|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: PeterPeter Date: Dec 26, 2006 00:30
Is this game by HPS any good on par with TAOW or is it as complicated
at War plan Orange
|
| |
|
| | 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rob PollardRob Pollard Date: Dec 26, 2006 02:41
When it first came out around 2 years ago, you couldn't complete a move
without a c++ exception happening. Nowadays it is a very stable product.
As Ed has mentioned, you cannot compare this to TAO because it is a tactical
game and not an operational one.
Is it complicated? Yes, but you don't need to expose yourself to the
complexity as a lot of it is hidden away under the hood. The only time the
game gets complicated is if you decide to play with full Fog-of-War (FoW).
Full FoW in POA2 applies to your own troops as well as the enemy troops!
This means that you have to read between the lines before giving orders as
even the position of your own men may not be accurate. I love playing it in
this mode, although there is no actual requirement to.
We had a pretty good discussion about friendly FoW effects at the following
url:
http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/point-attack-2/45779-friendly-fow-question.ht... far as I'm aware no other game models...
|
| Show full article (4.03Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Rob PollardRob Pollard Date: Dec 26, 2006 02:52
Formatting went a bit weird on the previous post - here is the updated
version:
When it first came out around 2 years ago, you couldn't complete a move
without a c++ exception happening. Nowadays it is a very stable product.
As Ed has mentioned, you cannot compare this to TAO because it is a tactical
game and not an operational one.
Is it complicated? Yes, but you don't need to expose yourself to the
complexity as a lot of it is hidden away under the hood. The only time the
game gets complicated is if you decide to play with full Fog-of-War (FoW).
Full FoW in POA2 applies to your own troops as well as the enemy troops!
This means that you have to read between the lines before giving orders as
even the position of your own men may not be accurate. I love playing it in
this mode, although there is no actual requirement to.
We had a pretty good discussion about friendly FoW effects at the following
url:
http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/point-attack-2/45779-friendly-fow-question.ht... far as I'm aware no other game models...
|
| Show full article (4.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Luca MorandiniLuca Morandini Date: Dec 26, 2006 10:40
Giftzwerg wrote:
>> If you are looking for a SIMULATION of contemporary modern warfare you
>> can use to test what if's then POA2 will fill the bill. If you're
>> looking for a WARGAME then save your money.
>
> Can we see your comprehensive, side-by-side bill of particulars
> comparing the precise differences between a "simulation" and a "game?"
This is going to be entertaining... hold on a sec while a get a bushel
of popcorn ;)
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: GiftzwergGiftzwerg Date: Dec 26, 2006 11:06
>>> If you are looking for a SIMULATION of contemporary modern warfare you
>>> can use to test what if's then POA2 will fill the bill. If you're
>>> looking for a WARGAME then save your money.
>>
>> Can we see your comprehensive, side-by-side bill of particulars
>> comparing the precise differences between a "simulation" and a "game?"
>
> This is going to be entertaining... hold on a sec while a get a bushel
> of popcorn ;)
I just become nervous when criticism of a wargame is "answered" by an
assertion that the thing in question isn't a wargame at all, but a
"simulation." So I have to say I'm a little fuzzy on the distinction as
it applies here.
|
| Show full article (2.55Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: eddysterckxeddysterckx Date: Dec 27, 2006 04:19
Rob Pollard schreef:
> There are two reasons POA2 failed.
>
> i. Releasing a product that was initially not fit for purpose.
Capitalism works, despite the best efforts of official reviewers ...
> Despite POA2 being very good now, it is contously fighting its
> image as a very buggy peice of software thanks to the poor desicion to
> release it before it was ready.
I think Mr. Hamilton admitted as much in a forum post somewhere. Live
and learn I guess - customers are going to be very wary regarding his
next game so chances are it's going to be tested very rigorously this
time.
> ii. Maps. Yup these things are very difficult to create from scratch.
Never mind that you need a *separate* $50 program to create them
(ADC2). Part of the poor performance of POA2 is also due to the fact
ADC2 only works with BMP files. Caveat : that was the status 3 years
ago, things might have changed.
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: GiftzwergGiftzwerg Date: Dec 27, 2006 04:27
In article fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
robertapollard@hotmail.com says...
> Say it as you see it! POA2 when released was the biggest pile of steaming
> poo ever. Every turn would be plagued by C++ exceptions. I was one of the
> suckers who bought the original and was very disapointed. The part that
> annoyed the most is that someone somewhere made a concious descision to
> release POA2 in the state that it was in. That was a very bad descision and
> probably did a lot more damage than good.
>
> POA2 as of today is remarkably stable and produces results that one can
> rely on. It is a remarkable peice of software and very entertaining. I run
> it on full detail so turns tend to chug allong as you get reports of every
> bullet etc. The game/sim comes with a HQ of staff that one can rely on to
> carry out their orders.
See, you seem a credible fellow, and I haven't the slightest reason to
believe you're not entirely accurate in believing that POA2 is now 100%%
stable. So I'm tempted to just let this criticism go.
But...
|
| Show full article (3.08Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: GiftzwergGiftzwerg Date: Dec 27, 2006 04:36
> IMO - One of the reasons POA2 has failed on the commercial market is
> because those who purchased it played it like a wargame, expecting to
> push around little pieces and have combat abstracted by the equivalent
> of the roll of a six sided die. That's not POA2. Run it and pretend to
> sit in the Bn Commanders seat - it becomes a whole diffferent
> experience. Unfortunately that level of control REALLY doesn't appeal to
> the average gamer (they say they want reality but really don't). What
> the average player really wants as far as game control is concerned is
> to be GOD. I imagine most Bn CO's would like that power too but alas
> they want ever see it in real life and if run as it is meant to be run
> you won't see it in POA2 either .
Yeah, but all this is a *good* thing, and I certainly never criticized
POA2 because it tried for an accurate representation of command issues.
I love this kind of thing, and the more of it, the better.
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: eddysterckxeddysterckx Date: Dec 27, 2006 04:39
Giftzwerg schreef:
> Wargamer.com's obsequious little "review," for example, somehow fails to
> mention that *in the state they reviewed it in* it was "the biggest pile
> of steaming poo ever." In fact, I don't recall it even *mentioning* any
> bugs, and people who bought POA2 were very quickly complaining of no-
> shit showstopper-magnitude bugs - far more than the usual teething-type
> issues.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GiftzwergGiftzwerg Date: Dec 28, 2006 04:13
> In the case of Mr. Cobb I think it's because he genuinly likes his
> wargames, always looking at it from the bright side, believing that
> bugs encountered will be fixed asap.
This is kind of a "Jim Cobb" review of Knobb's reviewing track record.
> What do you do when you clobber a
> particular game for having too many bugs and 2 weeks after your review
> is published the patch appears which fixes most of them, making your
> review worthless ?
Publish an update, right at the top of the review, stating that the bugs
have been fixed?
> So he focusses on the things the developer wanted to achieve, not at
> all on how this actually is implemented at the time of the review.
That's where he and I differ. I could give a shit if the developer
"wanted to achieve" hot and cold running blowjobs; the job of a reviewer
is to discuss what the developer *actually achieved* in the released
product.
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
