On track? - Page 2

Joe 98 · #11 June 12th, 2003, 03:18 AM

My view is that game play always comes first

But we have been blessed with good graphics in recent years.

If a new game comes out with great game play but the graphics are worse, then it is a real turn off. My example is Airborne Assault.

The maps of the original game are so horrible. I started to play the demo to the original game but the poor maps are a real turn off.

Then I discovered that Matrix are to publish the sequel. I saw some screen shots of new maps to be used for the sequel. They are very nice.

I immediately loaded the demo of the original yet again and this time I spent some time playing it.

I found a beaut new wargame. It is unique. It is riveting. I will get the sequel when it is released.

But the graphics of the original are just so horrible, I have no desire to get the original.

We must convert the �Maybe� players to wargaming. How could they possibly discover wargaming if they never see a wargame?

If wargames had a �realism� option we wargamers would always turn �realism� on. The �Maybes� would probably begin by turning �realism� off.

But the game sales would be higher and some of the �Maybes� would become one of �Us� � real wargamers.

Deandx · #12 June 25th, 2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CC2fan:
... I'm watching a show on the 82nd airborne ( The True Story of the Screaming Eagles ) on the history channel right now. Its an amazing piece of history that I know very little about.

I'm pretty sure that the 101st were the Screaming Eagles, not the 82nd. Just an FYI.

foxtrot · #13 June 29th, 2003, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CC2fan:
... I'm watching a show on the 82nd airborne ( The True Story of the Screaming Eagles ) on the history channel right now. Its an amazing piece of history that I know very little about.

I'm pretty sure that the 101st were the Screaming Eagles, not the 82nd. Just an FYI.

You're right, but this was the subtitle of the program as it broke for commercials. It didn't sound right to me at the time but I typed it in anyway as I was pressed for time. To be sure I recorded one of the breaks on the vcr and copied it. Later I went on the web to each units web site and confirmed my beliefs.

To be fair to The History Channel they were talking about actions of both units from D-Day on. It was a strange way to label the program, but thats how they did it.

I figured someone would call me on it sooner or later.

Joe 98 · #14 June 30th, 2003, 11:51 PM

A timeline:

This game was set to go Gold in June 2000

This game is being developed on WIN XP

WIN XP was released in October 2001

This game is now set to go gold in July 2003

Its now July, are we close to going gold?

Where are the screen shots? To take and upload them takes 5 mins - I have done it myself.

Richard · #15 July 1st, 2003, 01:28 AM

We are very close, in fact the code is fairly solid at this point. The remaining maps and scenarios need to be done, and that is a very time intensive task. We're a small company and we have to pay the bills first, and finish the game as we are able.

I won't give a date because we cannot promise anything, but it if we can get some solid time (barring any disasters) with the game in the coming weeks it should be sooner rather than later.

Richard · #16 July 1st, 2003, 01:28 AM

Screenshots are on the product pages BTW.

Richard · #17 July 1st, 2003, 01:31 AM

Oh and BTW we aren't doing this to sell "more profitable games". 82nd will be one of our larger selling games, once it is out, so if money were our aim we would shove it out right now.

The fact is that when you are a small company, with a small staff, you do what you can do and that is all you can do

.

Joe 98 · #18 July 1st, 2003, 05:39 AM

I was hoping for updated screen shots as per Tim's post below.

From an accounting perspective, if people have paid for this game, then you must credit the receipt to a liability account.

If you use those receipts to fund your other projects, then you are not matching income against expenses. It�s a common cause of business failure.

reimero · #19 July 1st, 2003, 03:43 PM

I'm not an expert on the subject, but my understanding of the situation is this:
-Tim was sick of getting the runaround from "the suits" at major game distributors.
-Tim took what funds and knowledge he had and founded Shrapnel Games with the idea that smaller developers could get their games published and get a fair shake. All-American was to be the flagship product.
-Developers signed on left and right with their own games (in many cases, ready to rumble), meaning that All-American had to be delayed while the programming staff focused on marketing other games and running their company.

I think it's fair to say Shrapnel has grown faster and further than anyone could have imagined. This is a good thing. As I said, I'm not an expert on the matter, but it's not an issue of funnelling funds aside, it's really one of the drawbacks to an otherwise remarkable success story.

And I have it on good authority that All-American IS alive and well and will be worth the wait.

Joe 98 · #20 July 14th, 2003, 12:51 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Tim Brooks:

it looks like Gold in July sometime with an August release. Based on testing, this could slide either way, but I feel confident with these timeframes......screenshots in a few weeks![/QUOTE

How is the time frame going?

"screenshots in a few weeks" a few weeks is now up

[ July 13, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Joe 98 ]