thewood Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/theater_of_war/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flintlock Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Thanks for the link. I often head straight to the forums and miss their front page news and updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theBrit Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Hmmmm a slightly negative review I feel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 More pesimistic I felt than negative. Most of the points seemed accurate which means he played the game somewhat, or spent some time reading these forums The last paragraph is what made me feel it was a pesimistic view - any game that does not develop from its release stagnates and dies eventually, it just seemed he was implying that was definitely going to be the case with ToW, which was a little disappointing for me. (and I hope wrong!) Patch update? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by Slapaho: More pesimistic I felt than negative. Most of the points seemed accurate which means he played the game somewhat, or spent some time reading these forums The last paragraph is what made me feel it was a pesimistic view - any game that does not develop from its release stagnates and dies eventually, it just seemed he was implying that was definitely going to be the case with ToW, which was a little disappointing for me. (and I hope wrong!) Patch update? I think that is how the majority of people feel, with extremes on both ends. TOW has a lot of potential, but needs to nursed a little to be considered more than a flash in pan. I comes down to perspective. Some people flip out if a game isn't close to perfect out of te box. Some people by a game system and hope that the developers grow into the potential. I think Jim's review is pretty fair. He left out both glaring issues, as well as some good aspects. Overall he obviously played the game and has a lot of experience with wargames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drawde79 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by Slapaho: The last paragraph is what made me feel it was a pesimistic view - any game that does not develop from its release stagnates and dies eventually, it just seemed he was implying that was definitely going to be the case with ToW, which was a little disappointing for me. (and I hope wrong!) I think the reason this is usually the case for games (game is flawed/buggy and needs patching, sells poorly due to this, hence developers and/or publishers don't consider it worth patching) is due to the retail model used to sell most games, which depends heavily on initial sales (within the first month or so) when the game is on store shelves. Since TOW is available for sale indefinitely from BFC's online store, sales could pick up if the game is improved significantly by patches and add-ons, even months after the initial release - hence it makes more sense from a purely financial point of view for the developers to actually improve, fix and add to the game rather than just dropping it (as has been the case with all too many other PC games). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 The problem is that if word gets around that a game isn't worth the money, and the publisher doesn't drop the price, it will stagnate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Yeah, that was a bit of an odd remark there at the very end. Especially since we already announced an expansion, patch, and even hinted at an add-on where buildings and smoke are high on the list of added features, but also because the rest of the review was fairly balanced. And like Drawde says, being an online publisher long-term support for games to make sure that they are not stagnant is our daily bread. Wargamer, owned by another online publisher, should know this better than anyone else. The pessimistic tone is also odd because TOW, warts and all, is the most innovative game closest to the definition of a wargame that came out in a long time. You would expect a bit more positive outlook at the potential of the game engine (as mentioned in the review) from a site called Wargamer. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by Moon: The pessimistic tone is also odd because TOW, warts and all, is the most innovative game closest to the definition of a wargame that came out in a long time. You would expect a bit more positive outlook at the potential of the game engine (as mentioned in the review) from a site called Wargamer. Martin That may be the divider between the "fanboys" and the "loonies". Fanboys bought a system with potential, Loonies bought a game that has flaws compared to existing games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanss Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by Moon: Yeah, that was a bit of an odd remark there at the very end. Especially since we already announced an expansion, patch, and even hinted at an add-on where buildings and smoke are high on the list of added features, but also because the rest of the review was fairly balanced. And like Drawde says, being an online publisher long-term support for games to make sure that they are not stagnant is our daily bread. Wargamer, owned by another online publisher, should know this better than anyone else. The pessimistic tone is also odd because TOW, warts and all, is the most innovative game closest to the definition of a wargame that came out in a long time. You would expect a bit more positive outlook at the potential of the game engine (as mentioned in the review) from a site called Wargamer. Martin Doesnt anyone find it a bit strange that a Online publisher, Matrix, auctually reviews THEIR OWN games at the Wargamer which is owned by the Matrix. To me it STINKS, and I have stoped buying games from them period. Which is a pity since they publish SSGs excellent games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flintlock Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by chanss: ...they publish SSGs excellent games. SSG's latest offering, Battlefront, is indeed an incredible wargame. Kudos to you for harnessing the willpower to stay away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 It still is a pretty fair review. But I agree that they have given pretty good reviews to Matrix games that not many people mention any more (Squad Assault actually reads very similar to TOW). I really can't think of the opposite right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanss Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by flintlock: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chanss: ...they publish SSGs excellent games. SSG's latest offering, Battlefront, is indeed an incredible wargame. Kudos to you for harnessing the willpower to stay away from it. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstar44 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 [/qb] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstar44 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by Moon: Yeah, that was a bit of an odd remark there at the very end. Especially since we already announced an expansion, patch, and even hinted at an add-on where buildings and smoke are high on the list of added features, but also because the rest of the review was fairly balanced. And like Drawde says, being an online publisher long-term support for games to make sure that they are not stagnant is our daily bread. Wargamer, owned by another online publisher, should know this better than anyone else. The pessimistic tone is also odd because TOW, warts and all, is the most innovative game closest to the definition of a wargame that came out in a long time. You would expect a bit more positive outlook at the potential of the game engine (as mentioned in the review) from a site called Wargamer. Martin --- I wouldn't say that Wargamer is too biased toward Matrix... Game of the year 2006 by Jim Cobb was Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 which in fact made many Matrix fanboys cry in outrage "Betrayal!" and "How this is possible" I only criticize Wargamer for stating exactly that they are owned by Davod Heath, CEO of Matrix - many people don't know that by only address that is same as Matrix Games And one one developer left Shrapnel Games they behaved quite unprofessional - they published press release from that developer without waiting for comment from Shrapnel Games - they in fact mockered Shrapnel Games with that for a full week I think...and chuckled all along... But in the end I must say that Wargamer is quite professional - only too positive in all their reviews... For instance they should have said that Crown of Glory is pain in the ass to pay and enjoy as a game so basically stinker - and if you muffle that in a positive review and say that you must invest time to enjoy it is not true. It is true if you are masochist because that was Crown of Glory. Mario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flintlock Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Originally posted by chanss: How good is Battleground on a scale off 1 to 10 would you say? Not to intentionally derail this thread, so if the mods and the OP can indulge me just this time. chanss, I may be wrong guy to ask about the game as I'm afraid I may be looking at it through rose-colored glasses. I thoroughly enjoy it and would rank it a 9. There's a brief, albeit fair review of Battlefront on ACG, that you may wish to read. If you do end up getting it and are up for a PBEM skirmish, let me know. Back on topic: Although Mr. Cobb made some fair points, I was definitely a little surprised by some statements within his review. Again, thanks for your indulgence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 -- If it is the general perception that the game has potential and that will be a great game only after patches and expansions then I think it would have been better for the Devs and BF to have waited and released it later. I don't think people will review the game again after the patch comes out. And even if they do the first impression is very powerful. The idea that the game is buggy will stay in peoples minds because this is the strongest idea connected to TOW since its release. From a marketing point of view this is not good at all IMO. I hope I'm wrong though, because I really do like this game and enjoy it the way it is. Not that it can't get better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeezgob Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Seemed like a well balanced and objective review of where the game is right now to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whaco Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 After reading the review, I finally think someone with credibility nailed the cover/LOS issue. I do think the game has enormous potential and the reviewer was a tad negative. That being said, my biggest problem with the game has always been and will continue to be the LOS/cover issue. This problem should have been properly addressed long before it ever hit the beta stage. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khane Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Originally posted by flintlock: Battlefront, is indeed an incredible wargame.Hi flintlock, So far I have mostly played and enjoyed tactical level war games like the Combat Mission games , Steel Panthers World At War, Close Combat 2. Each time I tried to play larger scale games (operational /strategic) I found them laking immersion , their interface very unfriendly and I stopped playing after one battle or two. I tried two games considered as excellent operational war games: TOAW and Kharkov '42 (a John Tiller's Panzer Campaigns ) so I am sure that the problem was not the quality of these games but maybe that these games were not the smoothest introduction to the operational /strategic level. Maybe it is also possible that I am simply not the guy for the operational /strategic level games and I should stick the squads/company level. In the Matrix games search engine, Battlefront appears as a "tactical" level game together with "Steel Panthers" and "CC3-Cross of Iron". Do you think that Battlefront could be a smoothest (and more immersing) introduction to the tactical/operational level than TOAW or the Panzer Campaigns series ? Thank you in advance [ May 19, 2007, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Khane ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts