Question for the Developers? - Page 2

moodgiesanta · #11 February 17th, 2004, 11:52 PM

I'm all for Shrapnel Games, myself. This game, aside from the graphics (which are functional and pretty decent in that respect but not Halflife 2 by any means) doesn't feel independant. I think a game such as this would not do well on the big market. Europa Universalis got a sequel, which is an absolute blessing IMO, so I'm thinking it sold OK at least, or had very low costs, since it was essentially a translation for release over here in the US, but I'm not sure how much the developers got out of that. Besides, the documentation for that game was awful, the packagin unimpressing. Post release support has been pretty good, though, which to me is important. A lot of developers stop getting paid for the product after they end development, and aren't paid any more for patches. This game feels like a work of passion, too.

This hasn't been the most coherent of Posts, but hey. If it works for them, cool, because as incredible quality games like this one keep coming from ol' Shrapnel games and the games get coverage from various media, perhaps Shrapnel's business model will be seen as viable, inducing more indie productions and more companies in the field.

En Forcer · #12 February 18th, 2004, 12:06 AM

Tim,

That is interesting to know that developers are jumping ship from Matrix.

I did not know this and have based my opinion on the quality of Matrix from the viewpoint of a consumer and also from chats on their forums (which may have been more pro-Matrix for obvious reasons...)

Well, if they are all jumping ship, maybe you can send a press kit to the folks still on their roster?

I don't know too much about how you run Shrapnel but it sounds like you care and are a gamer as well as a businessman. Passion for the industry is all I can ask for and I'm confident that combination will deliver a superior product at a good price and I'll be happy and the developers will too!

Good luck and here's to all the success you can eat.

Peter Ebbesen · #13 February 18th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by moodgiesanta:
I think a game such as this would not do well on the big market. Europa Universalis got a sequel, which is an absolute blessing IMO, so I'm thinking it sold OK at least, or had very low costs, since it was essentially a translation for release over here in the US, but I'm not sure how much the developers got out of that. Besides, the documentation for that game was awful, the packagin unimpressing. Post release support has been pretty good, though, which to me is important.

"Pretty Good"??? Paradox is still releasing patches with feature upgrades more than two years after EU2 was published. That is not just "pretty good", that is exceptional.

Gandalf Parker · #14 February 18th, 2004, 12:40 AM

Hmmmm wonder if we can get the Shrapenl folks to talk to the Stars folks.

moodgiesanta · #15 February 18th, 2004, 12:41 AM

It's been two years?

Yes, I change my response after that. I didn't realise I've had that game for so long . . . wow. Where has the time gone? Yeah, I was still in high school when that gaem came out . . . yipes.

Peter Ebbesen · #16 February 18th, 2004, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by moodgiesanta:
It's been two years? Yes, I change my response after that. I didn't realise I've had that game for so long . . . wow. Where has the time gone? Yeah, I was still in high school when that gaem came out . . . yipes.

Well, it is because the game is the favourite hobby of the Paradox lead programmer, Johan Andersson. Whenever he finishes another project or goes on vacation, new patches seem to magically materialise

Arryn · #17 February 18th, 2004, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Well, it is because the game is the favourite hobby of the Paradox lead programmer, Johan Andersson. Whenever he finishes another project or goes on vacation, new patches seem to magically materialise

It's too bad that none of these patches have ever addressed the fundamental weakness of EU/EU2/HoI: a monumentally stupid AI. Dominions II AI is by far better, even with the spellcasting and shoot-your-own-troops flaws.

Richard · #18 February 18th, 2004, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Hmmmm wonder if we can get the Shrapenl folks to talk to the Stars folks.

Actually I have talked to the Stars folks. The problem is they need funding, and a lot of it.

Gandalf Parker · #19 February 18th, 2004, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard:

quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Hmmmm wonder if we can get the Shrapenl folks to talk to the Stars folks.

Actually I have talked to the Stars folks. The problem is they need funding, and a lot of it.

Well OK. I can understand backing off. Although they do seem to have a huge ready-made market waiting for them. Anyway, thanks for giving them a shot.

Peter Ebbesen · #20 February 18th, 2004, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:
It's too bad that none of these patches have ever addressed the fundamental weakness of EU/EU2/HoI: a monumentally stupid AI. Dominions II AI is by far better, even with the spellcasting and shoot-your-own-troops flaws.

EU2 runs real time with typically 40-100 different factions active at the same time, Dominions 2 is turn based with fewer factions and sometimes spends 30 seconds or more computing a turn on my 2.4Ghz machine. Guess which can allocate most CPU cycles to the AI?

The EU2 AI throws attacks at stupid provinces, repeatedly, often with too few forces, and when it has enough forces, it wastes untold number of troops to attrition. In comparison, the Dominions II AI throws attacks at stupid provinces, repeatedly, often with too few forces, and when it has enough forces, it wastes untold numbers of troops to attrition.... Hmmm. wait a moment...

As for monumentally stupid, in my experience that is a label that one eventually, unfairly or not, tends to put on any AI as soon as one has learned how to beat it. I am still new enough to Dominions II, having only had it for a month, to be impressed by the fight the AI can put up - but I am already beating it on a regular basis when fighting against a full roster of "impossible" AIs.

That does not mean that the AI is bad - it just means that I am better at taking advantage of its weaknesses that it is of mine, and that I am far, far, better at projecting the long-term outcome of my actions than the AI is, but so what else is new? That is the case in all strategy games.