Dave_T -> RE: anyone else about read to give up?????? (4/19/2008 10:55:51 PM)
quote:Well, here we have an educated response from someone who HAS played EiA and it ain't pretty. So much for the EiA vets theory(only noobs are having trouble), i don't think much more could be said other than....Oops[sm=Crazy-1271.gif]
ORIGINAL: Tanan Fujiwara
Is it really just me or has the world gone mad...[&:][&:][&:]
I believe that if you pay 70$ for a game, a price above your average PC game, it's because the product you're getting is above average too...[:(][:(][:(]
But forget about the money, which is not really the issue, and lets focus on threethings that are really schocking to me:
1º if the excuse behind the many bugs and braindead AI is that other games and companies experience the same problem on release, it's a preatty bad excuse... come on, it just sounds like "since everybody isn't profesional so are we"??...
2º the game came out like the perfect simulation of the original EiA strategy game, which it isn't. Many of the optional rules are absent, map and corp changes, some rules have been redisigned, many rules from EiH (why is the game called EiA is a guess to me), etc..
3º if the game is supposed to be ment as the ultimate multiplayer tool (without the optionals and the scenarios amongst other things is way to limited), since the AI is compleately braindead, then it too fails to live up to its expectations. I'm right now playing three campaigns, two of them with cyberboard, and both of them move at a faster pace then the one played with this game...
so forget the 70$ issue, forget that matrix games has released something that could have been a great game and that now will take months, maybe years to fix and probably it will still be limited in many aspects, forget many desilusionated fans of the game, forget the bugs, forget...
I don't now to you guys, but it seems an awfull lot of forgetting to me...[:@][:@][:@]
It's not about the money guys, but just because you pay a huge markup for a fake diamond the fact remains that it is still a "fake".
I've been playing EiA for 15 years both F2F and PBeM using Cyberboard/XL/Notepad, so it's not EiA that's giving me the problem, but the inteface.
As an aggrssive player I manipulata Egypt when playing GB or Fr so I have a staging point for a war agaunst Turkey. In the original release if you landed home nation corps in Egypt whilst the Tu/Egypt minor war was still in effect then the home nation corps couldn't move because the game got confused with the Turkish corps in the Upper Nile area. How no-one noticed this in play testing is beyond belief. Unless, of course, no-one playtested in solo play.
When 1.01 came along a similar problem happened when Fr gained control of Sweden and dropped the Swedish corps in Dublin & Glasgow, the corps became stuck. I know this wan't playtested as we, as paying customers, were asked to playtest the patch oruselves.
Also in 1.01 random surrenders would occur. As France I has Austria surrender to me unconditionally 3 times in a row.
Anyone who can count to 20 without taking their shoes & socks off can easily see how all 3 of the above problems from official "stable" releases make the game unplayable. There were other problems, I'll dig out if you like.
The current Beta allows fleets who are blockaded by only minor fleets to intercept & fleets in BBs to intercept. This isn't even on Marshall's "to fix" list, so the next "stable" release will include a major bug if not addressed.
People who say "I can play the game alright" are making allowances for the bugs & making work arounds. This is the same as buying a car which won't turn left & making circuitous journeys involving right hand turns & saying "It's OK, I can manage"
ADG apparently playtested the game & said it's fine to release. Conflict of interest not withstanding, don't you think you should have got an opinion from someone who wans't going to make $$$ on the release.
The playtesters you had were people who were desperate to get hold of a finished product regardless of & would be happy to OK a bugy version so they could get on & paly the game "for real". Some of them even eulogized over the Graphics, as if that is a big thing for a game like this, it's not - playability is.
Don't get playtesters who have conflicted interests of sycophantic Matrix fans, get aggressive players who are cynical & will push the game to it's limits in an attempt to prove it doesn't work.
Take a leaf out of Jagex' game design. When they started Runescape all those years ago the graphics were a minor concern, basic playability was thir foundation and they built up from there.
I don't want this product to fail & would like to actually play this through without having some frustration based on bad programming/testing ruin it. However, with the current development/testing stragegy that is more akin to damage limitation rather then true development.