Victory at Sea - Pacific

Started by FlickJax, June 07, 2018, 04:43:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RyanE

Quote from: WargamerJoe on October 12, 2018, 10:27:40 AM
Not that I doubt your observations - I haven't had a chance to check it out since launch, but I always get a kick when people say "oh it barely released in alpha".

The game is feature complete, which nearly-automatically means it's in a beta state if you look at the official definitions of software states.

I'd have agreed with you if you'd said something along the lines of "it's not out of beta" which would be accurate considering this game still needs a lot of TLC. I'm sure it'll get where it needs to be eventually though, as from my experience with the game the grounding was solid enough.

I work in the tech industry and manage projects through internal, alpha, beta, and pre-release testing.  The game is not feature complete.  Missing campaigns and features that are supposed to be there are not working.  That is alpha on release.  You could argue its in beta now with recent patches, but campaigns are still missing and non-functional.

HoodedHorseJoe

Quote from: RyanE on October 12, 2018, 12:15:44 PM
Quote from: WargamerJoe on October 12, 2018, 10:27:40 AM
Not that I doubt your observations - I haven't had a chance to check it out since launch, but I always get a kick when people say "oh it barely released in alpha".

The game is feature complete, which nearly-automatically means it's in a beta state if you look at the official definitions of software states.

I'd have agreed with you if you'd said something along the lines of "it's not out of beta" which would be accurate considering this game still needs a lot of TLC. I'm sure it'll get where it needs to be eventually though, as from my experience with the game the grounding was solid enough.

I work in the tech industry and manage projects through internal, alpha, beta, and pre-release testing.  The game is not feature complete.  Missing campaigns and features that are supposed to be there are not working.  That is alpha on release.  You could argue its in beta now with recent patches, but campaigns are still missing and non-functional.

Campaign = content, not 'features', IMO but I'm not actually here to argue the semantics of what state the game is, my actual point is that comments like these are not really helpful to reasonable discourse about videogames.

I agree with people that think it should have released into Early Access though. As much as I dislike what that program's become, the EA tagged could have soaked up a lot of the disappointment over the game's current state.
Communications Director
Hooded Horse

We are a publisher of indie games with strategic and tactical depth. 28 projects and counting, come check out our portfolio on Steam, GOG, and the Epic Games Store!

You may have seen me around in previous roles such as editor of Wargamer.com and Strategy Gamer.

RyanE

I don't care what you are here to argue about.  You are arguing with a guy that does project management and product management in SW for a living.  There are key features missing, campaigns, skirmish, refueling, aircraft management.  They just plain aren't working.  Feature complete means features work enough you can play the game from beginning to end.  And that is after three patches.

Why do you care if its being helpful?  The game is a mess.  It has potential, but its going to take a lot of work.  Read the forums for the game.  Its no where near a playable product as it should be played.

sandman2575

Quote from: RyanE on October 15, 2018, 06:15:21 AM
Why do you care if its being helpful?  The game is a mess.  It has potential, but its going to take a lot of work.  Read the forums for the game.  Its no where near a playable product as it should be played.

Agree with you, Ryan. I'm extremely disappointed at the unfinished state this game was released in. It would have been a day-1 purchase without question if it had been a feature and content complete game, which it clearly is not. The fact that there was initial confusion about why the IJN and Commonwealth campaigns were 'locked' -- Devs: "Oh, not locked. Just not finished yet" -- is all you need to know about the botched state of this release.

How the devs thought this was acceptable in the age of Early Access is beyond me. They could have earned themselves a lot of goodwill and player patience by releasing it EA. Instead, the devs' pretense that the game is complete and just needs the usual patching going forward seems misguided at best, underhanded at worst.

RyanE

Let's not use my words on this "argument".  Let's bring a quote in the wargamer.com...

"The patches flow like water, but that does not excuse the fact that a full priced game has been shipped in such an incomplete state. Features are not all present as well."

That is my bold.

https://www.wargamer.com/reviews/victory-at-sea-pacific/


RyanE

Saw this posted on the forum.   Just thought it was an interesting design decision.

"Their solution was to let you build ships in a much faster pace. 132days for an Iowa vs the historical 26 months. But in doing so, in order not to have hundreds of of capitol ships running around by 1945. they basically made them much easier to destroy. "

HoodedHorseJoe

If the game is a mess, then say "the game is a mess", don't use language like "oh, it's barely an alpha", which doesn't actually mean anything to anyone outside of software development and just comes off as smarmy and entitled.

You work in software development, so fair enough language like that is what you know and it makes sense for you to use it, but for ten years I've observed a non-stop parade of people saying similar things, for games in much better states than in VaSP and it's never helpful. I care because words have power and I'd prefer they be used carefully and with consideration.

I'd still disagree that campaign content is a feature; it's content, but that's just me.

QuoteTheir solution was to let you build ships in a much faster pace. 132days for an Iowa vs the historical 26 months. But in doing so, in order not to have hundreds of of capitol ships running around by 1945. they basically made them much easier to destroy.

Yeah this is the design decision that really summarises what this game is vs. what people's expectations might be. I'm honestly not sure what would have been better - a more realistic build-scale, which basically means you won't see many new ships (but current ships have more staying power), or what they have now, which is definitely arcade-y but at least keeps the action flowing and allow you to recover and react to developments in a way that's 'fun'.

I honestly don't think this genre needs any more hyper-sims, but perhaps this went a bit too far the RTS route. Time will tell I guess, and as we're discussing, the game needs a lot of work first anyway.
Communications Director
Hooded Horse

We are a publisher of indie games with strategic and tactical depth. 28 projects and counting, come check out our portfolio on Steam, GOG, and the Epic Games Store!

You may have seen me around in previous roles such as editor of Wargamer.com and Strategy Gamer.

RyanE

Still not sure I see your point.  Alpha release 15 years ago was a fairly insiders term.  As you even pointed out, its now relatively known and defined.  Your own webisite review stated missing features.  So what exactly is your argument again?

W8taminute

Hmmm....interesting discussions gentlemen.  From what you're all saying here plus the general consensus of the Steam community I will keep this game on my wishlist but will only purchase it when it's on sale for $5 or below.  Especially if they end up never even releasing the Japanese and British campaigns.  Never mind fixing the bugs that many have reported seeing (i.e. supply convoy bugs, units not responding to orders without any indication as to why, etc.)

If all the most annoying bugs are worked out and all content to this game is released I will buy it for $10 but not more than that (assuming they do something about ship build times and the fact it takes much longer than historical). 

If they fix the ship build times along with the other aforementioned requirements I will buy the game for $15. 

Why so stringent on the price?  The market is saturated with WW2 games so if you're going to publish a WW2 game it better have extremely compelling game play and depth.  The game should also have all features and content implemented as well.  Then I'll gladly pay the $40 they're asking for. 
"You and I are of a kind. In a different reality, I could have called you friend."

Romulan Commander to Kirk

Rayfer

Quote from: W8taminute on October 16, 2018, 10:19:05 AM
Hmmm....interesting discussions gentlemen.  From what you're all saying here plus the general consensus of the Steam community I will keep this game on my wishlist but will only purchase it when it's on sale for $5 or below.  Especially if they end up never even releasing the Japanese and British campaigns.  Never mind fixing the bugs that many have reported seeing (i.e. supply convoy bugs, units not responding to orders without any indication as to why, etc.)

If all the most annoying bugs are worked out and all content to this game is released I will buy it for $10 but not more than that (assuming they do something about ship build times and the fact it takes much longer than historical). 

If they fix the ship build times along with the other aforementioned requirements I will buy the game for $15. 

Why so stringent on the price?  The market is saturated with WW2 games so if you're going to publish a WW2 game it better have extremely compelling game play and depth.  The game should also have all features and content implemented as well.  Then I'll gladly pay the $40 they're asking for.

+1  My thoughts exactly.  Glad you posted first, saving me the time.   ::)

ArizonaTank

How is the state of the game now?  Have issues been more or less fixed?
Johannes "Honus" Wagner
"The Flying Dutchman"
Shortstop: Pittsburgh Pirates 1900-1917
Rated as the 2nd most valuable player of all time by Bill James.

DoctorQuest

We are a year later than AzTank's query. I noticed the game on sale at GOG. Does anyone know if they have progress with fixing what appeared to be myriad problems with this game?
"Everything you read on the internet is true." - Benjamin Franklin

"Zero-G and I feel fine....." - John Glenn

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage, inventor of the alternative fact.

bobarossa

#72
Steam shows 3 patches since beginning of October.  Last few months reviews are Very Positive.  Assuming those patches are available on GOG.  Apparently no one playing on GOG as last review is a year ago.  Their forum shows latest patch notes on GOG though.

JasonPratt

GoG edition is at 1.6.2 as of Nov 18, 2019 (according to a developer thread there.)
ICEBREAKER THESIS CHRONOLOGY! -- Victor Suvorov's Stalin Grand Strategy theory, in lots and lots of chronological order...
Dawn of Armageddon -- narrative AAR for Dawn of War: Soulstorm: Ultimate Apocalypse
Survive Harder! -- Two season narrative AAR, an Amazon Blood Bowl career.
PanzOrc Corpz Generals -- Fantasy Wars narrative AAR, half a combined campaign.
Khazâd du-bekâr! -- narrative dwarf AAR for LotR BfME2 RotWK campaign.
RobO Q Campaign Generator -- archived classic CMBB/CMAK tool!

DoctorQuest

Thanks, guys. I have been looking over the forums at GOG. I just wondered if any Grogs had any personal opinions on the state of the game at this point.

I do see they added the Royal Navy and IJN campaigns. That is progress. And they seem to be actively working the various bugs.
"Everything you read on the internet is true." - Benjamin Franklin

"Zero-G and I feel fine....." - John Glenn

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage, inventor of the alternative fact.