my question there bud before you jump at the "it isn't fair" part. Whats the advantage (to them) to put a demo out that is a trial. Or let me put it this way, what would it cost the greedy bastards to just release a free full demo you can KEEP.? Besides the charging separately for two parts to complete the game which totals 90$ they decide they can't even let us play the demo as long as we want?
As stated before there are the die-hard naval fans that will shell out the money no matter what for this game , and then there are the casual players like me that are fascinated and like the game but have the sense enough not to pay nearly a 100 $ for it. If they would set the price to an acceptable amount that would attract both spectrums of the fans for this game, they would make more money.
Whats not fair about it ? lol OK well they ask for 90 $ for the full game and then they put a time limit on a single scenario demo. A 30 days or 30 plays(A joke) . First of all look at the other side of my question there bud before you jump at the "it isn't fair" part. Whats the advantage (to them) to put a demo out that is a trial. Or let me put it this way, what would it cost the greedy bastards to just release a free full demo you can KEEP.? Besides the charging separately for two parts to complete the game which totals 90$ they decide they can't even let us play the demo as long as we want?
As stated before there are the die-hard naval fans that will shell out the money no matter what for this game , and then there are the casual players like me that are fascinated and like the game but have the sense enough not to pay nearly a 100 $ for it. If they would set the price to an acceptable amount that would attract both spectrums of the fans for this game, they would make more money.
Chill out there buddy. I still don't see how it isn't fair, I think it was a poor choice of words on your part. Now, if you think it's a bad business decision, that's another thing, but to call it not fair implies that they owe you something, which they really don't. Why should they give you any portion of their work for an unlimited amount of time for free? There aren't many demos out there without some kind of limitations on them, this is the one they chose, and I don't see a problem with it.
As for the pricing, it's definitely up there, and you're entitled to your opinion. The wonders of the free market. If they priced it out of too many people's range, they won't sell enough to cover expenses and they'll have to reprice to remain viable. Regardless, it still doesn't make a limit on the demo unfair. What could you possibly not know after playing it 30 times?
I'm finished with my topic(tired of typing to you brainwashed people ) i'm joking of course, or am I ?
A 30 day demo, a 30 game demo. Either way it is more than ample to determine if you would like the game or not. If you like the demo, if you like ship to ship combat, then spending the $60 is well worth it. And the campaign is a bonus.
If you like the tactical part of the game, and you want to play the campaign, then you pay your $60, and you can have both. A $65 game for $60, and a $25 expansion for free.
Keeping the demo? If you have played the demo the full 30 times, why would you keep it? If you are hellbent on just playing the demo forever, just download it again. And again. And again.
A full demo? OK, let's say you get a demo of what most of us paid for. Now, how long does it have to run to mollify you? How much of the RJW has to be on the demo for you? A week? Run just long enough for the ships at Vladivostock to leave port? Have it end hust when you sight the enemy fleet?
What is the advantage of them putting out a demo? You said it yourself. A $90 game. Not many people are going to shell out that kind of money unless they get to test drive it.
And as a die hard naval fan, I can tell you that I will not spend $90 on any naval computer game. This die hard naval fan bought Jutland by HPS. Even though it didn't have a demo. Playing it once convinced me it wasn't worth $50. Playing DG once convinced me it was worth $60.
gotta get the last word huh ironhand? Once again you misunderstood me.
My question is what is the strategy in making it a 30 day trial . Its more work to make it a limited demo than a full. The demo covers practicially the entire basis of the game's gameplay, (naval battles between ships/ hunt each other down destroy, destroy, destroy). Not only do they ask for a ridiculous amount for this game they can't even let us have the comfort in playing the demo without limits. Its not the fact that I want to play the demo everyday but its the fact that they are trying to pressure you into buying the near 100$ game by putting the trial period into it.
I say it once and I say it again, this game's design is stoneage. For the price , it should have a physics engine unbelievably realistic, like ships breaking and holes we can actually see, not cheap-ass little black pock marks all over the hull. And the smoke stacks should be to made look like swiss cheese after a heavy battle, instead the randomly shifting different directions disregarding where they were hit. I've seen a ship take one torp and a massive amount of fire on one side, list that direction heavily then at the very last 5 seconds it rolled over the complete opposite way, explain that one. I mean for christ's sake the game has none of these details, and a bunch of glitches and flaws both design and actual game play, and they still expect a astronomical amount for it. I'm in utter disbelief at the marketing of this title.Like i mentioned earlier I wanted to wind it up with the discussion/debate but Ironhand thought otherwise. Whats said is said, let it be done.
BTW surprised the creators didn't drop by and give their two cents/explaination , they seem to be in just about every other thread anyways.
WallysWorld
07 Aug 06, 16:57
You're right. Much better when the creators and programmers are nameless, faceless no-shows. :rolleyes:
Ah, there's nothing like having a person who hates a game come to the game's forum and call the people who like the game 'brainwashed".
gotta get the last word huh ironhand? Once again you misunderstood me.
My question is what is the strategy in making it a 30 day trial . Its more work to make it a limited demo than a full. The demo covers practicially the entire basis of the game's gameplay, (naval battles between ships/ hunt each other down destroy, destroy, destroy). Not only do they ask for a ridiculous amount for this game they can't even let us have the comfort in playing the demo without limits. Its not the fact that I want to play the demo everyday but its the fact that they are trying to pressure you into buying the near 100$ game by putting the trial period into it.
I say it once and I say it again, this game's design is stoneage. For the price , it should have a physics engine unbelievably realistic, like ships breaking and holes we can actually see, not cheap-ass little black pock marks all over the hull. And the smoke stacks should be to made look like swiss cheese after a heavy battle, instead the randomly shifting different directions disregarding where they were hit. I've seen a ship take one torp and a massive amount of fire on one side, list that direction heavily then at the very last 5 seconds it rolled over the complete opposite way, explain that one. I mean for christ's sake the game has none of these details, and a bunch of glitches and flaws both design and actual game play, and they still expect a astronomical amount for it. I'm in utter disbelief at the marketing of this title.Like i mentioned earlier I wanted to wind it up with the discussion/debate but Ironhand thought otherwise. Whats said is said, let it be done.
BTW surprised the creators didn't drop by and give their two cents/explaination , they seem to be in just about every other thread anyways.
just give up , you obviously don't even like the game so why complain that you can't play the trial for free forever? whining about how the game is expensive and how the graphics are stoneage just makes you look like an ass
30 tries is more than enough to sample the game and see if you like it considering you only get to play one scenario
Wow your name hits the nail right on the head dimwit. You obviously cannot read or comphrehend very well. I said I don't want to play the demo whenever at all it doesn't matter, what offends me is that the thought behind making it a limited trial demo. It displays the developers greediness and all around *******-ness in my opinion.
Wallysworld, Another false accusation that shows YOUR stupidity aswell. When did I ever say I hate this game, I said quite the opposite, read the first few of my posts and you will be greatly enlightened
WallysWorld
07 Aug 06, 17:14
I believe we may have a troll loose in this forum.
I believe we have some comprehensively challenged people loose in this forum.
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 17:22
gotta get the last word huh ironhand? Once again you misunderstood me.
My question is what is the strategy in making it a 30 day trial . Its more work to make it a limited demo than a full. The demo covers practicially the entire basis of the game's gameplay, (naval battles between ships/ hunt each other down destroy, destroy, destroy). Not only do they ask for a ridiculous amount for this game they can't even let us have the comfort in playing the demo without limits. Its not the fact that I want to play the demo everyday but its the fact that they are trying to pressure you into buying the near 100$ game by putting the trial period into it.
I say it once and I say it again, this game's design is stoneage. For the price , it should have a physics engine unbelievably realistic, like ships breaking and holes we can actually see, not cheap-ass little black pock marks all over the hull. And the smoke stacks should be to made look like swiss cheese after a heavy battle, instead the randomly shifting different directions disregarding where they were hit. I've seen a ship take one torp and a massive amount of fire on one side, list that direction heavily then at the very last 5 seconds it rolled over the complete opposite way, explain that one. I mean for christ's sake the game has none of these details, and a bunch of glitches and flaws both design and actual game play, and they still expect a astronomical amount for it. I'm in utter disbelief at the marketing of this title.Like i mentioned earlier I wanted to wind it up with the discussion/debate but Ironhand thought otherwise. Whats said is said, let it be done.
BTW surprised the creators didn't drop by and give their two cents/explaination , they seem to be in just about every other thread anyways.
I paid Distant Guns 65$.
Over the years as you know dollar value declined, I know the times when dollar was 30% stronger in local currency!!!
So, even for me shelling 65$ for a good game is nothing, and this is good game.
About the demo, developers don't need to give *anything* for free. If it is limited that is their choice. And your constant slamming of developers will not help it as well. If you don't like what you see don't buy.
This is not EA or Ubi Soft to make you ultra realistic graphics. Graphics cost money, and marketing money and only rare companies have MUSCLE for that.
Audience for such a title is limited. EA could pour money into this project and give it away for free for example.
But, you will not see EA releasing game like this because they know that it will be not worth their investment so you will get The Sims till the judgemenet day from them
So your argument that you expected EA kind of graphics is not good.
Compare wargame graphics with this title not EA or Activision games graphics... Go to HPS web site and let us know what you think about THAT graphics.
Mario
WallysWorld
07 Aug 06, 17:27
Goes to show you can't please everybody.
First of all I'd like to complement you bloodstar on your great english skills, did you proofread?
"So your argument that you expected EA kind of graphics is not good."
When did I ever say I'd expected those kind of graphics to begin with, I said "For the price I'd expect atleast decent/good graphics." If the game was priced accordingly to its actual worth, I wouldn't have the slightest problem. Since it isn't and their asking for near 100$ for a pre 2000 designed game, thats where I find the problem.
I believe we may have a troll loose in this forum.
I agree. I guess he isn't old enough to have seen, or owned Avalon Hill's Tsushima. Each ship represented by a letter on the map. Wow, talk about stone age graphics. Or SSI's Great Naval Battles series. John Tiller's naval games aren't great shakes in the graphics department either. My personel favorite, Action Stations!!, looked like a tactical display from a warships CiC.
Harpoon, same way.
The only reason I can figure for the prepubescent caterwauling is that he doesn't get enough allowance to buy it now.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 17:38
Wow your name hits the nail right on the head dimwit. You obviously cannot read or comphrehend very well. I said I don't want to play the demo whenever at all it doesn't matter, what offends me is that the thought behind making it a limited trial demo. It displays the developers greediness and all around *******-ness in my opinion.
Wallysworld, Another false accusation that shows YOUR stupidity aswell. When did I ever say I hate this game, I said quite the opposite, read the first few of my posts and you will be greatly enlightened
calling the devs greedy and *******s is going too far and shows the kind of person you are
WallysWorld
07 Aug 06, 17:40
Maybe once his mother finds out what he's been doing on her computer, he'll leave. :laugh:
First of all I'd like to complement you bloodstar on your great english skills, did you proofread?
"So your argument that you expected EA kind of graphics is not good."
I'm guessing here, but I would say that English is not his native tounge. And yet, his point came across quite clearly.
And he's right. To make the game to your liking would take more money. And require a better computer to run it. Which then means you would whine because you would not have the hardware to run the game. And then it would be a $100 game. Without the expansion.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 17:42
Maybe once his mother finds out what he's been doing on her computer, he'll leave. :laugh:
we can only hope ;)
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 17:47
First of all I'd like to complement you bloodstar on your great english skills, did you proofread?
"So your argument that you expected EA kind of graphics is not good."
When did I ever say I'd expected those kind of graphics to begin with, I said "For the price I'd expect atleast decent/good graphics." If the game was priced accordingly to its actual worth, I wouldn't have the slightest problem. Since it isn't and their asking for near 100$ for a pre 2000 designed game, thats where I find the problem.
Oh THANK you very very much! No, I didn't proofread, I write very fast actually. I can almost think in English. But, now when you said that it is good it will be worse, I will spoil myself :)
No need for any flame guys, let's cool it off. And I apologize to you if I was rude.
OK, that is your opinion and I don't have a problem with that. I just said my arguments.
You must know that we wargamers have a bigger tolerance when it comes to graphics ;)
I still play TOAW and there graphics have it's roots from 1998. actually. And I still play it. So any decent graphics and I actually think that this is decent enough is OK by our standards.
I love English and read a lot in English and because of that many think that my English is good. But, by my standards is not good enough and never will be as it is not my mother language. But, at least I will try to be at least good enough. I am glad that you find it OK. :smoke:
Mario
Not even Silent Hunter III has what he's looking for. Torpedoes explode against the target, and yet, not a single hole. Collided with a destroyer once. You would never know by looking at either ship. Not even paint scratchs.
Ships break in two. And yet, they look solid. Shoot 100 shells into the hull. Not a single dent.
exactly bloodstar , you see you guys are so use to these types of games that the slightest upadate in the series' graphics seem godly to you guys. When you have a well-rounded gamer like myself come to this game , (with knowledge of many other wargames) it seems "stoneage".
I insult the developers and that makes people not take me seriously according to signal, I am in turn insulted directly by ironhand and others , who have called me immature when they are the ones throwing the petty insults. hmmm , interesting the type of people here.
silent hunter 3 is a simulator focused on the mechanics of the sub, its not a wargame but a simulator. Do not even bring its name to the forum of distant guns they share nothing. And do not assume what I like and do not, have I mentioned once in this thread about hating sh3? No , you make a fool out of your self when you make assumptions like that.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 18:00
exactly bloodstar , you see you guys are so use to these types of games that the slightest upadate in the series' graphics seem godly to you guys. When you have a well-rounded gamer like myself come to this game , (with knowledge of many other wargames) it seems "stoneage".
I insult the developers and that makes people not take me seriously according to signal, I am in turn insulted directly by ironhand and others , who have called me immature when they are the ones throwing the petty insults. hmmm , interesting the type of people here.
Just calling the graphics stoneage is enough to make people not take you seriously. Assuming the people on this forum are not well rounded gamers is a mistake.
I've been playing ALL types of games for over 20 years and own over a thousand games and these graphics, while not totally state of the gaming art, they are definitely NOT stoneage by any means.
I think you are just trying to justify your argument that the game is not worth 65-90 dollars, which it is in my opinion.
WallysWorld
07 Aug 06, 18:00
weequayx,
If I recall correctly, you called us players who like DG "brainwashed".
As for DG, this is the best sea warfare game out there in my opinion.
The game that would come closest to DG's likability on my scale would be my old Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic game from many years ago. I thought that game was the "cat's meow" back then. :)
Anyway, my turn to apologize if I posted out of order.:upset:
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 18:02
silent hunter 3 is a simulator focused on the mechanics of the sub, its not a wargame but a simulator. Do not even bring its name to the forum of distant guns they share nothing. And do not assume what I like and do not, have I mentioned once in this thread about hating sh3? No , you make a fool out of your self when you make assumptions like that.
distant guns is alot closer to silent hunter 3 than bf2 and cod2 or the total war series that you mentioned in one of your first posts ;)
Signal I'm not quite sure you fully understand. I would be perfectly ok with this game if the price met it's design, but it doesn't thats why in offense by the price I refer to the graphics as "stoneage".
Yes maybe the fact that they are about the naval warfare aspect, buts that all they share. Like I stated ones a masterpeice simulator, and one (DG) is an overpriced under designed strategy/naval warfare game.
Wallysworld , you do not need to apologize for anything , this is supposed to be a dabate, others are trying to start a war by flaming but you can't help that.
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 18:07
exactly bloodstar , you see you guys are so use to these types of games that the slightest upadate in the series' graphics seem godly to you guys. When you have a well-rounded gamer like myself come to this game , (with knowledge of many other wargames) it seems "stoneage".
I insult the developers and that makes people not take me seriously according to signal, I am in turn insulted directly by ironhand and others , who have called me immature when they are the ones throwing the petty insults. hmmm , interesting the type of people here.
Just a moment... I think that most guys here are playing wargames and maybe even other games. What other wargames have better graphics than this game?
I play many other games. Heroes V for example have gorgeus graphics...
But, I will not see wargames through Heroes V graphics. I play a lot other games too. I also like to see good graphics. I play games since 1987. and Commodore 64. And I played thousand upon thousands of them. I was also game journalist many years and reviewed many games myself. I still folow new releases.
Clint Eastwood once said "Man's gotta know his limitations" or something like that. I just know limitations of wargames.
Mario
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 18:11
Signal I'm not quite sure you fully understand. I would be perfectly ok with this game if the price met it's design, but it doesn't thats why in offense by the price I refer to the graphics as "stoneage".
People have already stated that this is a niche within a niche game, it is probably not going to sell 1,000,000 copies, although it would be awesome if it did and i know the devs would love that too :D . I'm thinking that a good popular wargame might sell 10,000 copies. If Distant Guns was expected to sell alot it would sell for less I am sure.
Just look at Steel beasts pro PE, 125 dollars, but you don't see many people crying aboout the cost on their forums. Although the game was designed for the military to practice at home and such, the fans know what they are buying and do so happily as they will do here I am sure.
WallysWorld
07 Aug 06, 18:13
What other wargames have better graphics than this game?
Good question.
I consider a game like Silent Hunter to be a simulation while games like Combat Mission and Distant Guns! are wargames. Simulation always should have really good graphics because the player wants to have a suspension of disbelief and actually think he's flying a fighter or captain os a submarine.
The gameplay makes wargames while for simulations, extra good graphics are needed. And Distant Guns! has both gameplay and the good graphics. John Tiller's Tsushima topic had me interested in the game, but the lack of graphics was a big turnoff.
silent hunter 3 is a simulator focused on the mechanics of the sub, its not a wargame but a simulator. Do not even bring its name to the forum of distant guns they share nothing. And do not assume what I like and do not, have I mentioned once in this thread about hating sh3? No , you make a fool out of your self when you make assumptions like that.
1: You claim, but have yet to prove, that DG has stoneage graphics. You say it is because it doesn't have what you are looking for. SHIII, which does have state of the art graphics, does not have what you are looking for either.
2: By your own admission, DG is a wargame. Wargames do not need fancy graphics to simulate the event they portray. Thus, all your gibberish about its unproven stoneage graphics are moot. The graphics are clear, we can tell a a battleship from a cruiser. We can tell when they are damaged or sinking. We don't need to see a smoke stack full of holes, or little men running to little lifeboats.
3: Thay are comparable as neither one portrays the graphics you seek. But then again neither do all the others I've mentioned.
Well bloodstar, you love this genre of game do you not? You see I meant that since you love this genre or developer, you have a increased tolerance for any shortcomings that may arrive in the final product, say graphics, and good graphics are not the basis of the game is what you love. That is what you defend, and when I an outsider puts down the design you can't help but defend it.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 18:17
Good question.
I consider a game like Silent Hunter to be a simulation while games like Combat Mission and Distant Guns! are wargames. Simulation always should have really good graphics because the player wants to have a suspension of disbelief and actually think he's flying a fighter or captain os a submarine.
The gameplay makes wargames while for simulations, extra good graphics are needed. And Distant Guns! has both gameplay and the good graphics. John Tiller's Tsushima topic had me interested in the game, but the lack of graphics was a big turnoff.
exactly. Silent Hunter 3 IS a simulation, a totally different genre of gaming. For a wargame Distant Guns graphics are superb.
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 18:17
Good question.
I consider a game like Silent Hunter to be a simulation while games like Combat Mission and Distant Guns! are wargames. Simulation always should have really good graphics because the player wants to have a suspension of disbelief and actually think he's flying a fighter or captain os a submarine.
The gameplay makes wargames while for simulations, extra good graphics are needed. And Distant Guns! has both gameplay and the good graphics. John Tiller's Tsushima topic had me interested in the game, but the lack of graphics was a big turnoff.
Indeed.
But, I never expect that wargame push the latest PC to the limit. Simulations were always cutting edge. Theatre of War might do that :)
And that is just that, simulation engine around which is built a wargame.
Mario
Signal I'm not quite sure you fully understand. I would be perfectly ok with this game if the price met it's design, but it doesn't thats why in offense by the price I refer to the graphics as "stoneage".
I don't think you have a very good grasp of economics honestly. Not an insult, there aren't many people who do have any real grasp of the subject. This game is not going to be a huge seller. They could price it at $5 and it's not going to sell huge numbers. The subject matter means that quite a few people won't have any interest in even checking it out whether they're into wargames or not. Since the base is going to be small, to make any kind of money, or break even, they set a high price point. They'll sell less, but lowering the price most likely wouldn't make up the difference for the small increase in sales they'd get.
The Graphics aren't even close to stoneage. If you got all the nifty little features you want, neither you, nor anyone else that hasn't won the lottery would be able to run the game. Add to that the developmental time and money it would cost to put meaningless eye candy into the game, and we'd never see this game, even in the future when we would be able to run it.
Deriding the physics engine because the damage images aren;t to your liking is a bit silly too. The graphics do their best to show the scale of the damage. Again, what you're asking for would be a useless tax on the system that nobody could handle.
As for your question about a ship taking damage on one side and then rolling over the other way, it's easily explained because I've seen it happen. In a ship, the interior is highly compartmentalized. This is done to prevent flooding from spreading if a section of the hull is breached. Once the hull is breached and water fills the section, the pressure is immense, particularly if the ship remains in motion. In the sinking I saw, two or three of the ship's watertight doors buckled and gave way under the pressure. The force of the water rushing through the areas of the ship on the opposite side of the initial impact (Where the doors had not been sealed) caused the ship to roll over the opposite way. Once the roll began, it grew progressively worse as water began to move to the lowest point, which was now the side opposite from the original hit. I'm not saying this is what is happening in the game, but just showing that it can, and has happened, so it's not something that's impossible.
I'd be interested in what exactly you do consider to be a wargame, honestly. If this is a wargame, it's one of the best looking I've seen.
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 18:26
Well bloodstar, you love this genre of game do you not? You see I meant that since you love this genre or developer, you have a increased tolerance for any shortcomings that may arrive in the final product, say graphics, and good graphics are not the basis of the game is what you love. That is what you defend, and when I an outsider puts down the design you can't help but defend it.
I love wargames. I still didn't played enough Distant Guns to say that I love the game but will when I get more time actually. I think that I will love it, once I get used to interface etc...
No, you are perfectly free to voice your opinion. I can disagre or agree. Or others. Not any melodrama in there actually :o
Nothing is perfect. Wargames have just more "substance" than many other "mainstream" games.
But, in mainstream can be a jewell and in wargames can be also bad games, no rule here. Norm Koger is just the man who makes good games and may Lord praise him! :D
Yes, I am his fan and not hide that fact.
In fact I would put Norm Koger into 10 best game developers in the world! And as Sid Meier want's to write on his toombstone "Man who made Civilization", Norm Koger should write "Man who made TOAW".
TOAW is his masterpiece and I still value TOAW above anything Norm Koger actually made, even this game. I hope that he will still have time to make even better game.
Betrayal at Krondor was also masterpiece. Or Archon. Or Neuromancer by Interplay. And many others games.
Mario
Let me add an in my opinion, that should sort some of this graphics mumble jumble.
"You claim, but have yet to prove, that DG has stoneage graphics. You say it is because it doesn't have what you are looking for. SHIII, which does have state of the art graphics, does not have what you are looking for either."
Are you serious Ironhand? Why are you assuming that sh3 and DG (especially sh3) do not have what i'm looking for? I will say this once again DG is decent , it would be GREAT if it was priced accordingly but since it isn't It makes it's overpriced design look stoneage compared to other games out there. Especially sh3 , did I EVER SAY I was let down by sh3's graphics, NO STOP putting words in my mouth.
As for Spharv2 , If they lowered to the price to something reasonable , I would assure you they make twiced the profit as they net the fence sitters like me , which unbelieveably there are many, along with all the die hard fans, there is no such thing at setting the price to low as to where they'd lose sells, they would only be set to gain.
You say if DG had all the features like little men going to boats and visible holes and the like it would be over taxing on the system, for the money you payed for the full game you better have a system that can very easily run this game , if you don't , something is wrong there. I could run this game and 3 other major applications and probably not lagg a bit, there is plenty of room for addition to the design. And your idea of the ship with a gaping torpedo hole and countless heavy shell penetraions on one side, (the other side spotless), rolling over the opposite side, yes it would be possible but the chances are so rediculously low to the point where the developers could never dream of inputing such rare possibilities. Do you think everyone is fluent with the enterworking of a pre-dreadnought? no much less to the point of adding a possibe sinking animation that could almost never occur.
see bloodstar you love the developer, no offense but in a sense this is blinding your better judgement I think.
As for Spharv2 , If they lowered to the price to something reasonable , I would assure you they make twiced the profit as they net the fence sitters like me , which unbelieveably there are many, along with all the die hard fans, there is no such thing at setting the price to low as to where they'd lose sells, they would only be set to gain.
As I said, you either don't understand economics, or you massively overestimate the appeal of a game based on a hundred year war most people don't know a thing about. "No such thing" as setting a price point too low? Do you understand the whole profit/loss thing at all?
As for the ship thing, you asked for an explaination, I gave it to you, and you say it doesn't matter. Make up your mind.
And you didn't answer my question. What exactly do you consider a wargame?
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 18:50
see bloodstar you love the developer, no offense but in a sense this is blinding your better judgement I think.
Hah, well not that much...
Obviously you are making a lot of noise for some things that are set in stone.
And one of this is price. You can vote with your dollar and not buy it if you think that it is too much. As with many other thing, only market will be final judge. I agree that price is a bit too much but it's not the end of the world.
As Norm Koger is not making his game every other day, I am glad to buy his game for 65$.
See you are talking about the price which is fixed and will not come down so easily and so soon. I hope that this will not be the practice of all game industry (higher prices). But, certanly Norm Koger is not the one that I will boycott because of price of the game. Will work harder to earn more and to buy more other games simple as that. Maybe they can just lower the prices in 6 month to 50 $ and bring those that didn't bought at 65$. Wrong policy is to keep price for 5 years the same.
Mario
Spharv2 , you know as well as I do that the rollover thing is a glitch, I did not refer to a reallife incident and you know that, this is another example of trying to defend the game from it's blatent shortcomings. As for the profit loss lol yea I'm no economic professor but I can tell you that more profit can be made regardless look to my last explaination of how.
Wargames have so many amalgamations that it is near impossible for me to decribe a particualar , they all blend together different elements , some for the good of the game some that draw from the game.
Bloodstar you are right and I have known that what I argue is set in stone , I just want to make it apparent what seems unfair to me, thats all. I made an attempt to "wind this debate up" but others have provoked me to continue.
mediocre graphics and near-the-like gameplay, could only run but AT THE VERY MOST 25-30$ if not freeware (who is being greedy?)
these graphics are stoneage. (still haven't seen a mention of a better graphic wargame.)
you people need to open your eyes. (really?)
There are NO slow sinkings they are all at the blink of an eye (I've seen plenty)
I would have expected this to be a 10 $ or 5$ game if not freeware. (There's that greed again.)
greedy bastards to just release a free full demo you can KEEP. (making friends again.)
this game's design is stoneage. For the price , it should have a physics engine unbelievably realistic, like ships breaking and holes we can actually see, not cheap-ass little black pock marks all over the hull. And the smoke stacks should be to made look like swiss cheese after a heavy battle, instead the randomly shifting different directions disregarding where they were hit. (Even a simulation such as SHIII doesn't have that. So, why would a wargame?)
It displays the developers greediness and all around *******-ness in my opinion. (Ah yes, a classic example of how to win friends and influence people.)
Spharv2 , you know as well as I do that the rollover thing is a glitch, I did not refer to a reallife incident and you know that, this is another example of trying to defend the game from it's blatent shortcomings. As for the profit loss lol yea I'm no economic professor but I can tell you that more profit can be made regardless look to my last explaination of how.
Well, take a simple example and figure it out. If you want the game priced around $50, they'd have to sell nearly twice as many copies to make the same amount of money. I'm sure they aren't going to release sales numbers, but I doubt a lowering of the price will bring in more than a couple of hundred extra orders. The great majority of people who have any interest in a game like this will pay the extra amount.
Wargames have so many amalgamations that it is near impossible for me to decribe a particualar , they all blend together different elements , some for the good of the game some that draw from the game.
Weak answer. :D The number of true wargames out there these days is very small, I think you can come up with a few.
Bloodstar
07 Aug 06, 19:06
Bloodstar you are right and I have known that what I argue is set in stone , I just want to make it apparent what seems unfair to me, thats all. I made an attempt to "wind this debate up" but others have provoked me to continue.
As it is 1:00 AM in Old Whore Called Europe, I will soon go to bed, yawn...
I think that you have been heard by developers... It is a little bit overpriced but as I am waiting for NK game for 6 years, there is not alternative not to buy it...
Look it this way, 65 $ can be throwed at some really stupid things, or few lunch, or you can buy a few drinks to your friends and wonder where is your money...
I will call a quit on this discussion, I have said what I had to say on this matter. Everybody said what they had to say. You not agree fine. Me not agree again fine. We don't have to agree. Just analyze all that was said, but you don't have to agree with us. No problem.
sleeping time :toast:
Mario
Wow love how you took the trouble to quote me so many times. I can do the same but I would get a headache just re-reading the nonsense that you have typed. As someone state before , simulations require the best graphics solely because its to make you feel like your there. Wargames cover more than simulating they cover a strategy element aswell. Thats why for example all attention in sh3 is on detail , dg is on a little bit of both. The price makes you expect a better quality game all around , thats wherein lies my complaint. You ignore my post but try to bolster something I don't know what by quoting me and adding smart-ass comments after each? Whos to be taken the more serious?
weak answer lol, well lets see how to please spharv2....... Well to begin with a war game is about war so, every ww2 based game from strategy to fps hell throw in about every war from the cossacks game to total war to cod2 to bf2 to the fantasy war games they are endless, my previous answer hits it on the head, there are too many to describe. When you "true" war games I'd do not quite cath the meaning, i mean like between say brothers in arms vs. cod2 that kind of difference? (The arcade vs the realistic)
Clarify if you would
"Well, take a simple example and figure it out. If you want the game priced around $50, they'd have to sell nearly twice as many copies to make the same amount of money. I'm sure they aren't going to release sales numbers, but I doubt a lowering of the price will bring in more than a couple of hundred extra orders. The great majority of people who have any interest in a game like this will pay the extra amount."
So the 90 $ price may not be nessesary but is more based off of making as much money as they possibly can vs. putting holes in the fans wallets. IN MY OPINION this displays the utmost greed. You do not have the costs or the sells so neither of us really should be talking.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 19:21
weak answer lol, well lets see how to please spharv2....... Well to begin with a war game is about war so, every ww2 based game from strategy to fps hell throw in about every war from the cossacks game to total war to cod2 to bf2 to the fantasy war games they are endless, my previous answer hits it on the head, there are too many to describe. When you "true" war games I'd do not quite cath the meaning, i mean like between say brothers in arms vs. cod2 that kind of difference? (The arcade vs the realistic)
Clarify if you would
wargames are a subgenre of strategy games. bf2 cod2 are first person shooters set in a modern and ww2 era.
Wow love how you took the trouble to quote me so many times. I can do the same but I would get a headache just re-reading the nonsense that you have typed. As someone state before , simulations require the best graphics solely because its to make you feel like your there. Wargames cover more than simulating they cover a strategy element aswell. Thats why for example all attention in sh3 is on detail , dg is on a little bit of both. The price makes you expect a better quality game all around , thats wherein lies my complaint. You ignore my post but try to bolster something I don't know what by quoting me and adding smart-ass comments after each? Whos to be taken the more serious?
Yeah, real hard to hit the little quote button. I try to answer your question, and rather than give an answer to my question, you launch into some metaphysical answer or start comparing sims to wargames again, which I never asked about. Whatever.
For the price I expect a good wargame which looks good and covers the period it's supposed to with a high degree of accuracy. The game does this, so it's worth the money to me. If it's not to you, that's cool.
No sim has the exact damage model you're requesting either, so a comparison to the sims isn't going to cut it either. IL-2 is a great sim, but it doesn't use the exact shell for shell damage model you want.
RTW, BF (any version), CoD, games like that, are not wargames, and I get the feeling you think they are. A game about war without a serious attempt at accuracy, isn't a wargame. If you strip down the physics model, and heavily script things (Or leave the game as MP only, like many do), means you can put in a ton of little fluff details and eye candy to make it look pretty, without actually adding any real value to the game.
Anyway, we're just going around in circles here, so you can have the last word, because I'm pretty sure you're not going to change your mind, and I know I'm not, so have at it. Have a good night.
thanks for the much needed sarcasm about the quote feature, really was a nice thing to say. Show how mature you are as well. DG isbased off of real life events, we do not play the game to a solid scripted line or else we would not have a very fun game. Lets use RTW for example, it to is based off of real wars and events. Of course running the entire campaign along a scripted track would be realistic but not fun. There is not a solid definition for wargames I have my own you have yours. RTW is (atleast by following your definition) a very serious attempt at historical accuaracy. I'll give you that cod2 and bf2 are far from it though. Once again, who ever said it had to be historically accuarate? besides you of course. By saying wargame it could be anything remotely involving war, that how I see it. Maybe a new genre needs to come about called historical or historical war or what have you due to your particularity. By your definition , your right there are hardly any "wargames".
I mean really spharv2 and signal show me somewhere these stone cut definitions you refer to. wargames a subgenre of strategy lol , got any more matierial for me signal?
Go back under your bridge.
http://www.dqshrine.com/dq/dq3/troll.jpg
Dangit, I said you could have the last word, but RTW a serious attempt at realism? I liked the game to a point, but that's so far from the truth it's laughable. Having 3-d figures that look vaguely like roman soldiers and slapping them on a map of europe does not an attempt at accuracy make. That's honestly about as close to accuracy as they got. Still, it's a nice looking game.
I also think you're combining my posts with someone else's in your head. I never said anything about wargames having to do with strategy.
well may be I have but still you must not have understood my last post. RTW is parrallel to DG in realism, did I just hear you complain about the detail of maps and roman soldiers OH MY. Well let me tell you a thing about the detail of DG , I think we're getting somewhere.
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/1773/japs01xt5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Dear Leftie,
Crawl back under YOUR bridge.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 20:29
dude you went too far now, just leave and save yourself anymore embarassment
well may be I have but still you must not have understood my last post. RTW is parrallel to DG in realism, did I just hear you complain about the detail of maps and roman soldiers OH MY. Well let me tell you a thing about the detail of DG , I think we're getting somewhere.
No you didn't hear me complain about the detail of the map or soldiers. If you actually read the post, I said the look was good, the units look nice, the maps look nice. It's pretty much everything else that's wrong with the game that's the issue.
DG looks nice to me, makes a very legitimate attempt to model history, and it actually has something under the hood, which puts it miles ahead of RTW.
There is a difference in calling someone a troll (which is what you are doing on these boards) and calling someone a racial slur. I hope you are intelligent enough to see that you have crossed the line.
I would appreciate an apology, but I am not naive enough to expect one.
Ben
"Having 3-d figures that look vaguely like roman soldiers "
Speaks for itself.
You think DG is miles ahead of RTW, Ok wow, You settle for very little my friend , I'm not even going to begin to argue this, it would take awhile. Ofcourse you are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
Spharv2 what do you say we just end this pointless debate?
Signal, do you really think I care for what you say? Why do you post? You should go join leftie and all the other immature name-callers.
Leftie I apologize but please tell me what you achieved by posting an image of a troll and directing it towards me? Did you not forsee a remark? Do not insult me and not be expected to recieve one in return. Your post brought nothing to debate except to insult. There should be a mutual apology.
signal1941
07 Aug 06, 20:41
"Having 3-d figures that look vaguely like roman soldiers "
Speaks for itself.
You think DG is miles ahead of RTW, Ok wow, You settle for very little my friend , I'm not even going to begin to argue this, it would take awhile. Ofcourse you are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
Spharv2 what do you say we just end this pointless debate?
Signal, do you really think I care for what you say? Why do you post? You should go join leftie and all the other immature name-callers.
all the other immature name callers? who else but you in this thread have called people names?
Iron hand , you , leftie probably more. I can assure you I have recieved more than dished out.
And BTW Leftie whos the more troll, the one who exspresses his distaste in the game in a portion of somone else's thread or the one who comes to it not to contribute to the debate which is occuring but to "Name Call'.
A troll (to me) is someone who wonders a entire forum spewing hateful messages whenever theres a chance, with no goal except to offend.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology), a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum), and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.
That is what my reference was to.
Ben
well there you go we both must be trolls according to that "internet terminology link"
But leftie why don't you answer my question, if you knew that was ging to offend me why did you post it?And why are you surprised to get an insult in return? I mean if anything the definition clearly describes you/ your actions.
I will assume it was a mutual apology. If not I whole-hearted will revoke mine.
Gentlemen, please. This has gone far enough. I believe you've all made your points and clearly you beg to differ. This subject has now gone way off topic. Weequayx, why you continue to post in a forum about a game you dislike is beyond me.
I have never once said I dislike the game porkchop, please read the posts before you make accusations. I want to end this pointless debate aswell, god willing someone will want to get the last word however.
Why do you have to be aggressive? Was I aggressive toward you? I did not accuse you of anything. As you don't appear to have a good word to say about DG it was my assuption that you disliked the game.
one who comes to it not to contribute to the debate which is occuring but to "Name Call'.
Such as, from your earlier offerings;
greedy bastards to just release a free full demo you can KEEP.
It displays the developers greediness and all around *******-ness in my opinion.
yes ironhand they were directed towards the devs not you so chill. Like I said lets forget this topic.
(tired of typing to you brainwashed people )
And this was aimed at.........who.
Still waiting for you to prove the graphics are stone age.
Had you said the game isn't worth the money, and left it at that. It would of passed. But no, you had to flame both the developers, and the people who are more than happy with it the way it is, and are actually making suggestions on how to make it better.
Which is much different from you and your:
developers greediness and all around *******-ness
25-30$ if not freeware, yes I said freeware
you have offended me to begin with the overprice of this game , so I feel justified posting this message
I know you people are in love with this game and are mezmerized to a point in which a outsider like me coming and bashing it is just unheard of but seriously , you people need to open your eyes.
would have expected this to be a 10 $ or 5$ game if not freeware.
To be truthful the format of the demo can tell you the kind of people your buying this game from.
Wow your name hits the nail right on the head dimwit
Yes, you have been most helpful and rational:rolleyes:
weequayz,
I would suggest that you edit your post in reference to me. Having been a moderator up until yesterday, I can tell you that terminology such as that is not tolerated at all and could very well result in a ban.
Regards
Ben
sorry leftie you remove yours and I'll remove mine.
whats with this prove the stone age graphics are you blind??? Can you not read my posts, its opinion ironhand! jesus can't you grasp that yet?More than likely I speak for many in saying that, evryone has there preferences.
Opinion is fine. But you are basing it on what? Go to the HPS website and look at their naval game offerings. That is stone age. And there is still the fact that you have gone around this thread and insulted both developers and players several times.
So, having seen what could today be called stone age graphics, like Tsushima by Avalon Hill, or again, SSI's Battlecruiser and Warship, (M Evan Brooks had this to say: graphics were reminiscent of a sex-education movie showing sperm travelling in various directions.) Red Storm Rising. 5th Fleet, I can demand you prove it. Because I know what stone age graphics are.
The grapics in these are neither sperm like, or shiloutte, or isometric. They don' have, what was it you said "it should have a physics engine unbelievably realistic, like ships breaking and holes we can actually see, not cheap-ass little black pock marks all over the hull. And the smoke stacks should be to made look like swiss cheese after a heavy battle"
That takes time, and money. A physics engine unbelievably realistic, would take alot of computer power and programming. Could Norm do it? I don't know. But I do know that then those of us who already bought this game would be paying about $100. The full game would cost around $150. And you would still be here insulting both developers and players because it would be even further out of your reach.
Maybe they can do it. Call it Distant Guns: Professional Edition.
That's what esims did. Their game Steel Beast Pro Personal Edition, goes for $125. The game is so realistic it could be used by professional soldiers. And it is. They even have a version sold only to defense agencies.
So, you can have your unbelievably realistic physics engine. But not for a mere $64.95
The physics engine you want is unnecessary for a wargame.
And you don't even realize that Lefty is doing you a favor.
You just keep on chideing me on ironhand. Like I told bloodstar , you diehard fans of the genre are so in tune with the other games in the series or genra like you mentioned a few that are "stoneage", that thats what your comparing dg to and in your mind it is a huge step up graphically compared to the other ones you touched on. But I, to a newcomer like me it is my opinion that it is stone age.
BTW ironhand you are a very sly person deleteing that last part of your post in the "what a cracker" thread. You obviously agree with me no matter what, I thought I was reading something I wrote when I saw it, lmao YOU are hilarious.
PS. for those reading this wondering what I'm reffering about, ironhand in the latter, he had wrote something on the order of a graphics rant in the "what a cracker" thread and when I touched on the subject he has hastily deleted it. It was so mirror to something I wrote complaining about the level of detail earlier that I thought he had quoted me lol.
I assume the question marks refer to either a question you have or you are confused, adding text to your post would be a great help!
have no idea what you're caterwauling about now.
lol , its ok ironhand I know what I saw and I know what you think so just save us the trouble of furthering this pointless debate/flamewar , what do you say?
Commodore Rob
08 Aug 06, 03:27
Now now children, surely we shoul;d keep this adult and not get into pointless petty confrontations.
Issue 1. The cost - Yes its expensive for you yanks but if you translate it to GBP's its not too expensive at all. So for once you americans are getting the rough end of the wedge:) Besides as has been said this is a neiche game that has been done for the love of the genre not some high powered multinational company like EA or Saga. and they need to make money somehow to develoip the game
Issue 2. Graphics wise comparing it to the likes of Total War series is unfair. anyway i have all the TW games and although the graphics have improveds the playability has decreased. with DG the playability rocks and that is what is missing from most games today they concentrate on the pretty stuff and dont on the playability. I would also say that yes the sea does not look like SH3 but who gives a crap I want the graphics power to go into the damage on the ships, which it does.
Issue
lol , its ok ironhand I know what I saw and I know what you think so just save us the trouble of furthering this pointless debate/flamewar , what do you say?
Soon as you retract your statements.
c'mon, retract which ones name some please?
You cannot stop with this can you?
weequayx,
Against my better judgement, I am going to step in here and try to alleviate some of your confusion. By your own admission, you are somewhat new to the traditional wargaming genre. Please keep in mind that Distant Guns is a niche game that no mainstream developers(or publishers for that matter) would touch. The Russo-Japanese War is a relatively obscure era that most non military history buffs have no knowledge of.
For Norm and the rest of the development staff to make this game, took quite a bit of time and effort. As was explained before, no one is willing to work that amount of time for free. Since the sales expectations for a title such as this are much lower than a mainstream title, the price is affected accordingly.
Now you can argue the game is ugly. It's a no brainer that comparing this game to a more mainstream title such as Rome Total War, will inevitably bring you to the conclusion that RTW is a "prettier" game. But when all factors in the equation are taken into consideration, what you are left with is a very playable game that isn't too hard on the eyes.
It's obvious that you don't have a working knowledge of the shoestring budgets that many wargame developers work on. As a comparison, you could say that indie movie makers can't produce the same special effects that hollywood can. That being the case, they can and often do charge the same amount for one of their videos as their mainstream counterparts.
Why is that? The short answer is that people still need to get paid. The long answer is something that I honestly don't have the inclination or the time to go into here.
Ben
Vigilante
08 Aug 06, 03:38
This started out as one person's lament that he could not presently afford the game, and turned into one of the stupidest discussions I've ever read in an internet forum - which is saying plenty.
Adam Smith 101: If you like the game enough to pay the price set by the seller, you buy it. If you don't like the game enough or can't afford the price, you don't buy it. If you think you can make as good a game and make money by charging less, you do so and become a competitor. If you don't like the game enough to pay the requested price and have no social life or ability to make a game of your own, you distract yourself from contemplating your inadequacies by becoming the forum troll. :rolleyes:
Yes leftie I know that part of the eqaution , at first I was shocked by price and still to a large degree am but I understand a little to why the price is that extreme. I mean they're saving buy making it download only, so minus the costs marketing to stores, with that you'd think that would make the price drop but I guess not.
Lempereur1
08 Aug 06, 03:41
Spoken like Milton Freedman!
Here Here!
Or like the Jewish Madam said "Ya Got it, Ya sell it,...ya still got it!:nuts: "...
Old, Old joke from the early 1970s....
once again thank you vigilante, I will make this evident you me and every other US citizen in here must have no social life by staying up this late lol.
Issue 2. Graphics wise comparing it to the likes of Total War series is unfair. anyway i have all the TW games and although the graphics have improveds the playability has decreased. with DG the playability rocks and that is what is missing from most games today they concentrate on the pretty stuff and dont on the playability. I would also say that yes the sea does not look like SH3 but who gives a crap I want the graphics power to go into the damage on the ships, which it does.
Issue
I can't find fault with that. I haven't touched R:TW for awhile. Some of the mods are a big help (Atilla's especially), but still....
The only one I ever played all the way through was Shogun. I won by default as all the rival factions died out.:laugh:
Graphics for this game are good. I can see at a glance what ships are damaged, and how much. I don't need to see riddled stacks or hulls, or twisted gun barrels or smashed bridges etc.
If the developers want to put them in, it's ok with me But if it affects the playability, then it isn't, to me, worth it.
If you don't need to see riddled stacks and blown apart decks , do not ask for there incorporation. If you do not want the detail over preformance, don't ask for it.
Let's get this topic back on track. The cost of PC games.
DG is $64.95 (US). That's an equivalent of £34 here in the UK. That price compares with many games in the UK. For example MTW2 is retailed at £34.99 which translates as $66 (US). I can recall paying £50 for FS 2004 all those years back. That's $95 (US). So, for the UK, DG isn't expensive. I think you yanks have had happy days as far as software pricing goes. :D
(edit) Looking further into this, I took Sid Miers Civilzation IV as an example. UK listed price £24.99 = $47.73 (US). This game is listed on Amazon (US) at $29.99 =£15.69. Seems we pay in stirling what you americans pay in dollars.
Bloodstar
08 Aug 06, 07:25
Let's get this topic back on track. The cost of PC games.
DG is $64.95 (US). That's an equivalent of £34 here in the UK. That price compares with many games in the UK. For example MTW2 is retailed at £34.99 which translates as $66 (US). I can recall paying £50 for FS 2004 all those years back. That's $95 (US). So, for the UK, DG isn't expensive. I think you yanks have had happy days as far as software pricing goes. :D
And he needs to admit that you cannot demand from Distant Guns to have graphics a la Heroes V or Call o f Duty 2 or ROme Total War or name any big budget project.
Simply by checking CREDITS one can see that on Distant Guns worked 1-2 people (graphics) or maybe just Norm.
On those huge budget games you have 10-20 artist and many times OUTSIDE STUDIO doing extra animation or graphics by outsourcing.
So it is simply not comparable.
Mario
Bloodstar, I totally agree. There's also the unit costs. Big game developer's are publishing games in 100's of thousands and, as everyone knows. the more numbers of copies of anything you produce the unit price drops whether this is computer games or biscuits (cookies to our US friends)
Commodore Rob
08 Aug 06, 08:15
Let's get this topic back on track. The cost of PC games.
DG is $64.95 (US). That's an equivalent of £34 here in the UK. That price compares with many games in the UK. For example MTW2 is retailed at £34.99 which translates as $66 (US). I can recall paying £50 for FS 2004 all those years back. That's $95 (US). So, for the UK, DG isn't expensive. I think you yanks have had happy days as far as software pricing goes. :D
(edit) Looking further into this, I took Sid Miers Civilzation IV as an example. UK listed price £24.99 = $47.73 (US). This game is listed on Amazon (US) at $29.99 =£15.69. Seems we pay in stirling what you americans pay in dollars.
Exactly my point from earlier in this thread, although I am now glad someone has done the Mathamatics to prove it:) I wonder if you look at the geographical breakdown of sales if DG has sold more in the Uk market because of this then the Yankee market?
WallysWorld
08 Aug 06, 10:16
I paid $59.95 USD for the game which converted into about $69.50 CAD. Most new games in Canadian retail stores go for around $45 to $60 CAD so this game is a bit higher than normal. The currency exchange took care of the difference.
But given the obscure topic of the game and the overall high quality of the game plus the reputation of the developers, it's a price well worth paying. I have absolutely no regrets.
saddletank
08 Aug 06, 12:31
it's a price well worth paying. I have absolutely no regrets.
Hear hear!
Whew. Well I'm glad we sorted that out! :)
If you don't need to see riddled stacks and blown apart decks , do not ask for there incorporation. If you do not want the detail over preformance, don't ask for it.
I can ask. Unlike you, I already bought it.
I paid $59.95 USD for the game which converted into about $69.50 CAD. Most new games in Canadian retail stores go for around $45 to $60 CAD so this game is a bit higher than normal. The currency exchange took care of the difference.
But given the obscure topic of the game and the overall high quality of the game plus the reputation of the developers, it's a price well worth paying. I have absolutely no regrets.
Me either.
Of course one of the disadvantages of buying from developers like Stormeagle who do not distribute copies to shops is that you won't be paying any discount prices that may be offered by the retailer on the high street or online. I buy most, if not all these days, PC games from Play.com where even brand new games are heavily discounted on release. I have never paid £30 or over for a new game in a long while (and that includes p&p). The so called 'special offer' of DG with the campaign at $59.95 (£31.45) should really be the top fixed price for this game considering it is a download with no packaging, shipping or printed manual. I feel sorry for anyone who has to pay $90 when that offer ends. In fact I doubt many people will buy the game at that price and Stormeagle will probably have to reduce it back to the original 'offer' price.
I accept this is a niche game with a limited market and I was happy to pay the price for many reasons already stated in another post. However, it is one of the most expensive games I have ever paid for.
WallysWorld
08 Aug 06, 13:43
The so called 'special offer' of DG with the campaign at $59.95 (£31.45) should really be the top fixed price for this game considering it is a download with no packaging, shipping or printed manual. I feel sorry for anyone who has to pay $90 when that offer ends. In fact I doubt many people will buy the game at that price and Stormeagle will probably have to reduce it back to the original 'offer' price.
A good post. At $90, I would have been paying about $102 CAD and that would have definitely made me think twice. But at $59.95, I will pay the little extra for the entire game and campaign knowing that it is a niche game and will be supported well.
Bloodstar
08 Aug 06, 13:58
A good post. At $90, I would have been paying about $102 CAD and that would have definitely made me think twice. But at $59.95, I will pay the little extra for the entire game and campaign knowing that it is a niche game and will be supported well.
I find it extremely courageos from SES to release games like this. Another reason to support it and that's why I hope it will sell enough.
Look at some other developers that goes safe route: Market Garden, Normandy, Bulge and then again Market Garden, Bulge, Normandy :clown:
What is interesting those maps are easily available but to gain topo maps of some obscure Eastern Front battles is very difficult. OK, now is easier as Soviet Union opened it's archives.
Mario
Iron hand you said in a previous article something along the line of asking the dev himself if they were going to update graphics or details like hole riddled stacks and etc. I would quote it but you deleted it for some reason which is quite funny , because it is the same stuff I was complaining about. I do not believe I have ever seen such a hypocrit on any online forum.
You owning it doesn't give you any more say in what the devs should do than I. Really ironhand why did you delete that part of the post in the "what a cracker" thread? Are you embarrased or ashamed that we share the same idea of inferior graphics in DG that need improvement? You obviously deleted it for some reason.
If anyone is wondering, look in the whata cracker thread at my post that says "exactly ironhand", it was in reply to his rant about there should be better graphics, very shortly after I saw and replyed to it he edited the post by deleting that last part about the graphics. Then in a plea to cover his tracks and make me look like a fool, he posts a response to my "exactly ironhand" by saying " exactly what?".
Ironhand don't be ashamed to agree with me , I know you do, you must be afraid of everyone trying to bash you like has occured to me in this thread , so you keep quiet.
BTW I also notice that you just posted a response saying I can ask, I own the game. Your previous post said you did not want or need to ask , because the design is fine to you. So why would you want to ask unless you do in fact want changes?
PS. Don't lie about this Ironhand, it is beyond obvious to me, so save yourself further embarassment.
As I said, I own it. There is a thread devoted to a wish list for DG. So why don't you go in there and state your wish that it be no more than $35, or better yet, free ware. Or how they are rip off artists because you don't get a full featured demo where you can keep playing the same thing over and over.
You have done nothing but whine about greedy developers, brainwashed fans, etc.
I wish I could say that you are acting like a prepubescent troll. But it is clear you are not acting.
I will make this clear. Riddled smoke stacks or masts trailing in the water, or even shot off, are not needed to enjoy the game. Being that I, like so many, have bought the full game, it is quite clear that those nit picky details are not needed. The lack of such in no way influenced my decision to buy it, or I suspect, anyone elses. If in the future, such things are added, I'm sure it will be appreciated by many.
But, unlike some, we are not demanding it, nor do we consider the graphics stone age for not having it. Let alone insult developers or the ones who like the game the way it is.
Do us all a favor, and go back to playing Pirates! A fun game in its own right, but hardly the unbeleivable realistic physics engine you seek.
All you have done is whine, piss, and moan about the game and everything about it. You don't like the game. We get it. We don't care.
A good post. At $90, I would have been paying about $102 CAD and that would have definitely made me think twice. But at $59.95, I will pay the little extra for the entire game and campaign knowing that it is a niche game and will be supported well.
Well said. That kind of money would give even me pause. Given the fantastic support though, $90 may not be that much when you take that into consideration.
I mean, you can get Computer War in Europe for $60. But no AI.
I have not "whined" and pissed about anything, I have brought this game's inadaquencies to light in my opinion especially compared to its full price. I love how you completely disregard my question as to why you deleted part of your post in the other thread, that was pretty much what my last post refered to entirely; puzzlement as to your contradictory statements. I rather complain or rant than be such a blatent hypocrit but thats like many other things "my opinion".
Also like previously requested , I wish to end these pointless differences we share.
saddletank
08 Aug 06, 18:43
My advice is for you both to stop replying to the other's posts. That would end it.
I have not "whined" and pissed about anything,
mediocre graphics and near-the-like gameplay, could only run but AT THE VERY MOST 25-30$ if not freeware (who is being greedy?)
these graphics are stoneage. (still haven't seen a mention of a better graphic wargame.)
you people need to open your eyes. (really?)
There are NO slow sinkings they are all at the blink of an eye (I've seen plenty)
I would have expected this to be a 10 $ or 5$ game if not freeware. (There's that greed again.)
greedy bastards to just release a free full demo you can KEEP. (making friends again.)
this game's design is stoneage. For the price , it should have a physics engine unbelievably realistic, like ships breaking and holes we can actually see, not cheap-ass little black pock marks all over the hull. And the smoke stacks should be to made look like swiss cheese after a heavy battle, instead the randomly shifting different directions disregarding where they were hit. (Even a simulation such as SHIII doesn't have that. So, why would a wargame?)
It displays the developers greediness and all around *******-ness in my opinion. (Ah yes, a classic example of how to win friends and influence people.)
Retract these. Apologize to all you have offended, and then we're done.
I retract nothing, I have offended none that did not deserve it. The devs have offended me to start with with the limited demo, then the extravagent price, not all together i have to purchase two parts to complete the expieriance of the game, near 100$. They not only have the audacity to sell it this high but to sell incomplete, I read a post earlier by mowers, he is waiting for the mines to be better incorporated in the game before he continues with his campaign, that my friends is just SAD.
Ironhand are you blind or just that hard headed? you can't take responsibility by even acknowledgeing the blatent contradiction you made and slyly tryed to hide? You are a fox, that simply put.
You ask for a apology like you deserve one lol.
Also when you take the liberty to make a post with nothing but tidbits of my posts you are in essence again trying to attakc me by displying the most "to-the point" statements but not the reasoning around the (the whole post)
BTW who wrote this? "The only reason I can figure for the prepubescent caterwauling is that he doesn't get enough allowance to buy it now."
Not once have I attacked you in this manner nor any others excluding the devs, who aren't one person , but a handful, all who know what shortcomings are in this game at well as glitches. Did I hear this game has been in developement for 5 years WOW.
Like I said I have never seen a hypocrit to this extreme in my history of online forums.
Admiral Nelson
08 Aug 06, 20:45
Guys, can't we give it a rest? This forum is otherwise a great place. Just leave it.
Exactly Nelson that what I've been making attempts to do is cease this arguement. Ironhand obviously does not want to cease but instead continue to argue and plea for undeserved apologies.
Admiral Nelson
08 Aug 06, 20:48
Just leave it. Who cares anyway? It is an internet forum.
Colonel Talvela
08 Aug 06, 22:33
I retract nothing, I have offended none that did not deserve it. The devs have offended me to start with with the limited demo, then the extravagent price, not all together i have to purchase two parts to complete the expieriance of the game, near 100$. .
Have to agree with ironhand - shut up with your complaining, pissing, & moaning.
The devs dont owe you a thing. If you dont like the game, dont buy it.
And talk about a hypocrite! You say this:
Ironhand are you blind or just that hard headed? you can't take responsibility by even acknowledgeing the blatent contradiction you made and slyly tryed to hide? You are a fox, that simply put
And then this:
Not once have I attacked you in this manner nor any others excluding the devs
Hypocritical Liar!
woah what do you have to do with this? If you have nothing in this go away and stop trying to cause more trouble.
Like ironhand you should add a bit more of my post when you quote me, it adds my reasoning to things and you obviously exclude that because you cannot grasp the reasoning.
You know nothing of this argument , tell me have you read the entire thread after my first post in it?
woah what do you have to do with this? If you have nothing in this go away and stop trying to cause more trouble.
Like ironhand you should add a bit more of my post when you quote me, it adds my reasoning to things and you obviously exclude that because you cannot grasp the reasoning.
You know nothing of this argument , tell me have you read the entire thread after my first post in it?
weequayx,
As a gentlemen, I am asking you to just let this die. We are all adults here. Don't worry about who gets the last word in because this will go on forever if you do.
Just step away from the thread. Don't reply to this message. Enjoy other parts of the forum. No sense in everyone (myself included) getting worked up over nothing.
If this thread continues, I can assure you that the mods will step in. Better to "police our own" than force anyone to do it for us.
Ben
weequayx,
As a gentlemen, I am asking you to just let this die. We are all adults here. Don't worry about who gets the last word in because this will go on forever if you do.
Just step away from the thread. Don't reply to this message. Enjoy other parts of the forum. No sense in everyone (myself included) getting worked up over nothing.
If this thread continues, I can assure you that the mods will step in. Better to "police our own" than force anyone to do it for us.
Ben
Well said.
vertical
Bloodstar
09 Aug 06, 03:23
Well said.
vertical
If someone cannot behave civilized I am also for banning. Respect is really important. If we allow insults to fly here then it's not good. And anyway this not a Usenet and there is a way to say what you don't like without insults, flames and jumping over arguments. Immature behaviour is also not tolerated. And what about 1000 posts all in circles, if someone bring facts on the table hello accept it. So enough with this.
Next step is ban if good behaviour and apologizes and respect doesn't start to fly - and not bitching, moaning, and cursing. This is not elemantary school here that we argue like a kids.
SO, weequayx please think about it.
Mario
saddletank
09 Aug 06, 08:10
Is there a moderator here? Perhaps this thread could be locked and we can all move on?
Double Deuce
09 Aug 06, 10:04
As has been mentioned several times before, this thread is related to the cost of the game, please keep your posts related to that. If you wanna discuss "wish list" stuff, there is already the thread for that --> HERE (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43531).
Price rediculous,Game not worth it, end of discussion. (Like I've been trying for about 5 to 6 posts now)
I'm afraid that's not how discussions work.
Excuse me, "Price rediculous, Game not worth it, open to discussion, if none, consider it done."
That better dogbert?
Certainly. To which I might add... I disagree.
well I agree ofcourse , I want to retire this really, wish a mod would lock it. I have made apparent what I sought to.
Is, when the promo done, $64.95 too much for a wargame? I don't think it is.
Leaving aside the niche market point, which is a good one, I want to try the comparison route.
First, tactical. The only tactical game that I am aware of is the one by HPS. This http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/tsushima/, is well worth a read.
To touch on a few points. The game has basic graphics that only a wargamer could love. The ships are blue and orange teardrop shapes that flash yellow when hit on an unrelieved blue background. Black dots represent gun and torpedo salvos that fly or inch across the screen. Yes, they are functional, and I don't think they detract from gameplay, but it would be nice to at least have ship graphics on the same level as Age of Sail, a game that came out in 1995.
Damage is calculated by comparing a ship's "fire value" based on the size of its guns and the number of guns that it can bear to a target's average belt and deck armor based on range. Penetration is not specifically modeled, though the larger guns tend to do more damage. Damage is expressed as a percentage that proportionally decreases gunnery strength and speed. Loss of individual guns and turrets is not modeled. A ship never loses the ability to fire a gun in a specific location; the ship's fire power just decreases.
Each fleet is assigned a critical hit percentage that reflects the chance of a hit blowing up a ship. Armor penetration is not modeled or required, as the critical hit determination takes place prior to the damage calculation. The effect of this simplification is narrowed in that Destroyers can not cause or receive a critical hit, nor can Light Cruisers inflict a critical hit on ships other than Light Cruisers.
The preceeding three paragraphs are straight form the review.
Also, you only get one torpedo shot per ship. No reloads. Does not matter how many tubes you have, or even if you are between two enemy ships. Just one shot in a scenario.
There is more to it. Suffice it to say I don't think it's worth the asking price.
So, onto the other side. AFAIK, the only one to make a pretense to having a campaign was Avalon Hill's Tsushima. I don't remember what it cost, but I thought it was worth it. To touch on the tactical side, if you played against the CPU, you just couldn't help but think Charge of the Light Brigade as you watched it turn towards you. If a ship was hit, you got a broadside view, and watched as empty boxes got X'd off.
At least you could turn off your primary or secondary guns as you did have ammo limits. IIRC, no torpedo attacks either. Nothing smaller than a cruiser was in the game
There was one campaign scenario. IIRC, the Russian had to get the Baltic Fleet to Vladivostok by the end of the game or he lost. No shipping lanes. No other ships but what you had. You could play it multi player using hot seat, which puts it one up on DG. Oh, if you played the Japanese in the campaign, you would get radio reports from fishing boats.
Why the disertation? I wanted to look at it on a what you get for what you spend angle. For instance, why would someone buy Tiller's Bulge 44 when you can get SSG's The Ardennes Offensive for free? Or buy War in the Pacific,(the $70 computer game, not the $420 board game.), when you can get Pacific War for free? There has to a reason beyond the price alone.
Ultimately, it is something one has to decide for themselves. (I don't think paying a fee every month to play Battleground Europe after I buy it is worth it. Thus I didn't buy it. But thousand do think it is.) I think DG is better than the HPS offering. I know it's better than the one put out by AH.
So, when all is said and done, to me, the <$60 I paid for the entire thing is not out of line considering what is out there.
The preceeding is nothing more than an attempt to show why I think it was wothr the price. Nothing more.
So you like the graphics but you think they could be a bit better correct?
You paid 65$ (about) for entire game?, thought that was for the one part of it combined it was about90$.
http://194.150.120.33/chop/dalek.gif
Admiral Nelson
09 Aug 06, 17:15
I paid $50.00 or so for Doom 3, and played it maybe half a dozen times before getting bored. Distant Guns has already given me $65.00 worth of value by that standard.
Now, I also paid the equivalent of $2.00 for MOO3 in Kuala Lumpur and consider myself to have been ripped off!!! :D
saddletank
09 Aug 06, 17:19
Admiral Nelson, what a sensible post: the value is in the gameplay, not in the price.
Of course if you really really want the game and the price is out of your budget then yes, you have my sympathies. Cut out a few take aways and work some overtime is all I can suggest.
I paid $50.00 or so for Doom 3, and played it maybe half a dozen times before getting bored. Distant Guns has already given me $65.00 worth of value by that standard.
Now, I also paid the equivalent of $2.00 for MOO3 in Kuala Lumpur and consider myself to have been ripped off!!! :D
On a dollar vs enterainment for me, it would have to be Half-Life. I swear, for two years, every weekend, a friend and I got together and played it online. And then Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, countless other mods.
Jutland bored me 20 minutes into it on the second try. Owned it for more than a year, only played twice....
Distant Guns? 15 times so far. And that's just that one cruiser action.
MOO3? I paid retail. It's not even worth using as a coaster:laugh:
WallysWorld
09 Aug 06, 17:47
Distant Guns has already given me $65.00 worth of value by that standard.
Just wait until the campaign game is 100% fixed. Then we'll all get our money's worth ten times over. :)
About the Cost of Distant Guns.
I was writing in another post on games and it made me think of a game that I bought years ago. It was called Harpoon, when Harpoon first came out the cost of the package was $79.00 USD.
And that was in 1989 or 88 I am not sure. There have been quite a few games that came out over the years that cost the amount of this game and more.
I do not see where this game is so out of line in cost.
Like the guy above , and what my son buys in games they cost almost the same or more.
And all but a few of the games get played for a day or so before you are done and that is it. The replay value on most games is just not there.
With this one you can replay the game over and over and still not have an outcome the same way as before.
Look at the games for the 360, some are close to $100.00 dollars and the rest are $70.00 USD.
No this game is an awesome game and it's cost is not out of line.
If a person looks around you will see that.
It has more of a replay value than Harpoon had , and that game had a lot.
But in playing this one I can already see that it has gone past what was with Harpoon by far. And I am not trashing Harpoon either.
Everything any good cost ,and it just makes me enjoy the game more when it is like this one. This game Distant Guns is the game I benchmark all others from now.
One thing that this game is not is another cookie cutter copy of about 100 other games that are the same. Change the title to anyone of them and you would be hard pressed to tell what one is what. Sure not all are that way and some are very good. But the main bulk are the same.
I am writing this as a matter of fact, and i'm not trying to make anyone feel that they are wrong.
Well I seem to be getting my money's worth. Each time DG is patched I start the campaign over again. If they carry on patching at this rate I'll never see the end. :D
Hasn't DG been in development for 5 or so years? Seems I heard that somewhere. How can there possibly be this many bugs? I know not all games are perfect at release, but if indeed it was 5 years , there should be no excuse. Tack on a hefty price for a game thats in a sense "unfinished". You are a dedicated bunch let me tell you. Like i said earlier , when you have to wait for a patch so that you may continue on with the campaign to its fullest capacity , thats shows (in my opinion) what kind of development went into it (poor).
Well I seem to be getting my money's worth. Each time DG is patched I start the campaign over again. If they carry on patching at this rate I'll never see the end. :D:laugh: :laugh:
Well I could answer that but one would have to be a programmer of a Small company that had limited resources. I can see and this program does not have a lot of bugs as has been said.
No matter how many times you test a program you can not hope to cover all the possible combos of op systems drivers and hardware setups that are out in the computer world today. It can be as simple as the order that drivers are loaded that can cause issues.
This game is not out of line and the few issues that have come up are being worked out, and quickly at that.
No nothing that I have seen makes me worried and I have had a few come up. But for a game that has just been out for a week or so, this is nothing.
If you game a lot then think of the latest ones that have had big issues and some of the updates did not come out for weeks. I am not going to name names as that serves no purpose at all.
Those games where tested by some of the biggest software houses there are and they still had the problems.
Nope this is not a issue as far as I am concerned.
But each has there own opinion and can state that .
Another thing, the game people here are very easy on post ,as some of the post here would have had the writer banned or moved out on some of the other game Sites . That is one thing I have not seen here.
And I am not directing that statement at any one person.
Weequayx. Please stop this argument now. You've made your point. We know your opinions. You are just covering the same ground over and over again, and to be honest, it's now getting somewhat tedious. If your aim in life is to disrupt a perfectly harmonious forum, then you've achieved your goal. Don't tell me you have things to say or points to make on this topic because WE'VE HEARD THEM!
Please, for the sake of mine, and other member's sanity, stop.
"And I am not directing that statement at any one person." Yea sure you're not.
Half the bugs i've read about have nothing to do with your operating system at all or the "diversity" of systems people play this game on. They are plain develomental issues that were never fixed. KGB has found incorrect historical data about the ships. Mines have been overlooked. (In my opinion) sinkings to a degree aren't what they should be. "So called magazine explosions that are mere vanishings of the ship (which i've seen). BTW A good place to start for finding out how a magazine explosion should really look, is the Barham sinking. Search google vids to see video of the exsplosion "barham".
Daedalus, this game has been in developement for years and this is "how it is" currently. Most of what I've stated is fact, theres no debating it. With these bugs and the adjoining price asked is just ludacris. You can go and buy a game with twiced the replayability as DG for less by half the price. The price of DG and its current state would really make me second guess my purchase of it especially in its' entirety near 100$. Before I came here I knew nothing of these niche market games with outragous prices that you, and others have compared DG to and rightly so. I can't continue to argue about a small side of the industry I did not know. I am more or less appalled at it. Steel beasts , military use as well as citizen I can understand a hefty price of what 125$, not too far away from DG. Steel beasts has twice the community because that game incompasses a huge following from military to civilian. We cannot know for ourselves if DG is priced accordingly because we do know the current profits earned vs, what was spent making it. We will probably never know. I've tryed to end this dabate and you people want to continue to throw these meaningless points at me.
PS.Porkchop, when did you become the representative of the DG community? This is a debate people post opinions and they are argued in a as-near-suitable fashion as possible. Please stop acknowledgeing me unless you want to debate the obvious subject of this forum. MODs lock threads for F YOU and F YOU TOO YOU PEICE OF **** , this is not that it is a civilized debate.
Weequayx. The same Weequayx that posts in the UBI SHIII forum? The same Weequayx that has issues with SHIII? The same Weequayx that has questioned whether there are bugs in the game? Been out a l-o-n-g time now that game. Would have thought the devs would have fixed it by now, wouldn't you?
Aye thats been awhile I for got what i said there to. I do know Sh3 is a world's difference to DG, unlike DG's bugs which are like I said completely underdeveloped features and designes for the most part, SH3 brought to the table a game pretty much ready to go with maybe a mp error I think, anyways they have since then stopped patching that game for a reason that eludes me , I mean Ubi has the money to keep going towards it, anyways. they only made like 3 or 4 patchs for SH3 and they are now on what 6 or 7 or 8 for a game a few weeks old that was developed for 5 years and sh3 only 2-3 at the most years in development? No excuse anyway you cut it. You should not even type the name of a so far superior title anywhere near DG related matierial , it defiles it. They are like night and day literally Affordable, very well developed and executed sim with near infinite replayability vs. A "Wargame" that is ....... sigh I am not wasting my breath on it.
How can you possible make any comparison between SHIII and DG? BTW, I hear on the grapevine it's the SAME Weequayx that caused issues in the UBI forum whilst SHIII was being patched. Got a history of it, haven't we, Mr Foul Mouth?
"How can you possible make any comparison between SHIII and DG?"
Are you joking thats exactly what I just said. As far as SH3 forums and disputes go , why are they relevent here unless you are trying to mock or offend me? If you ask me YOU are disrupting this thread and are hence a "troll".
Also please link this thread that I caused trouble on in UBI's forums so I can see it , I've searched and found nothing.
Hasn't DG been in development for 5 or so years? Seems I heard that somewhere. How can there possibly be this many bugs? I know not all games are perfect at release, but if indeed it was 5 years , there should be no excuse. Tack on a hefty price for a game thats in a sense "unfinished". You are a dedicated bunch let me tell you. Like i said earlier , when you have to wait for a patch so that you may continue on with the campaign to its fullest capacity , thats shows (in my opinion) what kind of development went into it (poor).
Since you've been quite reasonable lately in other threads lately, I'll step in here and give you guys one possible reason why this is the case.
Yes, the game has been in development for a long time. But that development time wasn't on the campaign game where most people are seeing issues. That was added recently on the requests of prospective buyers who thought it would be a nice addition. The game as originally intended if I remember correctly, was to be set piece and computer generated missions only, with no campaign.
The delays over the past few months were caused by this addition, and since it's something that was added at the last minute so to speak, it seems pretty logical that that's where the majority of the issues are arising.
As for the number of patches, I never worry about things like that. Honestly, I've gotten to the point where most of my PC game purchases are from smaller developers. This, Mad Minute, Shaun Sulivan's Puresim Baseball, some Battlefront products, things like that. Generally, the smaller the developer is, the more patches that get put out for the simple reason (Which Norm stated in his request for input on the topic) that they can get a patch out quickly to squash bugs as they come along, rather than waiting six months and trying to create one mega patch that attempts to fix everything. One thing I really dislike about the mega patch approach by the big game companies is that those patches either don't fix what they intended to, or they cause other issues. And once they've released two, or rarely three, patches, they're done with the product regardless of the state it's in because it's no longer bringing money in for them.
Oh boy, you've got some haven't you son? Nerve, I mean.
I think you ought to be a game developer. Seriously. Your inside knowledge of the gaming industry and running a business is second to none. You'll do well. I wish you all the luck in the future. BTW, a bit of advise. When your out there, in the big world, don't be too suprised if someone, some day, doesn't give you a smack in the mouth.
Goodbye, and good luck. You're going to need it.
Time for a Lee Iacocca impersonation:
"If you can find a better RJW game.........Buy it." (points finger at camera)
If the genre is of interest. If you always wanted to see if you could win where Russia failed. Then $59.95, if you buy it now, is worth the money. In fact, if you really, really are, the price will not matter. You'll find a way to pay for it
If the interest is not there, then the price still will not matter.
well also these mega game companies and their games have mega crowds of fans. For example ,any bf2 players here?, Bf2 fans ranging from anywhere from old men to vegetables in hospitals (Lol) retarded people I mean (I'm joking , horrible since of humor, I know). My point is no patch , even if it does fix things is not contested my masses of whiners complaining about essentially not being able to take advantage of something anymore, but thats neither here nor there. Point being that just because the bigger companies patch from a different approach does not mean the patches are no count. For the most part they are. You also have other large games that see relatively little patches like say oblivion which in my opinion really needs them.Btw Oblivion's graphics are the best out there currently by far, for anyone who want to know what kind I graphics I think "are good", also very very close second is hitman bloodmoney.
I wasn't aware that hitman, oblivion, bf2, etc are wargames.
Oh boy, you've got some haven't you son? Nerve, I mean.
I think you ought to be a game developer. Seriously. Your inside knowledge of the gaming industry and running a business is second to none. You'll do well. I wish you all the luck in the future. BTW, a bit of advise. When your out there, in the big world, don't be too suprised if someone, some day, doesn't give you a smack in the mouth.
Goodbye, and good luck. You're going to need it.
What you have a breakdown or something Porkchop? Is the water to hot for you? You have yet to produce evidence about me causing trouble in Ubi's sh3 forum, so I assume you have none and are a liar until then.When you slander someone it is best to have evidence. You call me a foul mouth before I have even insulted you. You are the sarcastic little troll here pal, read your posts.
Also please link this thread that I caused trouble on in UBI's forums so I can see it , I've searched and found nothing.
I also have it on good authority, that the UBI forum was hacked and a lot of older posts disapeared. You may already know this.
I wasn't aware that hitman, oblivion, bf2, etc are wargames.
Did I once compare them to DG? hmmm?
MODs lock threads for F YOU and F YOU TOO YOU PEICE OF **** , this is not that it is a civilized debate.
Sorry, what is this then WeeQuayx?
I also have it on good authority, that the UBI forum was hacked and a lot of older posts disapeared. You may already know this.
WOW lmao you are a character. In this case, if the posts were "hacked" and dissappeared, how did you even come up with me causing trouble in the ubi forum in the first place hmmmm??????
Admiral Nelson
09 Aug 06, 20:27
Meanwhile, here is a link to an satellite view of MIKASA, as preserved in Yokosuka:
Click Here (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Yokosuka,+japan&ie=UTF8&ll=35.284925,139.673374&spn=0.001769,0.005407&t=k&om=1)
Sorry, what is this then WeeQuayx?
It is clearly an example of a post in a thread that would give mods a reason to lock it. Can you not conclude that from the reasoning next to it?
Meanwhile, here is a link to an satellite view of MIKASA, as preserved in Yokosuka:
Click Here (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Yokosuka,+japan&ie=UTF8&ll=35.284925,139.673374&spn=0.001769,0.005407&t=k&om=1)
Thank you nelson, I was trying to triangulate it earlier, someone posteed some coords previously.
Meanwhile, here is a link to an satellite view of MIKASA, as preserved in Yokosuka:
Click Here (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Yokosuka,+japan&ie=UTF8&ll=35.284925,139.673374&spn=0.001769,0.005407&t=k&om=1)
Nice. I can't tell which one, it seems it won't let me zoom in that far. But it is a nice shot of the harbor.
I'm thinking of going down to the city and see the USS Olympia. Been years since I've been there.
I agree with your graphics games there, but both of those use much more processing power for graphics than for the actual physics/AI. The number of computations a game like DG makes over any given second is much, much higher than that ofeither one of those two.
Just sayin. I play Oblivion, and enjoy it, but their "Huge leap in AI" they were bragging about left me pretty disappointed. Better in some areas, but it definitely still has a lot of issues.
Not sure what you were trying to get at with the BF2 patch thing. It has more players, sure, it's a much better known game with literally millions of dollars spent on marketing and development. I'm not talking about people complaining about big patches closing loopholes, I'm talking about them flat out breaking things. Of course, that's still better than EA games like Madden, where you're lucky to get anything but roster updates, and that includes from year to year, not just patches. The big game companies aren't nearly as responsive to issues and their buyers as smaller companies are, that's why I prefer the little guys.
I apologize to the rest of the member's in the forum. My "conversations" with Weequayx are now at an end. It's like fishing. If you bait the line, he bites. I'll take my rod and go, now. Good day's fishing, that.
Did I once compare them to DG? hmmm?
Oblivion's graphics are the best out there currently by far, for anyone who want to know what kind I graphics I think "are good", also very very close second is hitman bloodmoney.
This isn't about graphics, but the price of the game. So why mention them after you rip on DG over what you call its stone age graphics?
I apologize to the rest of the member's in the forum. My "conversations" with Weequayx are now at an end. It's like fishing. If you bait the line, he bites. I'll take my rod and go, now. Good day's fishing, that.
I caught my limit. I'm done too.
Porkchop , really you concern me when you accused me of causing trouble in a Ubi thread, show me the proof?
I'm glad you see these conversations as baiting me proof that you are a troll. Chideing me on to cause more argueing , shows your highly evident maturity and accusing me of something that never happend with no proof to it shows the calibar of person/troll you are.
I caught my limit. I'm done too.
lol you are a funny person ironhand. It is best to leave, you shouldn't risk anymore humility as you and porkchop have "caught" on the end of my "fishing pole".
This isn't about graphics, but the price of the game. So why mention them after you rip on DG over what you call its stone age graphics?
I was responding to spharv2 leading our personal discussion to another area, wtf do you care what I post about, there are no rules written by rhetor saying that I can only discuss price.
Iron hand you and porkchop go and play with each others' fishing poles lmao.
I was responding to spharv2 leading our personal discussion to another area, wtf do you care what I post about, there are no rules written by rhetor saying that I can only discuss price.
As has been mentioned several times before, this thread is related to the cost of the game, please keep your posts related to that.
Oh, but there are.
Honestly, I don't know why you bother. The game is priced at what it is. I could add to the already long and informative posts as to why. Explain market research, profit margins, what have you. But it really is pointless.
You either buy it before the promo expires, or you wait until it's over. Either way, they will not drop the price to make you happy. The game will not become freeware except maybe long after SES, Norm, and Jim are gone.
So it's really up to you. $59.95 now for the entire thing, game and campaign. Or $90 later for both. Which will it be?
edit: Try using what is called private message if you don't want others to reply.
Yea ironhand there going ot ban me for straying away from price, he meant flames and personal assaults on others like you are talented at commencing.
Like I said go away , and leave this discussion for the grown ups , you and porkchop go along now and play. lol
I posted a few links as to where alternatives to DG, the tactical part, can be found. For less than $30. But I thought better of it. One even had a demo you could play forever.
Suffice it to say even at the post promo price of $65, I think DG is worth more than they are. It is in line with the price of wargames. It doesn't let you run the whole war as UV or WitP does. But then again, you don't spend 20 some hours plotting your first move either.
It's fun. It can be a nail biter. As far as I've seen, there isn't any perfect plan. That enemy cruiser you shot to pieces in Ulsan just might torpedo your silly self the next time you play.
There's alot of replay value. That's the thing. If you pay $50 for a game, and play it once or twice and it sits on a shelf, well, to me, you didn't get your money's worth. But if you pay $70 for a game, and after you played it five or six times, and are still playing it, then you got your money's worth. I can count on one hand the games that did that for me. Pirates! (Amiga), MOO 2, Total Annihilation and mods, Half Life and its mods, and WitP. Now I have to use my other hand and add Distant Guns to the list.
Guys, if personalities are clashing in here and it is really causing you heartburn, just put the person on your ignore list. That will help to keep tempers from flaring in the first place.
Enough with the petty bickering already, this is a gaming forum.
Bloodstar
10 Aug 06, 03:35
Hasn't DG been in development for 5 or so years? Seems I heard that somewhere. How can there possibly be this many bugs? I know not all games are perfect at release, but if indeed it was 5 years , there should be no excuse. Tack on a hefty price for a game thats in a sense "unfinished". You are a dedicated bunch let me tell you. Like i said earlier , when you have to wait for a patch so that you may continue on with the campaign to its fullest capacity , thats shows (in my opinion) what kind of development went into it (poor).
WEEQUAX
There is also one skill also called - read between the lines...
Regarding that DG was in develeopment for 5 years. I said that but it's not entirely true!
You see Norm Koger was doing some other games as well PARALLEL with this project! So, from his posting on Usenet he was doing one strategic game and he lost 2 years on it. And he have done some work on IVAN game that he mentioned I am sure.
So, it's not exactly that he was doing this for 5 years, 8 hour a day!
Game developers anyway have many projects, sometime they got burned out on one and then work a bit on the other on design document or on programming or graphics etc...
So, his work on Distant Guns was not 5 years actually - it was just project that took so many years but it was not only project so the time must be divided.
Many game developers are doing that so when one game is released they already have some head start on another game. Bigger teams can make even better time tables and organizing times even better as when games reach gold status they are already deep in pre-production phase of another game....
Now is there any other issue that I need to explain to you? And about bugs etc... we just need a little bit patience, it will be sorted out.
Mario
I posted a few links as to where alternatives to DG, the tactical part, can be found. For less than $30. But I thought better of it. One even had a demo you could play forever.
Suffice it to say even at the post promo price of $65, I think DG is worth more than they are. It is in line with the price of wargames. It doesn't let you run the whole war as UV or WitP does. But then again, you don't spend 20 some hours plotting your first move either.
It's fun. It can be a nail biter. As far as I've seen, there isn't any perfect plan. That enemy cruiser you shot to pieces in Ulsan just might torpedo your silly self the next time you play.
There's alot of replay value. That's the thing. If you pay $50 for a game, and play it once or twice and it sits on a shelf, well, to me, you didn't get your money's worth. But if you pay $70 for a game, and after you played it five or six times, and are still playing it, then you got your money's worth. I can count on one hand the games that did that for me. Pirates! (Amiga), MOO 2, Total Annihilation and mods, Half Life and its mods, and WitP. Now I have to use my other hand and add Distant Guns to the list.
You make it out to sound as if price determines the enjoyment you get from a game. I got RTW back years ago and am playing it right now to its fullest. I think i only payed 40-45 for it then. Well spent money. Some people out there though fork out 70 to 90$ for a game and even if it sucks, the amount they paid and what other people make them to believe is what justifies it for them, (the cost that is), even if its good they assume that they payed the extra to indeed "have' a good game, when in fact they just plain overpayed for a computer game that is no where near that value. Then again if you are deeply in love with the game's theme or creators (literally) you will pay whatever they ask given you have the money. If you don't, you rush to the bank and get a loan for it. Then there are the people that play the demo and enjoyed the game, and when they go to find out about purchasing this game, they hear the crazy price asked, and because they have enough sense to not waste their money, they move on. And then theres me, I came here and registered just to make it apparent the shortcomings of the game in conjunction with the price. As I'm making it known, there are people who frequent the thread who selflessly defend this game because of the extravagent amount they forked out for it justifies their defense of it. When it does not. I have noticed several who come and said things in defense of this poor little niche game, who take a feigned pride in its design, which once again the price they paid makes them do. These few people see my argument and start to think , "maybe the graphics are under par?" but with fear of embarassment from me and other forum members they sadly run and hide there inner thoughts by editing past posts. Or they act like they never even made a rant about graphics and design when they in fact did. They hypocritically make posts defending the graphics and in the next , wouldn't mind if they were a tad fancier than a game made in 95'. Like previously mentioned, people that have the game are waiting for certain features to actually be implemented before they can continue their campaign. I heard somebody say the saddest statement yet on the order of "I will get my money's worth hopefully when the game has been fully patched" . That my friends is sad. It shows the level of whatever you want to call it wimisical influence or brainwashing here. Its been in developent for 5 years and is made by Norm and Jim OMG its has to be a masterpeice must buy it. I would guarantee you easily if tommorow they increased price to 300 $ and slapped "platinum edition" or Professional edition , that more than one of you would buy it, and thats no joke but just plain sorryiness.
I think you are working under the mistaken assumption that everyone thinks the game sucks.
Commodore Rob
10 Aug 06, 04:18
Mr weequayx
You maybe correct in saying that the graphics are not the latest whizz bang graphics out there. However what you fail to grasp it is not the graphics that draws most of us into playing the game it is the playability.
But graphics wise it is only the background scenery that is not that fantastic the ships are great and equal to any of the units in RTW. As the background is mainly water and sky who cares.
Your devotion to RTW obviously means you never played Shogun which if you had you would have realised that RTW's playability sucks compared to STW:)
Oh and this game only cost me £33 which is less then RTW cost me about £35
Bloodstar
10 Aug 06, 04:34
You make it out to sound as if price determines the enjoyment you get from a game. I got RTW back years ago and am playing it right now to its fullest. I think i only payed 40-45 for it then. Well spent money. Some people out there though fork out 70 to 90$ for a game and even if it sucks, the amount they paid and what other people make them to believe is what justifies it for them, (the cost that is), even if its good they assume that they payed the extra to indeed "have' a good game, when in fact they just plain overpayed for a computer game that is no where near that value. Then again if you are deeply in love with the game's theme or creators (literally) you will pay whatever they ask given you have the money. If you don't, you rush to the bank and get a loan for it. Then there are the people that play the demo and enjoyed the game, and when they go to find out about purchasing this game, they hear the crazy price asked, and because they have enough sense to not waste their money, they move on. And then theres me, I came here and registered just to make it apparent the shortcomings of the game in conjunction with the price. As I'm making it known, there are people who frequent the thread who selflessly defend this game because of the extravagent amount they forked out for it justifies their defense of it. When it does not. I have noticed several who come and said things in defense of this poor little niche game, who take a feigned pride in its design, which once again the price they paid makes them do. These few people see my argument and start to think , "maybe the graphics are under par?" but with fear of embarassment from me and other forum members they sadly run and hide there inner thoughts by editing past posts. Or they act like they never even made a rant about graphics and design when they in fact did. They hypocritically make posts defending the graphics and in the next , wouldn't mind if they were a tad fancier than a game made in 95'. Like previously mentioned, people that have the game are waiting for certain features to actually be implemented before they can continue their campaign. I heard somebody say the saddest statement yet on the order of "I will get my money's worth hopefully when the game has been fully patched" . That my friends is sad. It shows the level of whatever you want to call it wimisical influence or brainwashing here. Its been in developent for 5 years and is made by Norm and Jim OMG its has to be a masterpeice must buy it. I would guarantee you easily if tommorow they increased price to 300 $ and slapped "platinum edition" or Professional edition , that more than one of you would buy it, and thats no joke but just plain sorryiness.
And what is your agenda here?
In first place you didn't EVEN bought the game but bitching all the time like you actually did...
So what, game have some issues and bugs BUT ALL GAMES have bugs these days... Some people like me don't even have the time to play it...so actually it is good when I will have time it will be patched... hehe...
Weequaxxa whatever, you are becoming boring. I tried to be nice with you but you are arguing here with everybody. Just for the sake of flame and arguing. We all heard you but puting your words in such a infllamatory and offensive ways is doing you no good...
Brainwashed? Buahahahahahaahaha! Mbuuuhahahahaha!
I think that you are brainwashed and spoiled by big game companies like EA, Activision, Take 2, Vivendi etc...
We have already explained you all regarding price, graphics etc... and you can't read obviously but continue your rant. That is not only immature but boring and trollish... So you are just that, a troll, and that guy was right, go under your bridge.
Did you bring any fact in any constructive ways? No, you are offending and you offended whole this forum members by calling them brainwashed...
Do I look at your pocket an ADVICE you how you gonna spend your money? I don't ****ing care! So I expect same from you.
If you want flame you gonna get it.
Mario
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.