Uh-Oh Q1 03

[Spaced Cowboy]

I agree about the fun factor. I thought that reach for the stars was going to be good and fun too. However, the demo showed me that it was not.

[Hagbart]

It is more important that they make a good and FINISHED game.

[vmxa1]

For those who hope for third quarter or 4th qtr release, Avault posted 12/02/02 as the latest date, so it keeps slipping.

[Hagbart]

That seems like a nice date. I can wait!

[vmxa1]

Yeah, I have plenty to play.

[Straybow]

Sucker!

I think when a pre-order says it will be delayed until 1/1/03 they're really saying, "Muahahahaha! We've already got your money, so we'll sell the pre-Xmas copies to the ones who might spend their bucks elsewhere."

R4TS was "boooorrrriiinnnggg!" I couldn't even take the effort to uninstall the demo. I really hope QS hasn't run into that kind of problem because it will be nearly impossible to inject "fun" into MoO3 at this late date.

[Grumbold]

Hehe in an effort to play something different I recently reinstalled R4TS. What a mistake that was. I'd forgotten just how tedious they'd managed to make one of my favourite game formats.

[vmxa1]

I tried the demo and did not care for it either. I was foolish enought to ignore that and buy it recently. I could not get into it at all. Too bad. I have not cared for games that present a tactical combat in which you have very little impact. I can live with poor auto combat such as in SE4 as long as you can manage it better.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Well the scariest part of R4TS is how bad I thought that I wanted it to begin with. Sort of like now with MOO3

And now with all the possible delays, do we have another bust on our hands?

[vmxa1]

I can't say, but my first concern is we actually get it, then I will worry about how good it is.

[DATarbell]

I would posit that two of the "early warning signs" of known, significant problems in the production version of the game (be they a lack of fun, ineffective AI, or whatever) will be 1) the absence of a beta test, and 2) the absence of a playable demo. Both of these, to me, would indicate a hesitancy on the part of the developer and/or publisher to allow problems to surface publically, thereby negatively impacting pre-orders and "early-adopter" sales.

Do you agree? Disagree? Other "early warning signs" to look out for?

[vmxa1]

I would submit that those points are indicitive of nothing. Some games have met both criteria and stunk and some met them and were good. It may be concerning, but not indicitive.

[DATarbell]

vmxa1, all I said was that I considered them "early warning signs," not that they were conclusive or inerrant. Much like the early warning signs of a heart attack or certain cancers, they "raise a red flag" and prompt you to proceed with a little more caution and perhaps investigate a little more carefully.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can't say, but my first concern is we actually get it, then I will worry about how good it is.

Oh I'm pretty certain that it will be published eventually, in some state of playability. Infro will start putting pressure on QS as time goes by, which BTW is.

[vmxa1]

DATarbell. and I agreed, it can be a concern.