longevity devs??

[BUZARD]

Hello MOWV community :-)


I have always respected the MOW series but,,, they never seem to be completed games,, and now MOW-V seems even less so,,, whats happening devs?

I would seriously like to know,,, why,, in the year 2011, am i buying a so called RTS game that has no more than 10 Sp missions, or in other words, half a game at best!

What, so im supposed to play thru my 10 missions on SP or COOP and that's it? where is the replay factor,, i don't play online so, wheres the skirmish modes? why cant i play a skirmish in SP or across LAN with AI enemies and set up my own battle scenarios?

A true PC RTS game has skirmish period!! so whats the crack guys??

The game has so much potential and yet you seem to have employed none of it!!

You almost got it right in MOW-AS but even that skirmish mode was very limited,,, now you take a step backwards and remove the game mode altogether! WTF??

If we go way way back to some of the old C&C games we find things like fully adjustable skirmish modes with choices of map, resources, spawn points, teams and so on,, am sure i played a C&C with an actual skirmish map generator once, and have played many other RTS games with many other adjustable skirmish conditions, it seems to me now that replay and longevity are not considered in game development anymore, certainly not in MOW series, can anybody explain why this is please?

[Fred DM]

MoW isn't comparable to traditional RTS like C&C or AoE: there's no base building, your force is much smaller and you're more concerned with micro-management instead of the global strategy aspect.

MoW, and especially Vietnam, is much closer to real-time tactics along the lines of Commandos, and none of those games are known for having an abundance of missions and skirmish modes.

Assault Squad is the odd one out in the series anyway. it was built with multiplayer in mind. its singleplayer mode is limited to a multiplayer-type skirmish, not a scripted, story-driven campaign.

[BUZARD]

Once again thx for your reply guys,, unfortunately all these reasons you give still don't really explain why skirmish was not included,, you say it inst comparable but really there is nothing to stop you adding skirmish modes if you really thought about it, just because you haven't figured out yet dosent mean that it cant be done.

Regardless or not of weather 'you' think this game dosent lend its-self to multiplayer skirmish does not make it necessarily true!!

This is 2011 ffs and multiplayer is the pinnacle of the gaming experience!!,, people don't want to play on their own thru single player missions over and over these days, and not everybody wants to play MP online,, you must know this?

So why make a game primarily for the single player missions?,, you game will only last 5 mins at this rate!!

My original question was about longevity,, i still cant see whats gonna make this game playable after say oh,, about a week?? unless the plan is to milk us with DLC?

To add Skirmish,, for a start a simple flag capture system like MOW-AS with resources would work!!

So why couldn't you employ this system or similar? there dosent have to be base building, so that's no excuse,, you say the tactics don't lend themselves,, well,, again,, that's no excuse,, this is war,, we fight for territory,, we move forward,, we push the enemy back,, the enemy does the same,, it worked in 'AS' guys,,,, so your excuses will never convince me otherwise.

The players,, us,, are not stupid,, we know what we want in our games,, listening to your fan base would be a smart move!

Modders,, fans of 'Skirmish',,, if anybody is making a Skirmish based mod then if you want extra help gimme a shout!

[Men Of Peace]

Well in a few weeks they are going to release the editor and then
you can learn to use it and make whatever game mods you want ...

or you can keep whining about it ... your choice .

and dont forget , different strokes to different folks ,yeah this
is 2011 ,for you "the pinnacle of gaming experience is online gaming"
for me the pinnacle of gaming experience is having a editor like gem
editor that lets me create whatever i want .

[BUZARD]

"the pinnacle of gaming experience is online gaming"



That's not exactly what i said dude and i don't disagree with you but,, im not the first to come on here and complain about this game and i am entitled to have my say as you are,, if my comments come across to you as whining then fine,, to me its just debate,, im simply trying to understand something that i don't understand.

So instead, to simplify everything let me just ask this,,

Considering replay factor to be a good thing (in all games)

All i want to know is,, if im not a modder or and online player, then where is the replay factor for me in MOW-V?

[Men Of Peace]

That's not exactly what i said dude

You right i rephrased it what you said is :
"This is 2011 ffs and multiplayer is the pinnacle of the gaming experience!!"
not much difference but that's not the point so lets drop it .


Considering replay factor to be a good thing (in all games)

All i want to know is,, if im not a modder or and online player, then where is the replay factor for me in MOW-V?

Well you can still enjoy other people mods, and I'm pretty sure
soon after the editor will be released you'll see skirmish maps
made by players .

im not the first to come on here and complain about this game and i am entitled to have my say as you are,, if my comments come across to you as whining then fine,, to me its just debate,, im simply trying to understand something that i don't understand.

Of course you can have your say ,if i call it whining it
shouldn't bother you ,but also dont forget that AS was
developed by co-op developer Digitalmindsoft and mow:v
has been developed by 1C in-house .

[BUZARD]

Ok yep well 'Assault Squad' was a different developer yep, i do think they improved on the original game tho, so it would have been nice for MOW-V to have employed some of their ideas.

Ok they didn't, fair play,, i haven't joined this forum to argue with anyone,, simply put, if i was the chief Dev for this game then it would have a versatile skirmish mode included,, obviously im not so that's irrelevant.

I suppose i wanted to know why anybody would make a game with little replay factor these days.

Ill keep fingers crossed that what you say about the editor is gonna come good,, at the end of the day im only frustrated because i want to enjoy this game to its full potential.

[Fred DM]

you're strangely obsessed with what you call 'replay factor'. :confused:

Men of War games, even back when they still had different names (Soldiers: Heroes of WWII and Faces of War), have always been about heavily scripted, story-driven singleplayer missions. Vietnam simply continues that tradition, as will the upcoming Condemned Heroes.

Assault Squad is the odd one out in the series. it was built with multiplayer in mind, thus its singleplayer is limited to a skirmish mode. you might argue that it offers more replay value, but a lot of fans of the series would say that they'd prefer the more traditional approach to singleplayer instead of what is essentially a multiplayer game type with AI-bots.

MoW: Vietnam focuses on individual unit tactics, as did Soldiers, Commandos and Jagged Alliance. none of these games ever had a skirmish mode, or anything that you'd consider as providing 'replay' value. yet nobody complained about that.

tl;dr: you're requesting a feature that isn't at all common in this type of game, and one that was never advertised. you bought this game knowing it comes with 10 singleplayer (and co-op) campaign missions. why is this suddenly not enough for you? :confused:

[BUZARD]

Its not difficult to understand what 'replay factor' means is it?

Ill tell you why im strangely obsessed mate,, it's because im paying money for a game that i cant go back to play again once i have been thru it.

After Ive completed the campaign there is nothing left to do ok!!

Same as most of those previous titles,, just because they didn't include Skirmish in them dosent make that a good thing,, you can call it tradition, i call it incomplete!

I got my retail copy of Soldiers: HOWWII right there on the shelf mate! bought it when it came out and i can tell you straight that as soon as 'Soldiers' was released there was outrage about why there was no multiplayer, skirmish or whatever!! this is fact! so i don't think its entirely true to say tho that nobody complained about them.

It is perfectly possible to have a good single player game like MOW-V that also includes versatile options for extended play, such as skirmish.

Is anybody here saying that Skirmish would 'not' have been beneficial to MOW-V or any of those previous titles?

Final question,

Whilst in development of MOW-V, if you had a coder there offering to make you a complete skirmish mode add-on without compromising the current game, would you say 'no were not going to include that because its not traditional'?

[Men Of Peace]

Bottom line ,you concentrate on the negative , on what
could have been instead of what is .

sure, it's easy to say stuff like if i was the dev and had budget and
team it would have 50 sp missions and skirmish mod but we were
not devs and this game have 10 missions and no skirmish , from
here we have 2 choices ,one is to complain and let the devs know
how we feel , which i think you made pretty clear by now ,
and the second to actually do something and try to improve
the game , which IMO is much more beneficial to everyone .

[Force10]

I do think Buzard has a point. It's not something I would really pin on 1C but games being developed as a whole these days. With todays technology and the size of our hard drives, they could really make some kick butt games that blow away what was made 10 years ago. Unfortunately thats not the case, games being made now have way less content then in the past, they just have the eye candy. Its all part of the new business model where content is limited or held back on purpose to fill up the coffers with DLC 2 weeks later. Again, I'm not saying that's the case here, just the trend. Men of Peace, if you or the other modders weren't able to hack together the GEM editor for this game, then I would have been forced to shelve it 2 days after purchase. Luckily, enough of us made our wishes known for the editor and 1C has responded, so kudos to 1C there. If for some reason mods couldn't have been hacked or the GEM editor wasn't coming out, I wouldn't have thought this game was worth the price. As far as replayability, I am still playing stuff that came out 10 years ago because it was chock full of content and good stuff. Just not really the case these days.

[BUZARD]

if you or the other modders weren't able to hack together the GEM editor for this game, then I would have been forced to shelve it 2 days after purchase.

Thx Force 10 that kind of sums up my entire point :-) 2 days for a new game is just ridiculous!.

Men of peace,, I concentrated on the negative because that is the issue here and its also the title of my thread!,, the rest of the game is absolutely great.

I haven't come on here to start a war, but,, most responses i have had are from people telling me why this game dosent need any replay modes, this is still a computer game at the end of the day that is supposed to be for entertainment, so here's my bottom line dude:- short term entertainment is good,, long term is better.

When the editor comes out yes i will try and actively do something to change it,, this is what makes PC games better than others for me but,, people do need to complain when something is not right!,, the anarchists and the protesters and those that speak out in this world are the ones that plant the seeds for change!

Peace out! :cool: