Colonel Marbot wrote:Veji1: The event fired for me perfectly, but I thought the offer was inadequate, so I refused to accept it. With time, they will offer more territory.
veji1 wrote: I am sure this game will be great, I played AACW and CWII many hours and plan on playing this game a lot, but right now the teething problems are real and that some experienced players (maybe even beta testes I don't know) like you just kept on playing ignoring glaring issues is a bit baffling to me..
Colonel Marbot wrote:[ATTACH]36215[/ATTACH]
I wonder how many prospective game buyers have visited this forum, interested in this wonderful new game, and have been scared off by all the premature pronouncements of "unplayable, " "broken," "un-tested" and a "scam." And the tragedy here is that by reducing sales, we are hurting the chance of getting expansion kits for this incredible game.
Colonel Marbot wrote:
Last night when I looked there were 20 registered users on the forum and 170 guests. How many sales may have been lost last night? I am asking that the enthusiastic long-term gamers of this former FORUM channel their efforts in a productive manner, be aware that there are first time gamers making purchase decisions, and communicate with the wonderful designers at AGEOD.
jack54 wrote:Excellent point.... I may very well have been 1 of the 170 guests, ( I don't log in every visit). I still haven't bought this game mostly because of my lack of knowledge of the subject but when I see a post that the says the AI is so bad it should be sold only as PBEM it makes me, an AGEOD player of many years, think twice. I play 99% solo.
lukasberger wrote:That's part of why comments like that probably hurt a lot. Whoever made that comment just doesn't know what they're talking about.
The AI is fine, good even. It's just about the same level as any of the other recent AGEOD games I've played, maybe even a bit improved. If you've enjoyed playing AGEOD games solo in the past, as I always have, you'll almost certainly feel the same about WON.
TJD wrote:The purpose of this forum isn't to pump the game or flatter AGEOD. It's a place for open discussion. I think most of the criticisms of the game have been entirely appropriate and useful. I don't think criticism of the AI has been preponderant. Rather, errors in scripting seem to have been the focus, especially in Vicberg's excellent posts. As for the charge that the game is a scam, all games and game companies see this sort of stupid slander on their forums. That's a cost of doing business and running an open forum. So let's not make more of it than it is and fall into some sort of timid self-censure. Ageod needs more vicbergs, please, not more congratulations.
Lysimaque wrote:Well, the best way to make good sales it is to release a product without major problems too. I don't understand why the games was rush for the release, couldn't wait one month more or two? Having a beta test during at least one month and look the big problems of gameplay on the release that everyone can see after play one hour it is something that I don't understand.
Don't misunderstanding, I like this game, so much potential and I want it have the best sales for you. I make an AAR in another forum to make more people interesting about it but I really don't get it why you make a beta test and you don't listen the complain of people during this time.
Ace wrote:I don't know what's the fuss about. It's an industry standard, that v1.0 games are released unpolished. So, when I asses new release, I look at its potential rather then curresnt status. After 1.1. patch which in AGEod case follows very soon, the good games usually shine. If you want plug and play games, it is good idea to wait for patch 1.1. If you like to try the game right after the release, you get the added bonus, you can suggest changes and features that would make the game even better. The more polite the request, more chance it will be fulfilled. If you don't see beta pointing out flaws in the forum, don't think he doesnt do it. Many requests done by new players have been supported by beta, many haven't. If they are easy to fulfill, they are ussually incorporated in subsequent patches. Some like the fact they can influence the game, some want to grab the key and drive, it is personal decision.
Haresus wrote:The release version is unpolished and very rough in a lot of places. Is it unplayable? No. Does it have a lot of potential? Yes, of course. Should games be sold on potential alone? No, not really. I look forward to this game becoming more polished and more enjoyable, but it is sad to see the release weeks wasted like this. After all, sales are generally the greatest in the first few days and then steadily drop over time. It is not right to try to silence mostly justified critique (although there is a lot of hyperbole, especially the whole "scam" idea) in order to trick people into buying something they might find unpolished and unenjoyable in its current state.
Thankfully I am interested in this game for the PBEM potential, which solves a lot of the AI issues and really ignores a lot of the issues for me. But I am a bit sad that just one extra patch would have solved so many problems that are now creating lesser experiences for a lot of people who bought the game, people who trusted the developers even when there are zero reviews on the game to provide information in a professional manner.
TJD wrote:I think part of the problem is that these games are inherently difficult to test because most beta-testers can't parse the scripting language, and as vicberg demonstrated it's there that a lot of problems seem to lie.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest