From gould@bnr.ca Thu Oct 10 01:09:26 EDT 1996 Article: 186359 of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Path: prism!gt-news!gatech!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bmtlh10.bnr.ca!news From: gould@bnr.ca (Doug Gould) Newsgroups: alt.games.mechwarrior2,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Subject: Re: Activision sucks! [was: ...MW2's Mechlab in Mercs] Date: 04 Oct 1996 14:23:16 -0400 Organization: Nortel Lines: 193 Message-ID: References: <324CA3DA.2DF8@alumni.caltech.edu> <52qrog$45j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <52s3ul$582@news1.halcyon.com> <01bbafff.4d189ac0$476c4fce@JMamais.activision.com> <32532C23.4220@activision.com> <325421D5.5C0A@activision.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bmtlh653.bnr.ca In-reply-to: Tim Morten's message of Thu, 03 Oct 1996 13:28:05 -0700 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.1 Status: RO In article <325421D5.5C0A@activision.com> Tim Morten writes: > Ah, you seem to be of the demented belief that the newsgroup represents > our entire user base. Reality check buddy: this is where the core > gamers live, not the average consumers. True; core gamers live here - and from what I have read and heard, core gamers have a lot of gripes about Mercs. If you compare the postings that have appeared over the last week to the postings that appeared Spring '95 after the initial release of MW2 you will see a marked difference. Discounting my subject, "Activision sucks!", which I will admit to composing while feeling let down by Activision, most of the other threads that have been posted are not very flattering: (These are from alt.games.mechwarrior2 where most of the discussion) MERCS: I think it's time to hear from Activision... Mercs: The Good the Bad, and the downright Ugly MW2 - Mercenaries, What's the deal with salvage? Why Mercs is Buggy... is Merc wort[h] the money More Bugs or are they features? Unmentioned Bugs... Your problem reports are helping Raise your hand if you want MW2's Mechlab in Mercs What Happened? (was: Re: Mech lab petition) MERCS BUG LIST - ADD YOUR INPUT Mercs Australian Release Date Sux! Petition for old Mech lab for Mercs MW2:Mercs - Overcoming the Unlimited ammo bug Mercnet Problems MERCS IS A BAD PRODUCT Mercs vs Mechwarrior I [ Sheesh! People are comparing your product to one that was released ten years ago. Imagine people arguing about whether Wing Commander I or Space Invaders was a superior product. ] And about 15 other threads that are neutral or positive. It was not like this for MW2 or GBL. The only problem back then was the 'right arm' bug. > > > > > Really? What's so different? As it stands, you did a complete > > redesign of the mech design system. At least you could have > > redesigned it along the same lines. But no, you had to throw out the > > original workable system, and come up with one that everyone hates. > > Good move. > > > > Differences: ability to handle in-game economy, conformity to BattleTech > rules, ability to switch between IS and clan tech, a MUCH expanded list > of items in each category, etc. > > Our goal was not to come up with a design people hated (duh). The real > problem was that we introduced bugs and did not include a stats. These > will be remedied in the patch. Of course you didn't *intend* to make it worse. I'm sure you thought that revamping the system would make it better - and maybe after the patch it will be. However, it seems that you're putting effort towards "improving" something that, after all, is mostly dressing. I could live with a really awful mech design system if the game itself was truly awesome. I think the programmers/designers/testers/planners time could be better spent making an option to allow a user to configure turret turning as absolute or relative. What would it take? 4,5,6 man weeks? I mean Joystick code isn't rocket science. > > 3. You ruined the mech lab > > Opinion; I believe the bug fixes and addition of stats will remedy this. We'll see. > > 5. The AI can shoot better, but still has some serious problems. > > AI shoots better, groups weapons, has several new manouvers, and does > NOT have problems that I am aware of. Lance mates and enemies are still dumb as knobs when it comes to selecting targets. 'Engage at will' doesn't. All enemies still target the leader. This is not so much of a problem if you want to do only solo missions, but why even bother having lance mates if they won't even soak up a little damage? > Well, you're omitting internet play, Fine. Internet play. I'm sure some people will be very happy with it. I, for one, cannot abide with the lag time. Modem or LAN are the only multi-player options for me. > non-linear mission path through > twice as many missions as MW2, randomly generated missions, 35 new mechs > plus all the mechs and weapons from MW2 and GBL, IS technology... I > could go on. > Fine. More missions more gadgets. Nothing wrong with that. > > Furthermore, you "Tim Morten" seemed to indicate that this problem > > would be fixed in a patch to MW2. Now more than a year, a patch and > > two releases later, the joystick behaves the same way. > > We discussed addressing this problem and decided not to. Which is my point. You decided not to. Activision's interests and mine are diverging. Activision decided to improve the graphics engine. Activision decided to revamp the mech lab. Activision decided to release the product early with lots of bugs in, and none of the old bugs (joystick control is a bug IMO) fixed. I decided not to buy it. Maybe for every person of my mind set there are ten who'll say "Ooo, pretty!" and fork over the cash. Which, I guess will be good for Activision. However, in my mind, Activision has lost a lot of the respect I used to have for them. MW2 was a good product. Mercenaries, as it stands right now, doesn't seem to be. It's simply a revamp of a revamp, with bugs added. I guess that Mercenaries is just following the current trend of all flash - no guts games. I been saying and hearing it for years. The problem with games nowadays is that companies think they can slap a few pretty pictures on an otherwise unremarkable piece of code and expect it to sell. Trouble is that sometimes they're right. The only way to combat this trend is to demand quality. Quality is what I demand. > In all honesty > I am sorry about that: I wish we _could_ make everyone happy. There > just isn't enough time to implement every single feature that this > person or that person cares passionately about. > This small feature has always been big problem. Maybe you just don't realize how important the interface to a game is. Part of the user interface is the wonderful texture-mapped graphics. On this side Mercenaries is more than adequate. - But what the user sees is only half the picture, so to speak. A game is not a movie, the whole basis for a computer game is interaction. Why don't people like me like interactive movies? The answer is that they aren't nearly interactive enough. To be truly interactive a game must pay attention to the other half of the picture - input devices. MW2 did a heroic job of providing a flexible, easy to use, customizable input. The support for the advanced control devices is one of the big pluses of the game, but there is a big black spot that marrs this near perfect interface, and this, of course, is the very primitive, hard to use, impossible to aim, absolute joystick control for the turret. I'm very disappointed that Activision has done *nothing* to improve this, while they have spent a big portion of their effort improving the graphics. > > Maybe you've been changed for the worse by your time at Activision. > > Back then, you were pained to see frustrated users. Now you seem > > miffed that we are still frustrated. I think you should try to keep > > the customer focus in mind. I am a potential customer that you have > > lost, and I know that there are many more like me that are also > > disappointed with the product they had (foolishly) bought, or are > > disillusioned with Activision's response to their concerns. > > Look, I wouldn't be reading these messages (or responding to them) if I > didn't care about consumer perspective. Problem is, we have a lot of > people to keep happy, and they don't all agree with each other on what's > best. I'm sure you do care about consumer perspective. If the masses won't buy your product, Activision will be in trouble. Your presence on the 'net is damage control. You are interested in selling your product. I, on the other hand, am interested in buying a *quality* product. Not necessarily one with the MW2 stamp on it. Activision can win back my support by making the 1.05 patch count. I am telling you now, that the joystick fix was, and is, important to me. If it's fixed, you'll be selling at least one extra copy. I can't speak for everyone else but I'm sure you'll convince a few more people. Whether the joystick fix would convince one or ten or a thousand customers is something that I simply don't know. How many people actually look into a product before they purchase it? I imagine that more and more people purchase computer games based on the packaging. I don't. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide what you are going to do with Mercenaries. I hope that 1.05 changes my mind. Sincerely, Doug Gould /* These opinions are mine, not Nortel's */ -- Douglas Gould - gould@nortel.ca ( Nortel Montreal )