Author Topic: WW2OL (warning, likely to set pom poms on fire) (Read 3080 times)

Vulcan · « **on:** July 29, 2001, 06:47:00 PM »

Well, these guys live and breath on software sales, but thankfully I always find the put up honest reviews - see what they say about "it":
http://www.cgonline.com/reviews/ww2online-01-r1.html

jihad · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2001, 07:22:00 PM »

A few excerpts:

That's the idea anyway. Strategy First may as well sell a box of rocks with instructions for players to take the rocks into a field and throw them at each other. At least it would work as advertised

What a glorious idea for a game. If only it worked better. If only the strategic elements were in place. If only your stats were tracked. If only the interface was more manageable. If only the graphics weren't so slow and ugly. If only, if only. World War II Online is a box full of "if only."

<snicker>

Sandman · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2001, 08:26:00 PM »

Quote

But on a much more important level, what we have here is a minor atrocity that belongs next to Sierra's Outpost, Take Two's Battlecruiser 3000 A.D., and Microprose's Falcon 4 in the annals of computer gaming.

I agreed right up until the jab at Falcon 4.0. Falcon 4.0 had some issues on the unpatched, original version, but nothing compared to the abortion called WWII Online.

Dowding · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2001, 02:57:00 AM »

6 months.

Creamo · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2001, 03:14:00 AM »

Review seems fair I guess.

I thought it should be more like this-

Medal of Honor

Download the High Res Quicktime demo and grab a napkin.

Udie · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2001, 10:38:00 AM »

The review was done about 3 or 4 weeks ago I believe, but not published until now. It's probobly very accruate of the game as it was released.

Hopefuly they'll go back and give it another review in a few months once CRS has fixed it.

Sandman,

Don't you remember that Microprosed stopped ALL support for F4? they game was still a POS when they did that. In defence of the F4 developers they said it wouldn't be finished at released, and it wasn't. The problem was that they never got around to fixing it. Thank you erazor

and who ever leaked the source code. CRS is at least supporting their product after SFI made them release too soon.

I agree with Dowding, in 6 months this game should be ready for prime time, I hope that's what you were saying Dowding

Udie

fscott · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2001, 10:49:00 AM »

As soon as that "objective" reviewer compared it to Falcon4, I pretty much threw all his spew right into the toilet.

And also, this moron needs to keep looking at the tachometer to drive a tank? ROFLMAO! The holes in his "objective" review is so apparent one wonders what kind of vendetta he has against the CRS team.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]

Creamo · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2001, 11:17:00 AM »

Scott, comparing WWIIOL to F4 has merit. “Never before has such a hyped game been released so buggy.” Well, until WWIIOL that is.

Seriously.

The only thing I see different, is F4, in it's worst state, was graphically superior, and provided hella single player enjoyment. Now, thanks to the user end of fanatics, Falcon 4.0 is quite a accomplishment. I see nothing of this promise or salvageable single player in WWIIOL's hideous graphics vs. system requirements. Actually, in gameplay for that matter, and it’s whole entire pretence and structure WAS FOR ONLINE play.

There's no denying that massively multiplayer games are perpetually works in progress, continually evolving. In light of this, World War II Online has promise. But there's also no denying that this game was released far too early and has no business sitting on retail shelves wearing a $40 price tag as if it were finished. On one level, what you have here is a buggy multiplayer tank sim. Hop in, sling some AP rounds, and have a ball.

He ain’t lying. It's a fun tank sim for now, that's it. Hardly what it's advertised to be.

Forget Falcon 4.0, use AceHigh as a “benchmark.” It blows it out of the water, and delivers in spades. Not one of us reading this doubts that 1.08 is going to be a hoot, and 6 months in development for HiTech is HUGE. In comparison, I’d say WWIIOL in 6 months will begin to address the box promo supposed to be in the initial shipped product, yet will still be WAY short.

The reviewer was harsh, but discounting the factual discrepancies in this touted “MASSIVE ONLINE WWII BATTLE FIELD” because he mentioned another buggy sim in Falcon 4.0 is silly. So is your response accordingly.

BELCH.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

Dowding · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2001, 11:26:00 AM »

Hehehe Udie.

Time will tell - but something significant will have happened in 6 months, for better or worse in relation to WW2OL.

The speed and quality of their updates leaves a lot to be desired.

Any ETA on the Blenheim yet or resource system?

Jammer · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2001, 11:35:00 AM »

It is somewhat depressing to see the struggle of WWIIOL, and the enthusiasm of those bashing it as well.

It's the first serious attempt on a combined air/land/naval simulation, set in WWII. Nothing else has been done to compare to this.

I know I know, CRS cannot live on the merit of their intentions forever, if at all. However if WWIIOL become at least a partial success with time, this will pave the way for new attempts in the genre, attempts maybe that are a bit more proficient.

WWIIOL seem to have serious issues with the code, wether it's due to forced release or poor coding remains to be seen. However CRS is made up by guys who created the online sim genre (as you surely know) so I have some hope for them to actually fix the game given the time.

Creamo · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2001, 11:58:00 AM »

I see no enthusiasm to bash WWIIOL Jammer, and in fact, I fear it’s the code that is the problem. The reviewers portray it as it is, and that is what’s unfortunate.

I owe Hitech dick, (well 80 hours per month online of fun) and although I didn’t hope for HTC’s successor, I wished something touted as the next new massive online WWII experience, was in fact that. Then I’d have 2 things to play online.

WWIIOL failed initially, lets give it 1 or 2 years. Then I have $10/month spare for sure.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2001, 12:55:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jammer:
WWIIOL seem to have serious issues with the code, wether it's due to forced release or poor coding remains to be seen. However CRS is made up by guys who created the online sim genre (as you surely know) so I have some hope for them to actually fix the game given the time.

Actually that's not entirely true... about them creating the sim genre.

Granted, they had their hands in WB... but HT&Pyro were the big guns making CK/WB in the beginning.
-SW

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2001, 01:00:00 PM »

Quote

It is somewhat depressing to see the struggle of WWIIOL, and the enthusiasm of those bashing it as well.

That depends.

I don't really pay money for good intentions. I'm willing to give them a break in hopes of further development, but to call this game anything but buggy (perhaps one of the worst initial releases I've seen) is a stretch.

Many people hoped it would be better. The fact that its not is pretty much to blame for the current reaction.

The article is pretty much spot-on IMO.

AKDejaVu

Kieran · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2001, 01:06:00 PM »

This is what I posted on the WWIIO BBS in regards to one of the fan bases' challenges to naysayers:

Quote

How's this?

Let's take a reality check here.

We have multiple people who say they cannot play for 5 minutes without CTHL. When they comment on this, they get the "You need to buy yourself more RAM, a better system, etc." from the fan base.

We have people that are upset about missing features. They point to a box that says "All this cool stuff inside!"- but it ain't there. The fan base says "You just need to have patience. It will get done."

Some people point out that cheating occurs, and a few foolish ones have even posted on the boards how to do it. The fan base says they have never seen anyone cheat.

The servers aren't even close to holding the "One-World" concept. Not-even-close. "Damn Cisco routers are to blame!" say the Rats. Damn, the rest of the business technology industry has it all wrong, I guess.

Now we are looking at Windows as the cause of the latest CTHL problems. Sorry, that's ass-backwards. You write the program to work on an operating system. Yes, DirectX 8 was just released, and it has some quirks. That is as it has always been and always will be.

It has now become common practice to accept the occasional CTHL with no concern- can you think of another piece of software you would allow to exist on your system that behaved that way? Guaranteed, reproduceable lockups whenever you try to properly use the basic functions of the program? "Patience!" says the fan base. These bugs will get squashed.

Reality check here. I am a person that typically stands behind a company or a group of developers because I like their vision. I appreciate to some extent what CRS has attempted to do. What has been brought to the consumer in reality is something so sub-standard as to be laughable. I can see the CRS staff walking down the streets with bags on their heads, so ashamed to show their faces in public.

Even this forum is an example of how poorly planned this whole effort has been. Why is it so slow? I suspect because it has such high traffic. But what did CRS expect? A community that was going to be one-world with 20,000 players was bound to gather somewhere.

Reality? This game is not ready for prime time, nor will it be any day real soon. Sure, it may get better (assuming the doors stay open that long). Sure, I can wait because other than the initial $40 I haven't spent a dime. But that isn't the point.

The fan base here acts as if there are no legitimate complaints against the Rats. Hardly- I cannot remember such a bug-ridden, overly demanding program outside of a high school programming class. And while I normally wouldn't be so blunt, it's time a few of you fans started to consider where some of the complaints are coming from, and that, despite your fun and the stable gameplay, high frame rate, etc. you enjoy, they aren't. That is documented, provable, and quite frankly inexcusable.

I have about 3 vehicles I can play online- all the others cause CTHL if I use them, every single time. I get a max of 50 fps, more like 10 fps when near a fight. I have:

PIII 733
512 MB
GeForce 2 GTS DDR 32MB
cable modem

Don't tell me to get a new system- that is ridiculous! Don't tell me about your wonderful frame rate- first, I believe you and second, I don't care. The system I have is at worst a mid-range system and should have no trouble pulling the game as-is... just as it does every other program I run.

Stop pretending there are no problems.

A bit long, but pretty much accurate to this date.

Jammer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2001, 01:11:00 PM »

Creamo, I envision the next generation of MMOG WWII sims to be somewhat in line of what MoH promises today. The current computer power is not enough to host such a game just yet, but it might not be to far away either.