Refund Request.

[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.

[ThunderHog]

Originally Posted by NoneSuch

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

Seriously, you expect an average gamer to know what studio did what? Come on, really. If that is the case, the Digitalmidsoft should have helped..MORE.
What you are seeing here from me, is a very,very disappointed FAN of this game. I doubt many average gamers talked as much about MoW-AS as I did, raved about it in fact, posted it on my FB, and clan website, encouraged and cajoled players to buy it, and am probably personally resonsible for 20 -30 copies SOLD.
I find it appalling that you guys will just skip over the logic I am conveying and dismiss it as , "Oh, he should have known."

[Fred DM]

Originally Posted by ThunderHog

Seriously, you expect an average gamer to know what studio did what? Come on, really. If that is the case, the Digitalmidsoft should have helped..MORE.
What you are seeing here from me, is a very,very disappointed FAN of this game. I doubt many average gamers talked as much about MoW-AS as I did, raved about it in fact, posted it on my FB, and clan website, encouraged and cajoled players to buy it, and am probably personally resonsible for 20 -30 copies SOLD.
I find it appalling that you guys will just skip over the logic I am conveying and dismiss it as , "Oh, he should have known."

yes, but surely you did take a look at the game's product description, on Steam or elsewhere. from the moment the official website was launched, it was clear that the game would focus on squad-based tactics. what has been advertised has been delivered, yet you claim to have been a victim of false advertisement.

not doing even elementary product research in advance of a purchase does not make you a victim of false advertisement. the information has been out there for months. it's your own fault if you decided not to seek it out.

that said, you certainly have a right to be disappointed.

[kane1]

Originally Posted by Fred DM

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.

I really like the sound of that!

[bomblol]

I have to question why they would do that after coming off of the back of such an excellent game (MOWAS that is).
Granted, what they have developed is fair enough - but put some polish on it.

I have units with terrible path finding (especially when they go into the water). Units that die in a second - I do enjoy the missions where the AI has snipers and youve got no way of detecting them at all (yeah you see the aimer come up but thats it) until they've fired and youve lost 1/4 of your squad 30 seconds into the mission.
Definatley a game of trial and error.

But back to the AI.. armored vehicles do not operate in even a remotley similar fashion to MOWAS.
You would think they would have used the same AI if they were going to just reskin and release as an SP game.
I have armored vehicles and men mounted on the top MG's not even swivel to engage when enemy infantry are directly in front of the vehicle.
I dont mean standing on top of, I mean 10 metres out front in clear LOS.

Using the helo's on the SP missions is a bit of a hit and miss affair, you target point X and instead of even missing and say hitting point T, U, V or W (as in somewhere NEAR the point of target) - its going miles off and either half the map before or after.

I am an avid MOW fan, but this has just been one dissapointment after the next.
I will continue to support 1C as Im sure they can pull somthing out of their backsides, but why release a clearly incomplete product?

[bomblol]

Oh and I should also mention just the general infantry AI.
I have a 4 man squad, fair enough, but when it is set to engage anything sighted, why does it not engage a unit in front of it?

Often I am finding I am having to select my man, or unit and tell them to fire on enemy units when they are only a short distance away.

Id be happy to sit there and detail many more points, but would any of it be taken in to consideration anyway?