WWII Online 14day Trial

[SirBruce]

Okay, so just to make a point, and actually check into the accusations of incompetency I've been making, I decided to suffer for my art and sign up for the trial:

Good for you!  Let's hope you actually spend some time playing the game and not complaining about the artiwork.  You might actually have fun.

Bruce

PS - I agree about the poor UI; that's why it's one of the things being changed for Beyond Blitzkrieg.

[AOFanboi]

Is this the part where someone accuses Bruce of shilling and he gets banned for 4 months until the forums vomit and we all stand around talking about how he's probably a cool guy now and we should let him back in, and then we do and he gets banned again?

I'd rather suggest this is the part where SirBruce gets red-named for Cornered Rat Studios, title "Mouth of Sauron" or something along those lines.

[HaemishM]

No, I'm suggesting that if ATitD or Puzzle Pirates had a box at release, they'd probably have garnered more subs than WWII Online currently has

Again, not the point.  The point is how many subs they have relative to what they could have in their genre.

What genre is that? MMOG's in general, in which case that's a goddamn wide open field. Which somehow compares it to Everquest, Ultima Online, Horizons, etc. Or could it be the genre of computer games? In which case, we've lost the map and Clark W. Griswold is about to drive us off a cliff.

However, if you actually look at the games, ATitD is an online crafting and politics simulation, with people. It has nothing like it that I can think of. It has pieces and parts of other genres, but it is unique. The closest thing I can think of that's graphical is maybe some of the Shadowbane politics, but then, Shadowbane is less about politics and more about killing. While ATitD is about harvesting flax. The two audiences are wholly dissimilar, though some overlap applies.

BF1942 and WWII Online are comparable. ATitD and WoW are not, because they are two totally dissimilar type of games.

And that's what you don't understand.  BF1942 and WWII Online are NOT any more compareable.  They are dissimilar.

Let's see, they are both about first-person perspective combat in a World War II setting, with the ability to play both as vehicles and infantry, and with team-based gameplay. While they may play differently owing to a lot of things, including lack of competence on dev teams, online infastructure, etc., they are in a much closer boat than ATitD and Shadowbane, or Puzzle Pirates and WoW.

The MMOG "genre" has too many options now to consider it as a genre. The market may be stuffed full with EQ-clones, that is only one genre in the online arena. As far as the number of subs ATitD or PP "could have," that number is currently and at their respective releases, much less than WWII Online could have had, simply based on the fact that WWII Online had a box on the shelf. The fact that CRS decided putting a silvery turd in a box and releasing it was a good idea shows a great deal about the company.

[dusematic]

FFS, I remember when Bruce went on a WoW hating diatribe because some of his quests were elite, and he thought the developers were trying to shoehorn him into a group oriented playstyle.  All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK?  You're going to nitpick about a few elite quests making content unaccessible to you, and then defend this bush league cat terd?  This is how people go crazy, wondering how other people could be so crazy.

[Big Gulp]

All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK?  You're going to nitpick about a few elite quests making content unaccessible to you, and then defend this bush league cat terd?

See:  Involvement, Financial

[WayAbvPar]

Also, head, rectally inserted.

[Hoax]

But what I said before still applies to an ultimate vision of the game, and explains why they are still some imblances in the game that you do see in some areas.  But again, that's just my opinion -- nothing about the game's ultimate direction is written in stone.

Bruce

Except for that it will obviously suck?  I'm sorry those ss's are just so goddamn fugly I can't imagine playing the game and I really dont give two halfs of a shit about gfx over gameplay.  

I feel there is a reason why historic war recreation should stick to turn based hex map games, its the same reason that MEO will suck.  Some things are too fucking grand to let people run around in them all willy nilly without it being either a shoddy fps/rts/mmog or a inaccurate pos recreation of something a world/event that is, well better then some fps/rts/mmog hybrid.

[Krakrok]

Okay, so just to make a point, and actually check into the accusations of incompetency I've been making, I decided to suffer for my art and sign up for the trial:

Be thankful they are using SpeedTreeRT for the trees and not the cardboard cutouts they use to have.


Hello, middleware developers? More plugin graphics solutions kthx.

[El Gallo]

Oh, man.   I've just said Serek Dmart three times, haven't I?

You've undone all the good you've done in this thread.  In fact, you've undone all the good you have ever done, and all the good you will ever do.  Lord have mercy on your soul.

[SirBruce]

FFS, I remember when Bruce went on a WoW hating diatribe because some of his quests were elite, and he thought the developers were trying to shoehorn him into a group oriented playstyle.  All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK?  You're going to nitpick about a few elite quests making content unaccessible to you, and then defend this bush league cat terd?  This is how people go crazy, wondering how other people could be so crazy.

No, I'm just able to separate my personal tastes from objective ones.  My complaint about WoW was simply my own personal taste for solo PvE content -- that's the game *I* want to play.  But if someone wants to make a game that appeals to a different type of player, they are welcome to do that.  WWII Online doesn't particularly appeal to me either; it is fun in some ways, but I prefer shorter play sessions in my FPS experiences.

Bruce

[Brolan]

CRS intent IS to create a Red vs. Blue games.  They have said many times that they are not trying to re-create WWII but create a WWII simulator that people battle in.  So in that way WWIIOL is not much better than BF 1942.  Sure the vehicles are modelled more realisticly but historical events will never unwind as they did because of the balancing factored into the game.

You're wrong on Red vs. Blue (in fact, they've said many times they don't want that), but you're right when you say it's not strictly a WWII re-creation, etc.  But Red vs. Blue is beyond that; it means things like balanced equipment, etc.  But as to historical events not unwinding due to game balancing, again, this is because the game right now doesn't have things like the Italians, the Russians, multiple theatres, etc.

But what I said before still applies to an ultimate vision of the game, and explains why they are still some imblances in the game that you do see in some areas.  But again, that's just my opinion -- nothing about the game's ultimate direction is written in stone.

Bruce

You can't have it both ways.  Either the game is a historical recreation of WWII combat or it is not.  If you alter the timeline when units appear and alter the quantities of the those units for BALANCE purposes then you have the elements of a Red vs. Blue game.

[Shannow]

I'd bother argueing but I know theres no point. I'll just enjoy the game. You guys can enjoy yours. I hope yours dont die because I know how much YOU must enjoy even I don't like them myself.

[SirBruce]

You can't have it both ways.  Either the game is a historical recreation of WWII combat or it is not.  If you alter the timeline when units appear and alter the quantities of the those units for BALANCE purposes then you have the elements of a Red vs. Blue game.

My first post was about my personal, ultimate vision of the game.  I said that in the meantime, allowances have to be made for balance purposes.  And even then, I don't control the content of the game -- if I did, it wouldn't have shipped like it did.  As for Red vs. Blue, yes, you have elements of it, but Red vs. Blue implies far more parity than what CRS is talking about.

Bruce

[Ixxit]

Soldner

[sinij]

WW2OL should be changed into flying tanks sim, this way it won't be competing with any other game out there.

[Comstar]

The game is still hopelessly unbalanced as the poor Brits are expected to take on Panzer 4Gs and StugG (with 75mm guns) with the paper-thin armored Crusader III with a 57mm gun.  Fun.

Actually in the current campagin the allies have the Crud III (and yes, it was and is a piece of equimpent that is conisdered crap both in the game, and histoircally) and the axis do NOT have any tanks with long barreled 75mm guns. The Crusader III DOES outperform all the other german tanks below it. The allies have spent the last 4 weeks bombing the axis factories flat (because last campgain, the axis bombed the french factories flat, and stopped them from getting any new Shermans or P38's).

Just like the Matilda II does over all the axis 1st tier tanks.

[Comstar]

The best example of this is the Battle of France 1940. We have played and replayed it so often it is boring, but never have the Axis done as well as they did historically.

Not true. One campagin after the allies won a very long one, the axis reached the channel in 72 hours. And the ALLIES are considered to having the harder time to get a victory, because the Axis generally win...

[Comstar]

Let's see, they are both about first-person perspective combat in a World War II setting, with the ability to play both as vehicles and infantry, and with team-based gameplay. While they may play differently owing to a lot of things, including lack of competence on dev teams, online infastructure, etc., they are in a much closer boat than ATitD and Shadowbane, or Puzzle Pirates and WoW.

Well YES it is closer than The Sims online or Gemstone III. But Saying BF1942 is in the same context as WW2OL is like saying Falcon 4.0 is in the same context as Crimson Skies. One is a simulator, the other is not.  And Simulators are generally not nearly as big as more standard games are these dayes. Sillent Hunter III is well made from everything I've heard. It is not going to sell as many boxes as Grand Turismo IV.

For that matter, if BF1942 Online is going to be so good, surly someone out there would see that too and make it? How's Planetside going these days? If you want it to be populer, make a well made EQclone. A well made Falcon 4.0 Online or Operation Flashpoint Online won't be much fun if you're the soviet/DPRK hordes. So that leaves WW2 or SciFi.

Mabye Battletech Online with battles bigger than 8 people at a time might have done it, but that hasn't worked either (From what I understand happened to Planetside).

I suspect we'll have to see how Auto Assault goes to see if a MMOG PvP game can work, because so far none of the other PvP games seem to have been the big hits they were supposed to be.


Incerdently, the UI for taking missons is being complety redesigned for the re-release. As is the 1st person and 3rd person guns. The buildings are gradualy being redone, and all the pics in THIS thread are of the old city blocks you find in the few very large cities. All the buildings done in the last year have solid 3D walls (though the stairs remain 2D. Yes, Polys DO count when you can see for 4kms it seems, even in the buildings. And the old 64 limit no longer applies if you can handle more units tp be tracked).  The game needs a paper manual, I do not know if there will be one or not with the re-release. The game very much does needs a tutorial.

[Big Gulp]

Yes, Polys DO count when you can see for 4kms it seems, even in the buildings.

I get sooo tired of hearing this horseshit.  As though WWII Online were the first game to ever have a long view distance.  It's called LOD, fucknuts.  This game isn't ugly because of hardware limitations, it's ugly because of incompetence.  Yeah, those sub-1999 level of graphics are necessary because you're just pushing out so much goddamned information...  Puhlease.

[Brolan]

The game is still hopelessly unbalanced as the poor Brits are expected to take on Panzer 4Gs and StugG (with 75mm guns) with the paper-thin armored Crusader III with a 57mm gun.  Fun.

Actually in the current campagin the allies have the Crud III (and yes, it was and is a piece of equimpent that is conisdered crap both in the game, and histoircally) and the axis do NOT have any tanks with long barreled 75mm guns. The Crusader III DOES outperform all the other german tanks below it. The allies have spent the last 4 weeks bombing the axis factories flat (because last campgain, the axis bombed the french factories flat, and stopped them from getting any new Shermans or P38's).

Just like the Matilda II does over all the axis 1st tier tanks.

The events of current campaign are interesting but it doesn't alter the current tier structure CRS has for the game.  As it currently stands the Crusader III is the BEST tank the brits will ever have.  And the Axis will get their 75mm tanks if they survive long enough.

And since you bring up the current campaign it is interesting how the GHC is insisting on maintaining their assault from Antwerp when there are Allied units in Germany.  Really there should be a game mechanic to stop this since I would not believe Hitler would allow this to happen.

[Big Gulp]

This was just too funny to pass up, so I figured I would throw it up there for our mutual mockery.  This is from their support forums, where one of the people in the trial posted a problem with the game running slow.  The response?

Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.80GHz
Memory: 512MB RAM   

Both of these are below the reccomended specs for WWIIOL. The game will always run a bit slow on that computer, but we can help make it a bit faster. Make sure that you close all unnecessary programs before launching WWIIOL.

I also noticed that most of your drivers are very out of date. You need to update the drivers for you motherboard, video card and sound card. All of these will help make the game more playable for you.

[WayAbvPar]

The battle cry has been 'Buy more RAM' for years and years. It does help a bit, but the game runs like shit on anything but a bleeding edge system (at least it did the last time I played, a couple of years ago).

[SirBruce]

Yes, the graphics are actually much upgraded from what they were at release, so requirements have gone up considerably.  The latest are 1.2 GHz CPU (2 GHz Recommended) and 512 MB of RAM (1GB Recommended).  This is yet another reaosn why this will remain a niche game.  For those people unlike Big Guilp who understand there is more to graphics than high-res bitmaps and multiple LoDs (which WW2OL already has anyway), this is acceptable.

Bruce

[Sky]

It's not that we don't understand, it's that it looks like shit. And takes a nice computer to look like shit. I would think most logical people would say that's shitty.

I know you're not CRS, Bruce, but you sound like SOE. Only you never hit the eventual stage of acceptance after repeated denials.

I'd wager many of use would love to play WWIIOL if it were done right. But I guess you have that core audience to stick with...so good luck with that. But if you're just after grognards and don't care about graphics, why not just use a map and counters?

[WayAbvPar]

Nothing to see here, folks. Just the onset of dementia...

[Big Gulp]

Nothing to see here, move along.

[SirBruce]

It's not that we don't understand, it's that it looks like shit. And takes a nice computer to look like shit. I would think most logical people would say that's shitty.

If all they cared about was how the graphics compared to other games they view as similar, sure.  Those who care about more than that, though, will understand why the graphics are the way they are.  Could they be better?  Sure.  Will they ever be compareable to the latest 64-person FPS?  No, nor should they be, because on other metrics (like view distance) WWIIOL will have the edge.

I know you're not CRS, Bruce, but you sound like SOE. Only you never hit the eventual stage of acceptance after repeated denials.

It has nothing to do with acceptance.  It has to do with a matter of funds.  Give me $20 million and I'll give you a BF1942 MMOG, but it won't be the same game.  In the meantime one needs to accept WWIIOL for what it is, just like one accepts that UO ain't going to be the latest 3D MMORPG.

I'd wager many of use would love to play WWIIOL if it were done right. But I guess you have that core audience to stick with...so good luck with that. But if you're just after grognards and don't care about graphics, why not just use a map and counters?

Because we understand those grognards better than you, apparrently.  (Hint: they don't just want a map and counters!)

Bruce

[Sky]

Hey, I finally got you to SirBruce me!

 :-D

[HaemishM]

Hey, I finally got you to SirBruce me!

 :-D

That burning sensation you feel from the rear won't go away without penicillin.

[schild]

Why the fuck does any game that only requires a 1.2ghz processor need 1gig of RAM? Are some coders having crazy issues with memory leaks that they think are intentional? Wouldn't surprise me. Oh, game is still damned ugly.

[SirBruce]

My guess is that certain assumptions were made when the Unity engine was designed.  Since then the size of the world and level of detail have increased considerably.  Since there are no zones, perhaps all the textures of pre-loaded into memory.  This is just a guess, though; I don't really know.  All I know is Unity II will address some problems with memory footprint, but that probably won't come out until next year with North Africa.

Bruce