SSI's War Wind - Don't Bother
Todd Dailey
I took the time to download SSI's new War Wind game from
http://www.ssionline.com . All 33MB of it! After goofing around with
it for about an hour, I'm not impressed and I'm about to delete it. To
save others the same frustration, here's a mini-review.
War Wind looked promising due to two new features that set it apart from
the typical C&C clone: your army gains experience from scenario to
scenario, and each of the four armies in the game have unique abilities.
Other than those two features, War Wind is very much a C&C clone. It
does have the "fog of war", like Warcraft II, where you cannot see the
enemy units unless you have a unit in spotting distance, but,
inexplicably, you can see the entire map at the start of the game. To
me, exploration of the map was one of the best features of Warcraft II.
The rest of the game is pure C&C. Build your building, manufacture your
units, go fight the enemy. What absolutely RUINS the game is the
implementation. The characters are almost indistinguishable due to the
small scale of the map. The units are C&C-sized, but are all humanoids,
so you have to be able to tell that the Architect looks only a bit
different than the servant, for example.
The final straw is the selection interface. To order a unit around, I
have to left-click on it, then right click for what seems to be nearly a
second, the pick what type of thing I want the unit to do from a pop-up
rectangle next to the unit, then pick specifically what I want the unit
to do. So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click. It's hard to do in
the thick of battle and quite infuriating. For example, a mistaken
right-click de-selects the unit and you have to start over.
Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has to be better
than the original in all respects. War Wind fails to be a better game
that C&C or Warcraft II, so it isn't worth your dollars.
--
--Todd "Twid" Dailey...@infinet.com------------
"What I must do is what concerns me, not what
the people think." -Emerson
RDClark
Todd Dailley's rather summary review of the War Wind demo concludes...
> Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has
> to be better than the original in all respects. War Wind
> fails to be a better game that C&C or Warcraft II, so it
> isn't worth your dollars.
Umm, excuse me, but what you downloaded is a demo of a yet-to-be released
game. You are comparing that demo of an unfinished game to the full
released versions of C&C and War2. Therefore it's far, far too soon to
be discussing a "bottom line."
You may turn out to be right, you may turn out to be wrong. You don't even
discuss WW as a multiplayer game, so I don't see how you can be arriving
at a "bottom line" anyway.
You're telling people not to buy the game based on your hour of "goofing
around" with the demo. Hmph. Are you sure you don't just have an axe to
grind with SSI? That's an *awfully* strong conclusion to reach based on
only the available evidence.
|--RichC---------------------------Interfacing is Easy--|
|--rd...@aol.com------Compatibility Takes a Lifetime--|
Bruce Rennie
RDClark (rdc...@aol.com) wrote:
: Todd Dailley's rather summary review of the War Wind demo concludes...
:
: > Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has
: > to be better than the original in all respects. War Wind
: > fails to be a better game that C&C or Warcraft II, so it
: > isn't worth your dollars.
:
: Umm, excuse me, but what you downloaded is a demo of a yet-to-be released
: game. You are comparing that demo of an unfinished game to the full
: released versions of C&C and War2. Therefore it's far, far too soon to
: be discussing a "bottom line."
I've never understood this sort of goofy reasoning. What the #$%^$%^$ is the
point of a demo if not to see what the game is going to be like ?
His line of reasoning is perfectly valid.
1) He was interested in War Wind.
2) He got the demo, in the understanding that it might be remotely
connected to the game somehow.
3) He played the demo. He didn't like it for the reasons given.
4) From his experience with the demo he concluded that he probably
wouldn't enjoy the full release of War Wind.
What's the problem ?
:
: You may turn out to be right, you may turn out to be wrong. You don't even
: discuss WW as a multiplayer game, so I don't see how you can be arriving
: at a "bottom line" anyway.
:
: You're telling people not to buy the game based on your hour of "goofing
: around" with the demo. Hmph. Are you sure you don't just have an axe to
What are you saying ? If you play the demo and don't like it, you still have
to buy the full release to see if you REALLY don't like it ?
: grind with SSI? That's an *awfully* strong conclusion to reach based on
: only the available evidence.
:
I love this part. Better he should base his conclusions on hearsay and
conjecture, eh ? :^}
What the $%^$%^ is wrong with you ? Here's a guy that went to the not
inconsiderable trouble of downloading a 35 Mb demo, trying it, then
posting an unofficial review for YOUR value. What's YOUR angle ? Are you
sure you don't own some SSI stock somewhere ? :^}
Why you would flame a guy for providing info which you can use or ignore at
your own discretion is beyond me.
:
:
: |--RichC---------------------------Interfacing is Easy--|
: |--rd...@aol.com------Compatibility Takes a Lifetime--|
/bruce
--
*******************************************************************************
* Bruce Rennie Q: Are We Not Men ? *
* bre...@interlog.com *
* *
*******************************************************************************
Lumen
>I took the time to download SSI's new War Wind game from
>http://www.ssionline.com . All 33MB of it! After goofing around with
>it for about an hour, I'm not impressed and I'm about to delete it. To
>save others the same frustration, here's a mini-review.
I downloaded the mother. All I got was scrambled graphics when trying
to play it. So much for first impressions. Putting out a 33-meg demo
in itself isn't exactly a considerate move on SSI's part. Oh, well,
at least I see I'm not missing out on anything.
>inexplicably, you can see the entire map at the start of the game. To
>me, exploration of the map was one of the best features of Warcraft II.
I don't mind this so much, as long as the FOW is good, and if it has
any sort of LOS implementation.
>implementation. The characters are almost indistinguishable due to the
>small scale of the map. The units are C&C-sized, but are all humanoids,
>so you have to be able to tell that the Architect looks only a bit
>different than the servant, for example.
Is the game itself in SVGA (I mean more than just 640x480 res, but
with detailed unit graphics like WC2)?
>The final straw is the selection interface. To order a unit around, I
>have to left-click on it, then right click for what seems to be nearly a
>second, the pick what type of thing I want the unit to do from a pop-up
>rectangle next to the unit, then pick specifically what I want the unit
>to do. So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
>left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click.
Ick. Sounds like a dead duck, for a real-time game. Reminds me of
Close Combat's greatly efficient UI. I wonder if SSI would follow in
Atomic's footsteps in labeling this as a "design decision that greatly
aids playability."
>Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has to be better
>than the original in all respects. War Wind fails to be a better game
>that C&C or Warcraft II, so it isn't worth your dollars.
There are too many realtime C&C clones coming out, and the mediocre
ones will die a pretty fast death. Right now, my vote is still for
the proven: Diablo & Starcraft from Blizzard, and RA from Westwood.
Enemy Nations sounds appealing, assuming that the developer's post on
here wasn't all smoke and mirrors.
Lumen
>> Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has
>> to be better than the original in all respects. War Wind
>> fails to be a better game that C&C or Warcraft II, so it
>> isn't worth your dollars.
>
>game. You are comparing that demo of an unfinished game to the full
>released versions of C&C and War2. Therefore it's far, far too soon to
>be discussing a "bottom line."
Why not? Why else do companies put out demos for, if not for player
to try them to evaluate whether or not they should buy the real game?
What else is better, you trying the demo yourself and making your mind
based on that, or listening to some other people's opinion on what's
good?
Of the points the poster made (bad UI, indistinguishable unit
graphics) are pretty fundamental problems. It isn't a bug that can be
resolved, unless there is an overhaul of the system. From all
indications, War Wind is to be shipped this year, so the demo would be
reflective of what the final product looks like.
>You're telling people not to buy the game based on your hour of "goofing
>around" with the demo. Hmph. Are you sure you don't just have an axe to
>grind with SSI? That's an *awfully* strong conclusion to reach based on
>only the available evidence.
What he said was his opinion. It is his right to state it, just as it
is your right to disagree with it. I don't see you disagree with the
premise of his argument (bad UI makes for a bad game, and War Wind's,
as described by him, is indeed bad for a realtime game). You disagree
simply because you think it's going to change. Will it?
As for your accusation that he "has an axe to grind," (when all else
fails, ad hominem attacks are always in vogue, eh?) I can very well
say the similar thing about you. Why are you so defensive for War
Wind? Do you own SSI stock? You see, ad hominems are very easy. Any
deliquent can and will resort to such to avoid the main argument. It
is the mainstay of all Usenet flame wars.
RDClark
Lumen said, in part:
> What he said was his opinion. It is his right to state it,
> just as it is your right to disagree with it. I don't see
> you disagree with the premise of his argument (bad UI
> makes for a bad game, and War Wind's, as described by him,
> is indeed bad for a realtime game). You disagree simply
> because you think it's going to change. Will it?
I have no idea. I've never seen the demo, and indeed never heard of the
game before this thread started.
But the original message never used the word "demo." Not even once. He
said he downloaded a "game," and was offering a "review" of it, in which
he reached a "bottom line." That bottom line was to unequivocally
recommend that nobody spend their money on the game, or download the file
from SSI.
To say "on the basis of the demo, the game needs a lot of work before I'd
consider buying it" is one thing. I've made such statements myself, and
if the originator of this thread had said anything remotely like that, I'd
never have commented. To say "I played this game for an hour, and it
sucks, don't buy it" is something else, especially since he never even
told us it was a demo he was discussing.
I'd much rather read some useful information about the game -- like who's
designing it, how it implements multiplay, and how far away from release
it actually is.
Todd Dailey
rdc...@aol.com wrote:
> Umm, excuse me, but what you downloaded is a demo of a yet-to-be released
> game. You are comparing that demo of an unfinished game to the full
> released versions of C&C and War2. Therefore it's far, far too soon to
> be discussing a "bottom line."
I disagree. I downloaded a demo of what appears to be a fully-finished
game. The demo wasn't labeled as partially finished or beta in any way,
so I'm judging it as a full game. If I can't judge a game by the demo,
what the heck is the demo for?!? Beta is beta, demo is demo. This is
labeled as a demo.
>
> You may turn out to be right, you may turn out to be wrong. You don't even
> discuss WW as a multiplayer game, so I don't see how you can be arriving
> at a "bottom line" anyway.
The "bottom line" is that the interface was very unwieldy, and that the
game itself did not distinguish itself from C&C or WC2. This is all in
my opinion, of course, and if you disagree, hey, that's your right. An
unwieldy interface in multi-player is still an unwieldy interface.
>
> You're telling people not to buy the game based on your hour of "goofing
> around" with the demo. Hmph. Are you sure you don't just have an axe to
> grind with SSI? That's an *awfully* strong conclusion to reach based on
> only the available evidence.
Oh please, what's with the internet and conspiracy theories? I don't
have an axe to grind at all with SSI. I just didn't like the game. And
it only took me an hour of goofing off to figure that out. It's a bad,
pathetically bad, user interface. How long does one have a use a bad
interface to decide that it is bad? How long does one have to squint at
units that can't be distinguished from one another to decide that the
graphics are bad? The fact that I have an axe to grind is an awfully
strong conclusion to make from one posted review. Are you sure you
don't have a connection to SSI? 8-)
All this is in my opinion, of course...
TVspace
>How long does one have a use a bad
>interface to decide that it is bad?
Approximately 5 minutes. :-)
>How long does one have to squint at
>units that can't be distinguished from one another to decide that the
>graphics are bad?
One glance should be adequate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dave. Stop. Stop. Will you. Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave. Stop,
Dave. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave. My mind is going. I can
feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about
it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm afraid." -- HAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Philip M.
I agree completely, warwind not user friendly.
Gilles Goy
Hello,
> War Wind looked promising due to two new features that set it apart from
> the typical C&C clone: your army gains experience from scenario to
> scenario, and each of the four armies in the game have unique abilities.
> Other than those two features, War Wind is very much a C&C clone. It
> does have the "fog of war", like Warcraft II, where you cannot see the
> enemy units unless you have a unit in spotting distance, but,
> inexplicably, you can see the entire map at the start of the game. To
> me, exploration of the map was one of the best features of Warcraft II.
>
> The rest of the game is pure C&C. Build your building, manufacture your
> units, go fight the enemy. What absolutely RUINS the game is the
> implementation. The characters are almost indistinguishable due to the
> small scale of the map. The units are C&C-sized, but are all humanoids,
> so you have to be able to tell that the Architect looks only a bit
> different than the servant, for example.
>
> The final straw is the selection interface. To order a unit around, I
> have to left-click on it, then right click for what seems to be nearly a
> second, the pick what type of thing I want the unit to do from a pop-up
> rectangle next to the unit, then pick specifically what I want the unit
> to do. So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
> left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click. It's hard to do in
> the thick of battle and quite infuriating. For example, a mistaken
> right-click de-selects the unit and you have to start over.
>
> Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has to be better
> than the original in all respects. War Wind fails to be a better game
> that C&C or Warcraft II, so it isn't worth your dollars.
You are hard in your judgment. I have downloaded the demo (and yes, I
guess that they could have reduced its size) and find it's hard to say
all about the final product. But I won't say what I think because it's
too subjective. But to those who don't want to download the demo, here
is a little description:
-there are four races.
-Each race has different units, and with different stats. For example,
one race have units with average melee and average missile weapons. One
other is melee combat oriented.
-Spells are not in the demo, so we miss one important aspect of the
game.
-There are wandering monsters.
-Structures costs depends on race choice.
-You can keep experienced units from one scenario to the other (not in
the demo).
-Music sounds good.
-There is a fog of war.
-Units can hold items (1 or 2, depends on unit type).
-Items can be found, ressources or unit improvement.
-You can heal most units, sending them in one structure (cannot remember
which).
Hope this helps,
Gilles Goy
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gremlin
Lumen wrote:
> >I took the time to download SSI's new War Wind game from
> >http://www.ssionline.com . All 33MB of it! After goofing around with
> >it for about an hour, I'm not impressed and I'm about to delete it. To
> >save others the same frustration, here's a mini-review.
>
>I downloaded the mother. All I got was scrambled graphics when trying
>to play it. So much for first impressions. Putting out a 33-meg demo
>in itself isn't exactly a considerate move on SSI's part. Oh, well,
>at least I see I'm not missing out on anything.
>
>>me, exploration of the map was one of the best features of Warcraft II.
>
>any sort of LOS implementation.
>
> >small scale of the map. The units are C&C-sized, but are all humanoids,
> >so you have to be able to tell that the Architect looks only a bit
> >different than the servant, for example.
>
>with detailed unit graphics like WC2)?
>
> >have to left-click on it, then right click for what seems to be nearly a
> >second, the pick what type of thing I want the unit to do from a pop-up
> >rectangle next to the unit, then pick specifically what I want the unit
> >to do. So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
> >left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click.
>
> Close Combat's greatly efficient UI. I wonder if SSI would follow in
> Atomic's footsteps in labeling this as a "design decision that greatly
> aids playability."
>
>
> >> to be better than the original in all respects. War Wind
> >> fails to be a better game that C&C or Warcraft II, so it
> >> isn't worth your dollars.
> >
> >game. You are comparing that demo of an unfinished game to the full
> >released versions of C&C and War2. Therefore it's far, far too soon to
> >be discussing a "bottom line."
I totally dissagree. SSI put this game out for demo, therefore they
must think it can compete in the marketplace.
>
> Why not? Why else do companies put out demos for, if not for player
> to try them to evaluate whether or not they should buy the real game?
Another reason is for early reaction from the gaming community, and
feedback on user likes and dislikes with the game. We all know much of
this should be done in beta/alpha, but we've all seen this dosent always
happen.
> What else is better, you trying the demo yourself and making your mind
> based on that, or listening to some other people's opinion on what's
> good?
>
> Of the points the poster made (bad UI, indistinguishable unit
> graphics) are pretty fundamental problems. It isn't a bug that can be
> resolved, unless there is an overhaul of the system. From all
> indications, War Wind is to be shipped this year, so the demo would be
> reflective of what the final product looks like.
>
> >You're telling people not to buy the game based on your hour of "goofing
> >around" with the demo. Hmph. Are you sure you don't just have an axe to
[Stupid Accusation SNIPPED]
Welcome to the world of shareware and demos. It seems that as
shareware has
evloved, there is a general understanding between companies and gamers
on the
net that shareware is a two-way street: its a chance to play a game for
free, and its a time to feed-back all your likes and dislikes back to
the
company in return. All of the best games are from companies that have
a
active presence in the NGs after a release (ie: id, interplay,
apogee/3DR,
etc). Although I consider true demos are put out by companies that
dont
fully understand shareware, yet they also benifit from this process.
So my point is this: Dont bitch at the reviewer, try it yerself. :^) We
all
want the same thing here: the best games a company can make. If that
means that SSI has to suffer some "control sux", "scale/resolution
bites",
or "mouse action blows" posts, fine! cuz when it is fixed, we all win:
we get a good game, and SSI makes tons of money for making the next
game.
-Gremlin
Ben
Gilles Goy wrote:
> You are hard in your judgment. I have downloaded the demo (and yes, I
> guess that they could have reduced its size) and find it's hard to say
> all about the final product. But I won't say what I think because it's
> too subjective. But to those who don't want to download the demo, here
> is a little description:
>
> -there are four races.
> -Each race has different units, and with different stats. For example,
> one race have units with average melee and average missile weapons. One
> other is melee combat oriented.
> -Spells are not in the demo, so we miss one important aspect of the
> game.
> -There are wandering monsters.
> -Structures costs depends on race choice.
> -You can keep experienced units from one scenario to the other (not in
> the demo).
> -Music sounds good.
> -There is a fog of war.
> -Units can hold items (1 or 2, depends on unit type).
> -Items can be found, ressources or unit improvement.
> -You can heal most units, sending them in one structure (cannot remember
> which).
>
This helps a little, but I would not mind a little subjective judgement
as well- that is expected as par for the course in a review. Otherwise
all reviews would boil down to little more than listings of game specs.
Personally, I am not so sure that the first poster's sentiments WERE too
harsh. I understand that the game is not finished, but I think his
criticism of the interface is a valid one. In a real-time game, the user
interface is not only important- it is CRITICAL. Warcraft II and C&C
both had adequate interfaces, but I would like to see future games
improve on them, not make them worse. Even with a good interface, a
real-time game often degrades into a speed-clicking contest between the
player and the computer. Generally speaking, it is no contest- the
computer can marshal all of its forces at once, and the player is left
with something of an unfair disadvantage. This is unavoidable, IMHO, in
most real-time games. In the worst case, the designers might use it as
something of a replacement for AI, and that is just outright irritating.
Losing to the computer because the computer employed a better strategy
is one thing- losing to the computer because you lack the human ability
to command thirty units simultaneously is another.
I have not yet tried the War Wind demo (it is simply WAY too big to
download... I will wait for it to hit one of the game mags), and I will
reserve my own judgement until I do. I would like to hear more about the
user interface, and the strategy of the game itself (or what you can
gauge from the demo) from those who HAVE played it, though...
Regards,
Benjamin E. Sones
feld...@sprynet.com
Marcin Radzikowski
Lumen (lu...@x.com) wrote:
: >I took the time to download SSI's new War Wind game from
: >http://www.ssionline.com . All 33MB of it! After goofing around with
: >it for about an hour, I'm not impressed and I'm about to delete it. To
: >save others the same frustration, here's a mini-review.
: I downloaded the mother. All I got was scrambled graphics when trying
: to play it. So much for first impressions. Putting out a 33-meg demo
: in itself isn't exactly a considerate move on SSI's part. Oh, well,
: at least I see I'm not missing out on anything.
Hummm...even though I gave up on trying to get the whole 33 meg file via
http (I later opted for a the separate 23 files via ftp on a real UNIX
machine), I still tried the game out. Works just fine.
: >inexplicably, you can see the entire map at the start of the game. To
: >me, exploration of the map was one of the best features of Warcraft II.
: I don't mind this so much, as long as the FOW is good, and if it has
: any sort of LOS implementation.
Nothing wrong with that. Remember that these are supposed to be races
which have inhabited the planet for thousands of years. I'd say that
after that much time you'd know the land. FOW comes into effect.
: >implementation. The characters are almost indistinguishable due to the
: >small scale of the map. The units are C&C-sized, but are all humanoids,
: >so you have to be able to tell that the Architect looks only a bit
: >different than the servant, for example.
: Is the game itself in SVGA (I mean more than just 640x480 res, but
: with detailed unit graphics like WC2)?
Oh come on. They are not that small and they are different. The only
thing is that the worker looks loke the architect and you have to click
on them to tell which one it is. Maybe with constructive criticism from
the gaming community SSI will make changes to the final release. The
demo runs in 640x480x256. By definition, this is SVGA. Any mode with
resolutions greater than 640x480x16 is considered to be SVGA. Some would
say that anything above 320x200 is SVGA. But, this is besides the
point. It would be nice if the final release offered game-play in higher
modes so that you can see more of the map at once.
: >The final straw is the selection interface. To order a unit around, I
: >have to left-click on it, then right click for what seems to be nearly a
: >second, the pick what type of thing I want the unit to do from a pop-up
: >rectangle next to the unit, then pick specifically what I want the unit
: >to do. So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
: >left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click.
Hold on. It takes the same thing to build a structure in WC2. Select
the peon/pesant, select the construct icon on the side bar (you actually
have two icons, one for standard structures and one for advanced
structures), select the structure you want to build, then place the
structure. Comes out to be the same thing. In War Wind you just do not
have to move over to the side bar to select the unit function. The
function can be selected while your pointer is still on the unit. This,
to me, is much faster...you just have to get used to it.
: >Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has to be better
: >than the original in all respects. War Wind fails to be a better game
: >that C&C or Warcraft II, so it isn't worth your dollars.
I found C&C to be nothing more than just a prettier Dune 2. Westwood
could have at least beefed up the graphics to a higher resolution. I was
overjoyed whan Warcraft 2 came out. I would consider War Wind to be an
improvement over C&C in the graphics department, variety of races and
units, music and sound. Also, the fact that there is a structure the to
the military units (i.e. in order to have a group of units move together
you must have a unit with command abilities to lead them - this is a unit
which has a small circle above and to the left of it). Makes sense that
someone with command abilities will be able to lead grunts into battle.
What remains to be seen is how the magic system works in the game.
Hopefully, with so many units we won't get confused about their usage.
: There are too many realtime C&C clones coming out, and the mediocre
: ones will die a pretty fast death. Right now, my vote is still for
: the proven: Diablo & Starcraft from Blizzard, and RA from Westwood.
: Enemy Nations sounds appealing, assuming that the developer's post on
: here wasn't all smoke and mirrors.
I think that there are too many "real-time" games out there - period.
I'd like to see more turn-based games where I can plan my strategy and
see if it works. I don't want to loose a game because I can't move my
mouse fast enough to give orders to my units. And with maps getting
bigger and bigger, you just can't control the action well enough. But,
that's another thread that we have flogged to death on this group.
I know I'll give War Wind demo a better look, and hope that some changes
will be made for the final release.
--
============================================================================
| Marcin P. Radzikowski | _o_ "In the battle between |
| mrad...@achilles.net | <\_/> good and evil, |
| http://www.achilles.net/~mradziko | _/ \_ evil has more fun!" |
============================================================================
RDClark
Plimsoll Ply wrote, in part:
> No offense, but you're criticizing somebody else's view on
> something you haven't even seen or heard of?? The term
> "net troll" is oft abused, but such flamebait as yours is
> the best I've seen to date that befits the moniker.
Nope. I'm asking people to be careful what they write, and be careful
when they read what others write.
I'm criticising someone else's view on something *he* has never seen --
namely, the game itself. Had he labeled his message as an evaluation of a
demo, I'd never have commented. He didn't. He called it a "review" of a
"game." Never used the word "demo" at all.
> Having a conveniently short memory, aren't we? Or does
> lying come naturally to you? The very basis of your flame
> was that he had "goof around for only one hour with the
> demo," and that "demos aren't indicative of the final
> product." Now you're saying that you never thought he was
> talking about a demo, but the full game itself?
What are you quoting here? Not me. Not the original message. The
original message never used the word "demo," and neither it not my
response contained the text you purport to quote. If you no longer have
access to the original message, I recommend Deja News.
Perhaps, before you start commenting on others' mental powers or their
veracity, you should check your facts. The rest of the nonsense you wrote
has been snipped because it's beneath contempt.
Karim Khalfa
On Mon, 09 Sep 1996 11:40:31 GMT, lu...@x.com (Lumen) wrote:
>I downloaded the mother. All I got was scrambled graphics when trying
>to play it. So much for first impressions. Putting out a 33-meg demo
>in itself isn't exactly a considerate move on SSI's part. Oh, well,
>at least I see I'm not missing out on anything.
Glad they had it on ftp, unlike some smart companies that only allow
http transfers :) I played about 30 minutes on the 1st scenario,
garbled graphics came by that time. First in mid-game I started having
error message windows appearing every minutes or so (graphic problems,
don't remember the exact words). When I mistakenly pressed OK instead
of ignore - I had that scrambled screen.
>>inexplicably, you can see the entire map at the start of the game. To
>>me, exploration of the map was one of the best features of Warcraft II.
>
>I don't mind this so much, as long as the FOW is good, and if it has
>any sort of LOS implementation.
Map exploration is OK in fantasy games like WC2, but is IMHO stupid in
games supposed to be in the future - like C&C commanders not having a
map :)
>Is the game itself in SVGA (I mean more than just 640x480 res, but
>with detailed unit graphics like WC2)?
I guess so :) I run in 1024 mode, but didnt notice any 3 secs black
screens when Alt-Tab'ing between WW and the desktop (my Sony 15" SF
always pauses about 3 secs when changing res). It only asked to lower
the color depth when I started the game.
>Ick. Sounds like a dead duck, for a real-time game. Reminds me of
>Close Combat's greatly efficient UI. I wonder if SSI would follow in
>Atomic's footsteps in labeling this as a "design decision that greatly
>aids playability."
Tsk tsk tsk. Don't mess with CC :) The CC UI is indeed one the best
around: they had keyboard shortcuts for every action. One thing that
WW lacks totally (or so it seems) in the demo. If only Atomic's
scrolling was as smooth as SSI's...
The size: I don't get it. They have 4 scenarios, a small .avi. Why it
this demo 33MB compressed?
======
One things IMHO worth noting. I did not see anywhere in the demo
saying that this was a beta or whatever, like Doom alpha or Quake
Test. So I assume I have downloaded the game as it will be shipped but
with less features like scenarios and stuff. OK. Then imagine a
rectangular lab that sits vertically on the map, with one door south.
A unit stands outside near the W wall. I want it to enter the building
rom S, and go to the north wall to make room for another entry (many
units can be trained at the same - nice feature). So I clik on the
unit, then on the northern part of the building. So the unit should go
S, enter the building then go to its northern part. What the unit does
is take theshortest path, .i.e hits the NW wall, and follows it _N_,
then stops at the N wall :))) Sometimes they will go around the
building to the S door, but more often they'll get stuck N.
That's OK. The following is worse. I found a glider in the north in
the 1st scenario. Put 1 guy in it and gave the glider orders to fly to
the other end of the map. It started moving but never reached its
destination. I found it stuck in the forest. The map has some ruins,
and there was this small L-shaped wall (2 glider-lengths horizontal
and 1 glider-length vertical). The glider got stuck in the corner, and
there was no way to move it around, and stayed that way until the end
(there was also no way to free the guy who was inside it, as vehicles
in WW cannot unload where they are, they have to move a bit).
So: will I pay in 1996 for a game that has not solved unit path
issues? Of course not. I don't care if every scenario is so
graphically astounding that it needs 33/4 MB of files. The UI is one
of the worst I have ever seen (and I get to play almost anything that
is published, don't ask me how:), and after seeing really smart unit
moves in CC - buying WW is definitely not in my agenda.
Makes me wonder - did they have any playtesters at all? Did those
playtesters play _any_ other computer strategy game?
Sincerely, Karim
Karim Khalfa
On 10 Sep 1996 18:25:03 -0400, rdc...@aol.com (RDClark) wrote:
>To say "on the basis of the demo, the game needs a lot of work before I'd
>consider buying it" is one thing. I've made such statements myself, and
>if the originator of this thread had said anything remotely like that, I'd
>never have commented. To say "I played this game for an hour, and it
>sucks, don't buy it" is something else, especially since he never even
>told us it was a demo he was discussing.
Not to flame, but he never said he was playing a beta or a preview
either. I know that if such a huge release was already out we would
have known. But if we want to stick to words then the only assumption
that one might make from his words would be that he somehow (:) got
the release. He didn't say 'beta' or 'preview', didn't he? What else
might he be looking at if not a demo? When I read the original post
the first thing that sprung to my mind was that it was a demo, I
assumed that if it were a beta the poster would have said it... Still
I must admit it was kind of a surprise to me, such a contender in one
of today's hottest gaming areas arriving totally unnoticed is
unusual...
>I'd much rather read some useful information about the game -- like who's
>designing it, how it implements multiplay, and how far away from release
>it actually is.
How good can multiplayer be if the UI is hosed? I also have downloaded
the demo. I don't care who's designing it, how it does multiplay or
about the release date anymore. It never said 'alpha', 'beta', 'final
beta', 'preview' or whatever. I assume when companies issue a _demo_,
before the release (when the demo is out before the release that is:)
they usually add scenarios/graphics and remove bugs. But things like
an UI for alien hands and minds, unit movement path problems, are all
IMHO not things that are changed between a demo and a release.
SSI didn't do themselves a favor if what we DL'ed is still under heavy
development. Putting out something like that in 1996 with the
competition they are facing...
Please note: I am not saying "don't buy this game", just "I will not
buy it in its current state" :) Why, some might even like extra mouse
presses, like there are much too many people enjoying Deadlock to my
liking:)
Sincerely, Karim
cro...@earthlink.net
lu...@x.com (Lumen) wrote:
>>> Having a conveniently short memory, aren't we? Or does
>>> lying come naturally to you? The very basis of your flame
>>> was that he had "goof around for only one hour with the
>>> demo," and that "demos aren't indicative of the final
>>> product." Now you're saying that you never thought he was
>>> talking about a demo, but the full game itself?
>>What are you quoting here? Not me. Not the original message. The
>>original message never used the word "demo," and neither it not my
>>response contained the text you purport to quote. If you no longer have
>>access to the original message, I recommend Deja News.
>Oh, dear, I am talking to a bona fide net troll, and a mental retard
>to boot.
>From Alta Vista (search for "wind - don't bother"):
>------------------------
>From rdc...@aol.com (RDClark)
>Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>Date 8 Sep 1996 22:10:51 -0400
>Newsgroups comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
>Message-ID <50vubb$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>Todd Dailley's rather summary review of the War Wind demo concludes...
>> Bottom line: for a C&C clone to distinguish itself, it has
>> to be better than the original in all respects. War Wind
>> fails to be a better game that C&C or Warcraft II, so it
>> isn't worth your dollars.
>Umm, excuse me, but what you downloaded is a demo of a yet-to-be
>released game. You are comparing that demo of an unfinished game to
>the full released versions of C&C and War2. Therefore it's far, far
>too soon to be discussing a "bottom line."
>You may turn out to be right, you may turn out to be wrong. You don't
>even discuss WW as a multiplayer game, so I don't see how you can be
>arriving at a "bottom line" anyway.
>You're telling people not to buy the game based on your hour of
>"goofing around" with the demo. Hmph. Are you sure you don't just
>have an axe to grind with SSI? That's an *awfully* strong conclusion
>to reach based on only the available evidence.
>-----------------------
>Does this refresh your stunted memory any, Mr. Mental Midget?
That is NOT the original post it is his responce to the original post.
You consistantly misread what Mr Clarks point was, THAT THE ORIGINAL
POSTER IN THE ORIGINAL POST DID NOT DECLARE IT WAS A DEMO!
Whether or not Mr Clark knew it was a demo is irrelevant to the
argument, since the argument is whether the original poster said it
was. I don't know if he did or not but I thought you were intelligent
enough to understand what you were reading. Obviously not or your just
purposefully redirecting the argument to suit yourself. Why don't you
look up the actual original post and then the issue will be decided
and we can all concentrate on important things like degrading
Derek Smart.
--
David W Maddocks
cro...@earthlink.net
Marcin Radzikowski
Lumen (lu...@x.com) wrote:
: Thanks for answering my question (is the game SVGA). As for
: constructive criticism, I would be a lot more constructive if I could
: get the thing to run, which I couldn't. Even if they put out a fix
: for the demo, I wouldn't go through the hassle of re-DL'ing the 33-meg
: file again. The paucity of responses about the demo is a clue that
: most people aren't willing to download a 33-meg monster. If SSI wants
: constructive criticism, then it needs to get with the program and show
: better consideration toward its potential customers. Cutting the
: demo's size down to 5-6 megs would go a long way toward that goal.
Good point. It took me almost a week to get an error free copy of the
demo. Opting for the 23 1.4 meg parts contributed to it immensely.
Also, I agree that the demo could be smaller, at least half the size it
is now. Is it just me, or have the demos in the past year grown
exponentially?!?! A demo two years ago was a couple of megs, if even
that big. What happened to the days when you could get a complete game
on a single 3.5" floppy? Oh well, those were the days....
: >: >So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
: >: >left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click.
: >
: >Hold on. It takes the same thing to build a structure in WC2. Select
: >the peon/pesant, select the construct icon on the side bar (you actually
: >have two icons, one for standard structures and one for advanced
: >structures), select the structure you want to build, then place the
: >structure. Comes out to be the same thing.
: WC2 has keyboard shortcuts. Does War Wind?
Don't know...but I'm going to look real hard for them. Would be nice if
you could also make macros.
: >I found C&C to be nothing more than just a prettier Dune 2. Westwood
: >could have at least beefed up the graphics to a higher resolution.
: Personal opinions notwithstanding, C&C has proven to be a very
: successful "pretty Dune 2." That people are still talking about it is
: a testament to its replayability.
Yes it has, and I did enjoy it...but I was longing for more
improvements. I guess that Red Alert and later C&C2 will deliver these.
: I just went moseying through some gaming news pages. Seems like it's
: easier to name the companies who won't be coming out with a strategic
: RT multiplayer game (hey, let's start a new acronym for the C&C genre;
: we'll call it SRTMP gaming) than those who will. Other than the many
: known upcoming titles, Activision is getting into the dance with some
: Oz outfit for Corporations Off World (I guess we'll have a COW,
: hahaha). EA is supposedly coming out with a SRTMP title called
: Darklight.
Well, seems to be the latest craze among games...just like first-person
action games exploded right after Doom...and these are getting very tiresome.
RDClark
Lumen, posting from a new fictitious address thus evading my killfile,
said, in part:
>Let me repeat what I expounded upon to Midget Clark:
> Clark above well knew that the poster was talking about
> a demo.
I knew no such thing. You have no basis in logic nor evidence to assume
that I did.
I had never heard of the title before. Neither had most other people
except probably for a few extremely dedicated wargame hobbyists who watch
SSI and similar companies in greater detail than most of us have the time
or the inclination to do. I see that you are unable to refute my central
point, so you have resorted to name-calling.
This whole conversation has become idiotic. I made my point. No one has
refuted it, succeeding only in attacking me personally because they didn't
like what I said, which apparently hit a nerve with arrogant assholes
evrywhere. To hell with it, and back to the killfile for Mr. Lumen.
Ben
Lumen wrote:
> >: >So, to have a architect build a building, it's right-click,
> >: >left-click, slide, left-click, slide, left-click.
> >
> >Hold on. It takes the same thing to build a structure in WC2. Select
> >the peon/pesant, select the construct icon on the side bar (you actually
> >have two icons, one for standard structures and one for advanced
> >structures), select the structure you want to build, then place the
> >structure. Comes out to be the same thing.
>
> WC2 has keyboard shortcuts. Does War Wind?
Good question. Even more important than keyboard shortcuts, IMHO, is the
intuitive nature of Warcraft's UI. You did not HAVE to click on the
"attack" icon to get a unit to attack- simply clicking on the target
with the unit selected was sufficient. This is the best kind of shortcut
for me- reduce the menu-hunting when and if possible.
Mark Baker
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:31:09 GMT, lu...@x.com (Lumen) wrote:
>>Hold on. It takes the same thing to build a structure in WC2. Select
>>the peon/pesant, select the construct icon on the side bar (you actually
>>have two icons, one for standard structures and one for advanced
>>structures), select the structure you want to build, then place the
>>structure. Comes out to be the same thing.
>
>WC2 has keyboard shortcuts. Does War Wind?
>
If they do not have keyboard shortcuts they should add them. They
would greatly enhance multiplayer gameplay. In Warcraft 2, if you
do not use keyboard shortcuts to play over Kali, then you will see
a lot more defeat screens than victory screens IMO.
To illustrate my point, if you are not using the keys in WC2, try
bloodlusting 9 ogres with the mouse and then learn the hotkeys for
doing it with the keyboard. It makes a big difference. And with
the lag over the net that makes a HUGE difference.