This needs to be said....

[Bullman]

Finally! A serious PC wargame developer that undeniably recognises the importanace of having access to the services of a professionaly trained graphical/artistic department.

I have only just discovered this game and downloaded the demo the other day but I can undeniably say that the grahics/artistry in cretaing the look and feel of this game (from menus, GUIs, map, units etc) absolutely, comprehensively and undenaibly just CREAMS all over the vast majority of efforts brought to us by other similar "serious wargame developers", many of which should know better by now.

These offenders include the majority of the stuff available at Matrix Games (I personally would take much pleasure in firing their entire graphics department responsible for perpetuating that tacky childlike multicoloured interface they have been using in a whole string of games, the most recent unfortunate casualty being Carriers at War), anything by John Tiller or Gary Grisby (seriously guys, you should have learnt by now that having your 10 year old neice do the graphics just doesn't cut it), MadMinute games and even Battlefornt deeserve a mention. The graphical efforts put into some of the games by these guys are sadly obviously lacking in any real professional artistic talent/dirrection or perspective.

Thank you AGEod for showing up all these game coimpanies, many of whom have had YEARS to improve their work but have repeatedly failed to do so. I hope AACW seriously is a wake up call to all the other wargame developers that YES it is possible to make a deep serious wargame like AACW and give it a well co-ordinated cohesive professional look as well.

The most relevant and obvious comparison to AACW I can think of is Forge of Freedom. The graphcial style alone of the box art of that game (let alone the graphics/GUI in the game) is enough of an insight into just how little taste and knowledge of good graphical design/GUI is actually in the game.

Your graphics/aristry/GUI guys need a freakn award and I hope you have paid them well. Any smart game developer out there with half a brain would be smart to poach them from you.

Don't EVER have the guys at Matrix Games telling you how do do things (eg. don't EVER let them do your manuals!) and don't ever play down just how advanced and professional your product looks compared to even their own "flagship" games. You have made many of them look silly.

Again, thank you at AGEod for releasing a game, of the type I am interested in, with such a stunningly well thought out professional look and feel that literally looks decades ahead of the competition. I hope many wargame developers get their heads out of their @$$#$, take note at what you guys have done and finally start delivering the kind of graphcial quality in games that, in the past, they seemed to have treated with contempt.

Bullman

[runyan99]

I know how you feel. Some companies that crank out wargames that are so ugly, I cannot stand to look at them.

Fortunately AGEOD understands that the presentation of the maps and counters is as important as the gameplay.

[Bullman]

Yes runyan99, I too feel the same way. Yes some otherwise good games just LOOK so ugly (I don't just mean graphcis, but interfaces, menus, even manuals) that they are painful to play/experience.

Yes we are fortunate AGEOD recognioze this and choose not to ignore it like many other "serious" wargame developers do.

• AGEOD’s recognized dedication to historicity, realism, and good-looking games!

Taken from the AACW website. All three of these things will earn my respect and $.

[pasternakski]

Yes, indeedy, gentlemen, well said.

And can we take a moment to doff our chapeaux to the tremendous dedication to AI design and improvement undertaken by AGEod?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Queeg]

Yep, AGEOD and Matrix are on the same team at the moment. The artwork in AACW is amazing. Hopefully Matrix will help them sell a lot of copies and other game designers will come to see the value of quality artwork.

[Pocus]

Yes, indeedy, gentlemen, well said.

And can we take a moment to doff our chapeaux to the tremendous dedication to AI design and improvement undertaken by AGEod?

With the side effect of making some rules change, thus making a few customers (of the nice sort though) grumble a bit on the edge because they have to re-learn new mechanisms.

(poke poke at pasternakski)

[Bullman]

This also needs to be said

In defense of Matrix, it is a publisher, not a developer. All the individual games listed on its site are developed by independant developers including soon, AGEod's AACW, so the above post is somewhat, shall we say misdirected and misleading.

Currently, you are on the site of a single developer that does a fine job in a graphics department as stated above, but when you are on Matrix site, you are on the site of a publisher, who does not control the graphics used within the products they are distributing. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes you are correct. Matrix are the publisher only and probabaly don't have as much say in the games they publish as what the actual developers do (however they do have some influence eg. manuals, main menus), but nevertheless, my comments related to the games they seem all too happy to put their name to, which, in my view, makes them equally responsible for perpetarting this "comfortable" idea that as far as graphics go, it is OK to deliver amateurish/childlike/tacky looking PC wargames to wargamers as if they think their customers are deviod of any appreciation of what actually constitutes a well thought out, good looking and functional GUI.

So yes, I do believe Matrix is responsible for allowing the bar (the standard) to be set so low as far as the graphics in the games they are associated with. It is almost as if they have become complacent/apathetic with the quality of the graphics of the games they put their names to. The only oranges and apples comparision here is comparing AACW quality to the "norm" at Matrix games. It's as if AACW is just TOO GOOD for Matrix games.

I bet that the guys who were graphically/artistically/GUI responsible for AACW think exactly the same way (though may humbly keep it to themselves to keep the peace). If the guys responsible for AACW were responsible for the graphical quality of games distributed/chosen to be distributed by Matrix Games, I am sure we would not have witnessed some of the graphical abortions that we have seen from Matrix games.

Please note that I am not anti-Matrix games, they just happen to represent a bulk of the wargame product out there. I have bought quite a bit of their stuff, the most recent being Carriers at War but when compared to AACW (a game also recently developed/released), it just makes me wonder why it is obvious some wargame designers seem to have no flare, concept or know-how of how to make a game look appealing and professional, despite their best efforts.

BTW: The offender I was refering to in my comment "I personally would take much pleasure in firing their entire graphics department responsible for perpetuating that tacky childlike multicoloured interface they have been using in a whole string of games, the most recent unfortunate casualty being Carriers at War", is the Stragetic Studies Group (SSG). These guys are the main offenders. Perhaps they need to take some time off studying strategy and perhaps look at AACW and dedicate some more time to appreciate and study graphics/GUIs that are both cohesive, functionally and visually tasteful and appealing.

[Bullman]

Hopefully Matrix will help them sell a lot of copies and other game designers will come to see the value of quality artwork.

We can only hope!!!

Not only other game designers, but the paying wargamer as well. Too many have settled for low quality graphics for too long and are equally responsible for encouraging amatuerish effort after amateurish effort.

I am sure many people coming across AACW at the Matrix games site would probably think "Wow! I didn't expect to find a game that graphically looks so good and with stlick GUIs/artistry here!" This is basically what I thought.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Bullman]

This is like saying a library is responsible for the content in every one of its books. Of course Matrix puts its Logo on games it distributes, it's known as advertising..

Not at all. It is more like pointing out that drug dealers are just as responsible as the drug makers are for choosing to sell and peddle all sorts of dodgey drugs to the public.

As for CAW, I guees I had more money than sense thinking I was going to enjoy it. Apart from that crappy SSG interface you see with most of their other games, I just don't see the game in it. I wish I had instead heard of AACW before I wasted my money.

I think guys like SSG and Tiller are set in their ways and are worlds apart form the game design philosophy that drove AACW. It's like they may as well be on another planet or live in another world. If they hadn't worked it out by now then they never will. There is no point in even trying discuss my point to them or anyone else of their ilk on any of their forums.

I am so happy to see that wargame designers like AGEOD actually do exist! May you get the recognition you deserve and show the way for others to follow.

Keep up the good work!

[Hobbes]

Not at all. It is more like pointing out that drug dealers are just as responsible as the drug makers are for choosing to sell and peddle all sorts of dodgey drugs to the public.

As for CAW, I guees I had more money than sense thinking I was going to enjoy it. Apart from that crappy SSG interface you see with most of their other games, I just don't see the game in it. I wish I had instead heard of AACW before I wasted my money.

I think guys like SSG and Tiller are set in their ways and are worlds apart form the game design philosophy that drove AACW. It's like they may as well be on another planet or live in another world. If they hadn't worked it out by now then they never will. There is no point in even trying discuss my point to them or anyone else of their ilk on any of their forums.

I am so happy to see that wargame designers like AGEOD actually do exist! May you get the recognition you deserve and show the way for others to follow.

Keep up the good work!

I had AACW but I still wasted my money on CAW (well it's a fun game for a couple of hours)

Chris

[arsan]

This is like saying a library is responsible for the content in every one of its books. Of course Matrix puts its Logo on games it distributes, it's known as advertising.

As far as Carriers at War is concerned, it is a publicly announced re-release of a past game done in the 16 color format that was available at the time of the original programming. They did not redo the graphics for a re-release. They just updated it to work with Windows XP and if I'm not mistaken Vista. I'm sure if they were to redo it with a complete overhaul as a CAW II, they would most definitely take the time to redo the graphics.

Whether you like or dislike Carriers at War's graphics is moot, there is a demand for some of SSG's older games to be re-distributed and Matrix as a business is fulfilling that demand, along with distributing new titles like AEGod's AACW and WCS's Forge of Freedom, both of whose graphics I myself am well satisfied with, and Matrix had nothing to do with either program's graphics.

edit: Actually if you really feel that way about graphic quality, the best place for complaints is on the individual forums for the games themselves, since that is where the developers hang out, but I still don't think your complaint about SSG's old re-release of CAW is a very good example. Now if they do a brand new game that is so "garrish" as you say, that would be a good time to complain.

edit: Also, btw, I am not trying to detract from your original argument about the need for better graphics, I completely agree. I am just trying to point out that your complaint/example of the perpetrator(s) is misdirected.

Gray Lensman:
You are mistaken...
The new Carriers at War is a completely new game, based on an old one, but just like Civilization 4 is based on Civilization 1.
It´s not on the same boat with TOAW III, the new Close Combat or Campaign Series which are just re-releases of old games with some fixes and new things.

The "garrish" look is a trademark of SSG who uses it on every game they make, form the new Battlefront to the Decisive Battles series.
I think his style is certainly lacking but i can cope with it... now, if we talk about the HPS's series... thats is really pathetic...

Lately, when trying to play some other wargames i have realized that AGEod games had spoil me
Now i can´t stand obtuse interfaces and mediocre graphics like before... when you try gourmet food it´s difficult to go back to Burger king...
Cheers

[Huo long]

Well said, Arsan. Sometimes I think I must be exiled to say things like that

I think that with the time passed and the batch of wargames we have been confused between sacrificing our taste for gameplay and accepting whatever they throw at us because we are hardened wargamers that don't care about graphics.

Well, neat and well designed games like BOA and AACW, have shown us that rough wargaming is not incompatible with taste.

As for CAW... It was good for almost five hours.

[tc237]

This is like saying a library is responsible for the content in every one of its books

This is a bad example. A library is similar to an online or physical retailer. A retailer has almost no say over what is in the game, they can simply choose not to sell it.

Matrix Games is a publisher, similar to a books publisher, it is the publishers responsibility to ensure the book/game sells.
In the case of a book, the publisher approves the maps, pictures, cover art etc...
The publisher has final approval on everything that goes into that book.

They (Matrix Games, HPS, etc..) will not change because they have a large following of suckers who will always buy second rate games. Most fanboys have no idea what else is out there in the gaming world. They are stuck blindly following one publisher.
For example, look at the BoA section of Matrix's forum. A large number of Matrix fans had never heard of BoA before Matrix picked it up. Although BoA had been out almost a year and had won many awards. (a similar thing is happening with AACW)

As for all the re-released $50 games, why are there no Demo's?
Why don't they want us to try the game before we buy?
The answer given at Matrix is the most disingenuos, dishonest words I have ever seen posted by a wargame publisher/developer.

The "garrish" look is a trademark of SSG

Exactly, it is a trademark to pass off crap and have people pay $50 for it.

Blind people, open your eyes, this hobby can be so much better and stronger.
We must set the standard higher.
Don't accept mediocrity. Demand the best.

(I know Ageod is in business with Matrix, that was a great move as they are the strongest publisher, please don't look at this as bashing Ageod, your team is really one of the last that works toward excellence)

Que ER.....

Oh, MMG did use professional artist for the unit sprites.

[PhilThib]

Please note that whatever opinion you are rightly entitled to have about Matrix business practices is yours and won't be contested by ourselves as long as you do not use our forum to voice it and people 'could' believe we endorse it, which is not the point here (in other words our forum is not to become a pro or anti Matrix debate place).

May be you can do this over there (I mean in their forums, if they allow)

As you have guessed, we are a small and newly established company and deals with Matrix, beyond being sound business proposals, are also helpful in making us known by public that would not have heard from us otherwise

Thanks

[General Quarters]

Before condemning some games, you should keep in mind that graphics is, to some extent, a matter of taste. I personally very much like the graphics of FOF and MMG, for example, both of which are criticized above. The FOF map looks to me like a map a general would use, not a child's map as some games have. And, while the battles in Take Command: Second Manassas don't have the lush graphics of an RPG, but they make me feel I have been in a real battle or, more literally, in a movie of a real battle. Surveying the countryside in those battles reminds me very much of the years I lived in Northern Virginia -- the Valhalla of Civil War enthusiasts.

[McNaughton]

Well, here's a voice from the 'other side'.

Back in 1999-2000, I was involved with Matrix Games on a volunteer basis in their re-development of the 1992 Gary Grigsby's Pacific War game, updating it and repairing bugs as much as we possibly could. I can tell you, that the desire to put forward as good of a product within stringent financial limitations was there. In fact, so much so that a few of us continued to provide support after the 2000 release (by a year or so later, we totally eliminated all of the bugs and prodivded a substantially improved game). We were totally limited by 12 Colours, yet managed to provide, what I consider, a substantial graphic improvement over the original.

While initially involved with "War in the Pacific", I had to pull out due to ending University and beginning teacher's college, not because of a personal dispute.

I really don't like to see threads such as these, as they appear to be petty and snobbish. You really don't know what the inside of another group is like, when looking on the outside. Wargames aren't notorious for 'graphics', as even ACW has graphics that will cause most FPS or RTS players to shudder 'this is so 1990ish'. In the end, it isn't the graphics that make a good wargame, but the mechanics behind the game.

[Sol Invictus]

I believe Matrix did help improve the graphics of the soon to be released Guns of August; so their muscle can help a single Developer like Franck Hunter sometimes. On the whole, I would hold the Developer responsible for any complaints with a particular game.

[Crimguy]

Regarding other matrix titles, I agree AACW is a cut above most war games in terms of looks. What really annoys me is all of the games out there that only handle 1024x768 or 1280x1024. High resolution and widescreen support are important to me and I suspect others.

The UI does take a bit of work, but is immensely more useable than other titles. While I'm a War in the Pacific die-hard, Grigsby and Co. should be shot for the interface - one of the worst I've encountered. Accomplishing the most basic tasks can be incredibly tedious. HPS was good - in 1999. As more features were added, so were buttons along the menubar. Too many. And the artwork is horrible, despite the fact that I'm somehow impressed that a map can be so large yet built on hexes.

I think Carriers at War looks pretty good, but I'm probably not buying it.

Panther Games is a notable exception. I love their maps and interface.

I have BoA, and really enjoyed it for a board game kind of feel. It wasn't particularly complex. This title has added a lot of factors, and is keeping me thinking (until 2am last night). I'm a bit confused about a few things, and I do think the manual could go deeper into a lot of aspects, but the game itself is impressive.

For what I think is the best interface I've come across, check out Flashpoint Germany.

[Adam the VIth]

I think the overall message that has been delivered here and that everyone can sign up for, is:

"Players, don't support poorly developed, poorly funded games --- spend the extra time learning about the product you are putting your money down on --- this will force the companies out there to raise, rather than lower their standards --- and thus provide us with better (and yes, prettier!) products in the future!"

....and of course, cheers to AGEOD in their efforts to continue providing outstanding products (now get back to work on that Napoleonic game!)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pasternakski]

With the side effect of making some rules change, thus making a few customers (of the nice sort though) grumble a bit on the edge because they have to re-learn new mechanisms.

(poke poke at pasternakski)

it's a good thing I love this guy, or I'd have to make him pay for that one... harRUMPH

[pasternakski]

Back in 1999-2000, I was involved with Matrix Games on a volunteer basis in their re-development of the 1992 Gary Grigsby's Pacific War game, updating it and repairing bugs as much as we possibly could.

So, you are one of the people to whom we owe a big, resounding "thank you." I have always been grateful for, and appreciative of, the effort that went into refurbishing PacWar and GGWiR to rejuvenate interest in those titles while drawing attention to Matrix/2by3's new stuff, starting with UV.

Providing these games for free was the act of a company that deserves to survive and thrive.

Thank you, McNaughton. The game turned out splendidly (I fiddle around sometimes with the old v. 2.1 and the editor that works with it, but I do still enjoy the Matrix versions. I thought some of the follow-on work after you guys finished was a little misguided, but not egregiously so).

[Dunhill_BKK]

I think AGEOD is doing the right thing in the way of paying attention to style. It adds to the "tactile" feel of the game for me.

[ERutins]

They (Matrix Games, HPS, etc..) will not change because they have a large following of suckers who will always buy second rate games. Most fanboys have no idea what else is out there in the gaming world. They are stuck blindly following one publisher.

Que ER.....

By all means, carry on. I think based on these comments most wargamers can make their own decisions about your objectivity.

I agree, AGEOD's art is quite superb and shows real care and professionalism, it's one of many reasons we asked to help distribute their games. In general, we also play a fairly large role in the art in many of our releases and try to make sure it meets a fairly high standard. I think that in the vast majority of cases we've succeeded. Some developers do not want art assistance and we respect that as long as the art they provide meets an acceptable standard. What is acceptable to one person art-wise may of course not be acceptable to another as it is perhaps the most subjective area of game development. We've received a great many compliments on our art over the years, from our earliest releases all the way up to this year's crop. I have my own personal favorites and a few where I wish we'd done a bit better, but none that I consider unacceptable. In the end, great graphics and art add to wargaming, but they are not the essence of wargaming.

Regards,

- Erik

[Crimguy]

By all means, carry on. I think based on these comments most wargamers can make their own decisions about your objectivity.

I agree, AGEOD's art is quite superb and shows real care and professionalism, it's one of many reasons we asked to help distribute their games. In general, we also play a fairly large role in the art in many of our releases and try to make sure it meets a fairly high standard. I think that in the vast majority of cases we've succeeded. Some developers do not want art assistance and we respect that as long as the art they provide meets an acceptable standard. What is acceptable to one person art-wise may of course not be acceptable to another as it is perhaps the most subjective area of game development. We've received a great many compliments on our art over the years, from our earliest releases all the way up to this year's crop. I have my own personal favorites and a few where I wish we'd done a bit better, but none that I consider unacceptable. In the end, great graphics and art add to wargaming, but they are not the essence of wargaming.

Regards,

- Erik

It's just an opinion Erik! Don't fret. Matrix is still my Graceland!

[pasternakski]

I agree, AGEOD's art is quite superb and shows real care and professionalism, it's one of many reasons we asked to help distribute their games. In general, we also play a fairly large role in the art in many of our releases and try to make sure it meets a fairly high standard. - Erik

Count me in your large following of suckers. I wish it were larger.

Until Matrix came along, I thought my computer wargaming world had come to a sad, irrevocable end. I was delighted with what followed and remain a reasonably happy camper. The graphics in every Matrix developed or distributed game leave me with no complaints, as they always show great, intelligent attention to detail and emphasize functionality.

Of course, though, you know me, Erik, I am always happier grumbling and mumbling when the grumbling and mumbling are best. I have not bought every game Matrix has distributed, and I don't think you expected me to. I have not been entirely satisfied with every title I have bought, and I don't think that would be reasonable, either.

The bottom line for me is that you have been, and continue to be, the best, and now, with AGEod, the best is even better. You both can count on me to be a faithful, ongoing customer.

Of course, there's the old saying that "the best is none too good" grumble, mumble, kick the neighbor's cat...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted