Refund Request.

[Fred DM]

Originally Posted by Zombifreak

Yes, and there's over 1,000 members yet around 200 play it. The people who like the game keep to themselves.

all i'm saying is keep things in perspective. a lot of people apparently don't have as many problems as you do, or they aren't as bothered by them. and a patch is on the way. how about giving them a chance to start fixing things? there's nothing else remotely constructive you can do, as you probably won't get a refund.

[gamerboy4life]

I only ever play MOW for the singleplayer. If you base a game too much on Multiplayer, you are missing out on what makes games so fun.

This is the problem with the gaming industry. Multiplayer is tacked on to every game. While MOW might do it right, along with other games that are usually only campaign based, it usually does a lot more damage than it does good, forcing more time spent on multiplayer then on an amazing single player.


Plus: You have to buy Multiplayer, if you want other things than just Co-Op.

[ThunderHog]

I have to agree with Nedley- I am pretty disapointed with the game. I and a bunch of my buddies enjoy playing in skirmish mode together, as a team, and I don't see that as an option. I get two guys to crawl around and throw knives? You have to be kidding me! WICKED FALSE ADVERTISING.
The fun of the game is deploying units and gaining ground as a team. I would take a refund right now if I could. I don't understand why game developers have something that people like, and then they make huge substantive changes like this. or fail to see what it is the gamers are doing with it and don't expand on it and capitalize.
All game developers are missing the boat on cooperative play. That mode is always the ugly sister in game releases, and it should be given priority. The first game that makes it so will take off. Gamers WANT this mode. I enjoy playing with my buddies to gain ground and win a battle cooperatively. The lack of maps in previous releases for this mode is a drag as well but I still play it, as I will now finding myself disapointed and disgusted with MoW Viet Nam.

[kane1]

This series started with squad based battles. That's when the cool things about these games were important. I started playing SHoWW2 but I think there was one before that. In the next one FoW the squads got a little bigger along with the maps. With MoW the large-scale battles started and then Gamers started complaining about all the micro-managing. So OK MoW, MoWRT, and MoWAS big battles lots of units. Now MoWV back to the squads, sounds cool!

[ThunderHog]

Seems to me they make enough money that they could accomodate all the players of the game. Instead, it is obvious they just wanted to make it easier for them$elve$.
Looks like MowVN was really a follow up to MoWRT not MoWAS.
i'll be pushing for a refund. Looks like I am done with MoW series. My buddies and I played CoH for years, until we found MoW AS. I thought I would be playing for a long time.

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by ThunderHog

WICKED FALSE ADVERTISING.

I can't remember seeing a single ad for MOW:V, and every preview I read described the game exactly as it is was released. MOWAS was made by a different team, and I thought everyone knew that it was multiplayer focused while MOW:V would be focused on the campaign.

[Nike-it]

Arjuna is absolutely right about SP focus in Vietnam. We never said that it would give same MP experience as Assault Squad. Vietnam was developed by the same team as Red Tide and at the beginning any MP modes were not planned. Complaining about the lack of MP experience in this situation is a bit strange.

[ThunderHog]

Complaining about the lack of MP experience in this situation is a bit strange.
How disingenuous is that statement? This was like going into McDonalds to buy a burger, and they give you a tuna roll.
Not every gamer reads every written nuance about an upcoming game. If you play a game and you like it, alot, then you look forward to the next one. Typically it has the same name as the preceding game so you feel safe in assuming it will be the same sort of gameplay. Is that stupid or naive, or wrong to expect that? I don't think so. All you have to do is watch the trailer for the game..one of real gameplay.. and you are MISLED into believing you would have control of units shown in the trailer. There should have been a disclaimer about the game on every ad, or download page that this is not the same type of game as the previous. Instead I see "coop mode", in the release details, and what does that mean? That you get to share one squad of 5 guys and crawl around and throw knives? So lame guys, seriously. How great would it have been to re-enact Khe San for example? How about a list like this to work with that would have allowed players to control either side in these epic battles? http://www.vietnam-war.info/battles/ There should be player controlled units of every kind and at least the ability to call in F-4 napalm bombing runs, gunship attacks, artillery...etc etc etc.
Your company failed to see what and why MoW AS was so succesful and why they picked up so many new players, and you failed to disclose and or deliver.

[NoneSuch]

To be fair Thunder it's more like going in to mcdonalds and buying a burger you've not read the ingrediants of, and then complaining that it doesn't have what you wanted. You only have yourself to blame that you bought a game you didn't read up on, and it's ridiculous to blame the developers that it's not been suited to your exact prefrences.

It's not even the same studio which made Assault Squad. Digitalmindsoft, the guys behind assault squad, merely helped 1C with Vietnam.

Look, I didn't buy Vietnam because I read up on the game and realized that it wasn't what I wanted. I plan on getting it when it goes on sale in the future.

[Fred DM]

Originally Posted by NoneSuch

To be fair Thunder it's more like going in to mcdonalds and buying a burger you've not read the ingrediants of, and then complaining that it doesn't have what you wanted. You only have yourself to blame that you bought a game you didn't read up on, and it's ridiculous to blame the developers that it's not been suited to your exact prefrences.

It's not even the same studio which made Assault Squad. Digitalmindsoft, the guys behind assault squad, merely helped 1C with Vietnam.

this. from day one the game was announced as focussing on squad-based special operations throughout the campaign. they even published biographies of the squad mates you were to command on the official website.

i, too, find it disappointing that they didn't include at least a few larger scale conventional battles as single missions (perhaps the 5 S.E. bonus missions are more in line with this concept), but i've known from the start that the campaign would focus - exactly like the original Soldiers: Heroes of WWII - on a small group of elite soldiers behind enemy lines. in a way, Men of War is going back to its roots with Vietnam.

ideally, however, they should have mixed squad-based special operations with large-scale conventional battles. perhaps following both the exploits of an SOG detachment behind enemy lines and a Marine regiment pushing on in parallel. that would also have made the campaign a bit longer as 5 missions per side aren't much.