Reality Check: HoI review

[unmerged(12124)]

This review most closely matches my thoughts on the game:

http://www.fourbelowzero.com/games/strategy/HoI/review.htm

Hopefully after a few patches we will be good to go. But right now...

olaf

 

[Erwin Rommel]

Although I agree with some reviewer's points, I think the review is a bit too harsh. It says "Gameplay - Non existent with current state of AI" and "HoI is a very very poor game as it stand right now." which is in fact IMO a decent game if not excellent right now, and it'll only gets better and better. I'm quite enjoying the game now and AI shows potential with Bolt's and Federalists' mods.

 

[unmerged(11311)]

Although I agree on certain points, especially that the AI isn't working as we expected, I believe the author is exagerating a little bit... this review beasically lists all the negative sides of the game without mentioning any single positive... and there are good aspects of HoI...

It isn't perfect for sure, but if you know a better WWII game then HoI please let me know...

 

[unmerged(577)]

Hurts but true?

I loved EU I and II and will love this game too ( after some serious fixes) but most of the points in his review are true with 1.01 anyway. I am hopeful 1.02 will be the silver bullet we are all waiting for!

 

[unmerged(6909)]

The review was very positive about the potential, the game mechanism, etc:

"..well, potentially, it is in fact excellent."


Gui, AI, many minor bugs, AI, AI, and AI were the complaints.

Rushed too early by SF was the conclusion.

 

[Josephus I]

Is this bit true: I never knew it?

>>Even more ironically as the Germans I can send an invasion to east Asia and capture those Rubber producing provinces and NOT have to transport them via convoys as the game considers them linked to Germany via a land link...no matter that is via inumerous enemies including Russia, British India, French Colonial possessions and the rest of Europe, the Middle East and (the list goes on).<<

 

[unmerged(11746)]

Its a bug. Doesnt always happen though.

 

[Raen]

Originally posted by Nebukadnezar
The review was very positive about the potential, the game mechanism, etc:

"..well, potentially, it is in fact excellent."


Gui, AI, many minor bugs, AI, AI, and AI were the complaints.

Rushed too early by SF was the conclusion.

Paradox is, IMO, a first-rate developer linked to a third-rate publisher.

You'd think with the success of the EU's they could find someone better, but maybe the contract hasn't run out yet or something.

I think the review is more or less accurate, but I also think the game will, as the reviewer himself states, improve substantially after several patches.

 

[unmerged(11746)]

There simply arent many (any) big publishers interested in wargames. "Wargame" is a "bad word" to many of the big guys...

Activision when publishing MTW (Medieval Total War) were adamant that reviewers etc should not use the phrase and avoid it like the plague - they think it catagorises a game instantly and relegates it to a minority potential market.

Many of the other big guns are similar - they just prefer the mass-market game genres.

Its worth remembering that some of the classic companies such as SSI dont really exist anymore... Panzer General series is dead as is Close Combat - both good games but unappealing to the big guns who could push them and make them more popular... and with both of those series they both suffered the same pressure to make the games less "wargamy" and more "mass-appeal" (which some would say ruined them as evidenced by PG2 being far better than its follow-ups and CC2 better than its descendants - as "wargames/stratgames)

That leaves the folks like SF and CDV, neither of whom have a sterling reputation for good PR and both of whom suffer from strange ideas on release and support (neither of whom are exactly big or even medium guns themselves)

The small Dev-Co's such as Paradox are often caught between a rock and a very hard place. The strain of marketing and publishing a game themselves, as evidenced by Battlefronts fun with CMBO, can be a death-knell in itself - even though it can look like a "good alternative" on the surface.

"Airborne Assault" - brilliant game, narrow scope, never really went anywhere... shame - there's a long list of "shame's"...then again some releases such as Legion don't help the cause. (oops maybe shoudn't have mentioned that one).

Interestingly WWII-RTS, from the makers of IL2, has been picked up by Codemasters - that might prove interesting....though i somehow doubt codemasters will suddenly get an urge to back any and all wargames... even so.

Its a mass-market-game environment atm. ;-/

 

[unmerged(12396)]

I thought Strategy First was the problem also, until I read this on the Gone Gold forum:


posted 12-09-2002 03:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Frost716:
It's easy to cast stones, but I would be aiming more at Strategy First then Paradox if you must.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And why would this be the case? You do know Strategy First is only the North American publisher, and that Paradox orchestrated a world-wide release involving many other publishers?

Strategy First had nothing to do with this title beyond marketing and selling the boxes when they were ready to sell. The titles that SFI has produced on their own, like Disciples 2 and ORB, were delayed numerous times until the SFI QA department deemed it ready. If they have shown restraint in their own products, why expect them to strong-arm 3rd party developers? From talking to some people I know there, they don't, the developers often put the pressure on themselves to hit a certain date (like CRS did with WW2 Online). Other 3rd party software missed target dates, so I find it hard to believe that SFI is the culprit here.

--------------------
Jeff Vitous
Director, Special Projects
The Wargamer
http://www.wargamer.com

 

[Josephus I]

I think we should cut SF some slack...as was pointed out they do take the risk with some of these types of games that lack serious mass appeal. Maybe they did rush the game out, maybe they didn't. I'm personally grateful that Paradox exists and creates these games and that in N.America SF exists to publish these games. Without either of them I'd be playing Civ.

I agree, as do most people, that HOI is somewhat incomplete. But I am enjoying the game so far and I'm reasonably confident that Paradox will bring it up to par.

 

[ElPape]

About the reviewer

About the reviewer... Well I could (and maybe will) start my own site and post game review on it but I'm not sure you should all take my words for the "TRUTH"...

The guy has 2 strategic game review; Total War and Hearts of Iron... And about seven MMORPG reviews.... That's it...

Read this so-called "review" as you would a post on this forum... Nothing less nothing more.

ElPape

 

[unmerged(358)]

What reviewer is what I ask ?? As the rant you can see on that page is not even signed I'd assume it is written by some automatic script. Probably the same script that created the website. You know the website were the navigation bar is so small you need to enlarge the text to see it, that is after you've scrolled down to the bottom of the page where they've hidden it.
Not to mention the fact that they've got multiple columns, on a webpage !!

Cobos

 

[Hideous]

The reviewer is right, the game has potential, but its unfinished. What does it matter if it has multiple colums? Everything he said hits the mark on his review. HoI is unfinished, and I wouldn't had bought this "game", had I known this. Harsh words, yes, but hey, they sold to us unfinished game, which means they certainly deserve harsh words, and btw. hopefully more people post about this issue, and beat the dead dog so much, that they don't make the same mistake again, and publish games unfinished here in Paradox, as it is becoming a habit.

I mean all the issues he said are correct, who cares how many reviews he has made before, after "playing" this few times, it gets annoying/frustrating. I conquer Luxemburg with Germany, and wait and wait and wait for the French army to move Metz to defend, but no, nothing happens, ever. Until my panzers are taking sun in Nantes, desides the french army to move from Maginot line. And I conquer Sweden, Norway and Russia up to Moscow with Finland, that is way too unrealistic (well apart from conquering Sweden )

The game has great potential, and I loved EU, but this is ridicilous, when even all the options from the manual aren't even included. Why is it totally accetable to publish games unfinished, and then read on forums, hey don't take it so seriously, its just a game. I wonder what people would say, if the car they bought which was supposed to have CD player, don't have it, the door wont shut while driving and you can only turn to right? "Relax man, its just a car, don't take it so seriously, they will fix it in the future."

Paradox... I can't say anything else, than poor work

Please finish Crusader Kings before publishing it. Allthough, I know already that I wont be buying it before reading few weeks after it has been published what people say here in forums, thats for sure.

 

[unmerged(2606)]

Well,
Much of what I feared has come to pass. A game with great potential has fallen short. I am confident that Paradox will patch the game. I will wait to purchase it when it is closer to being a finished product than it is now. Even the people that like the game admit the AI and resources need some serious work. When people who enjoy the game have problems with it then I will just wait.

In a nutshell computer games are my hobby. If I am lucky I can devote an hour a day to them. Most often I do not get even that. Secondly, my disposable income is rather small. 40 plus dollars American is a serious commitment for me to make. If the publishers/developers are going to allow a blatantly unfinished product out the door then I will save my money for something else. I would rather wait 6 months to get a finished product than get an unfinished one now. For example, Masters of Orion 3 has been pushed back to an unknown release date because of multiplayer problems. I don't even play multiplayer and I am not in the least bit angry that they decided to wait.

More and more software developers are taking the rush it out the door approach. And not all of them are fly by night companies, i.e. Civilization 3. I know that this type of game appeals to a niche market and cannot realistically hope to have the success of say a game like Warcraft 3. Hay everybody! Lets click monsters to death! Feel the mighty sting of my mouse click villain! But how do you expect this market to grow when you release unfinished products? Because, it is such a small market and handful of buggy games make its market growth even more difficult.

I do not want people to think I am either supporting or slamming the people involved in this particular instance but the final determination on whether or not I purchase this game resides on a) will it ever be properly patched? b) will something better come along that is a complete game? c) will I get tired of checking back every few weeks or so to wait for an adequate patch that will make the game enjoyable.

Only time will tell. But I never did buy Civ 3. And that was the last game that I was truly excited about until HoI.

 

[unmerged(9948)]

To each his own though... several review sites have given the game above average or higher marks. *shrug*

 

[unmerged(4944)]

Seems like quite a respectable site and a solid review. He carefully addresses many issues, including the fact that other reviewers have given better scores, and doesn't show any bias against the type of game. He even states that a debugged multiplayer version will be fantastic to play. The only point I disagree with him is he advises against purchases, my view is low sales will kill it, while purchasing a copy will encourage paradox to continue improving it. That said, I don't think I'll buy it, maybe wait for the bargain bin.

Paradox appear to be great guys, and overworked at that (I am a little embarrassed for the beta testers though, maybe they should select more hard-nosed testers in future, to tell them the truth).

The fact is Paradox decided to rush the game, unfinished by many people's standards, out for christmas sales, just as they did last year with EUII (I was disappointed by last years release, so many small interface mprovements could have made the game easier to play).

They obviously considered the pros and cons to that decision, financial pros and a small erosion of their reputation cons, and decided the former outweighed the latter, I hope they were right.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

There are major issues with the game, and we all know it. The best we can do now is hope that Paradox can fix the problems and refine the game.

 

[Paradox Interactive]

Darkmoor_Dragon: Did you write the review? It was interesting reading anyway!

http://www.fourbelowzero.com/contact.htm


Patric

 

[unmerged(12007)]

Originally posted by Patric
Darkmoor_Dragon: Did you write the review? It was interesting reading anyway!

http://www.fourbelowzero.com/contact.htm


Patric

That is really funny because, you know, I read that reveiw thoroughly yesterday and I thought, jeez that style sounds like someone on the forum . . . who . . . [ran through a couple of names in my head] . . . that Darkmoor guy. But, naaah.

Now I read this thread and the contact list.

Funny.