Distant Guns : Jutland - preview

<eddysterckx RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd900593-87af-4f51-b6ae-7b1b498e54a8@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> http://www.wargamer.com/articles/jutlandpreview/
>
> Jim Cobb doing the previewing
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Sorry, they lost me their first statement. 'With Distant Guns: The
Russo-Japanese War at Sea, Storm Eagle Studios scored a direct hit with
naval gamers interested in surface combat.'. Are they talking about the
same game?

Or, did it improve draamtically after its first release?
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

> Sorry, they lost me their first statement. 'With Distant Guns: The
> Russo-Japanese War at Sea, Storm Eagle Studios scored a direct hit with
> naval gamers interested in surface combat.'. Are they talking about the
> same game?

Maybe there was a gunfight between them and Harpoon ANW's mullahs )
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 21 dec, 23:41, "Mike Kreuzer" <m....TakeThisOut@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
> OK, my memory of this has faded, but based on last time I think what I'd
> want to read about in any SturmAdler (p)review/press release is:
> - is the game stable yet?

Probably as it's the same engine as the one used in the Tsushima game.
Adding new models and some extra features to an existing engine should
see a much more stable game upon release than releasing a brand new
one.

> - does it use the same stupid activation scheme?

Yup

> - just how does the all-seeing-eye come flying camera not rule out any
> possible fog of war?

You could squeeze your eyes a bit and pretend you're not seeing the
enemy

> Yes, no, and <reasonable explanation> would be nice, but is frankly not what
> I'm expecting. Does anyone remember where the forum is to go through
> the ritual of asking the questions and getting banned & deleted? <g>

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=245

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

"The DA" <thedevilsadvocaat.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZtadnV2Mj8Z-nvHanZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> <eddysterckx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dd900593-87af-4f51-b6ae-7b1b498e54a8@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> http://www.wargamer.com/articles/jutlandpreview/
>>
>> Jim Cobb doing the previewing
>>
>> Greetz,
>>
>> Eddy Sterckx
>
> Sorry, they lost me their first statement. 'With Distant Guns: The
> Russo-Japanese War at Sea, Storm Eagle Studios scored a direct hit with
> naval gamers interested in surface combat.'. Are they talking about the
> same game?
>
> Or, did it improve draamtically after its first release?
>

OK, my memory of this has faded, but based on last time I think what I'd
want to read about in any SturmAdler (p)review/press release is:
- is the game stable yet?
- does it use the same stupid activation scheme?
- just how does the all-seeing-eye come flying camera not rule out any
possible fog of war?

Yes, no, and <reasonable explanation> would be nice, but is frankly not what
I'm expecting. Does anyone remember where the forum is to go through
the ritual of asking the questions and getting banned & deleted? <g>

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

Sometime ago on the GS (or was it XG back then?) forum, I mentioned to
JR that he had not done such a great job of customer relations on
behalf of SES with their initial release. He fained ignorance of any
poor customer relations until I reminded him of "a certain kind of
fish." That jogged his memory (or so he said), after which he asked
me to say hello to "fishy".
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 22 dec, 23:34, KG_Jag <wburb... DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote:
> Sometime ago on the GS (or was it XG back then?) forum, I mentioned to
> JR that he had not done such a great job of customer relations on
> behalf of SES with their initial release. He fained ignorance of any
> poor customer relations until I reminded him of "a certain kind of
> fish." That jogged his memory (or so he said), after which he asked
> me to say hello to "fishy".

If you ever have the misfortune of running into him again tell him I'm
glad to be such a good memory jogger, but that the next time he wants
such great pr he's going to have to pay me for it

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On Dec 23, 11:02 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 dec, 23:34, KG_Jag <wburb... RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Sometime ago on the GS (or was it XG back then?) forum, I mentioned to
> > JR that he had not done such a great job of customer relations on
> > behalf of SES with their initial release. He fained ignorance of any
> > poor customer relations until I reminded him of "a certain kind of
> > fish." That jogged his memory (or so he said), after which he asked
> > me to say hello to "fishy".
>
> If you ever have the misfortune of running into him again tell him I'm
> glad to be such a good memory jogger, but that the next time he wants
> such great pr he's going to have to pay me for it
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

The biggest fans of the game were the jokers who were paid to help
promote it at SZO and other sites. :\

r4e
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 24 dec, 20:16, rus4e....DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> The biggest fans of the game were the jokers who were paid to help
> promote it at SZO and other sites. :\

I'm pretty sure no-one was paid. What happens with some games and
developers is not unlike what's called the Stockholm Syndrome in
hostage situations : before release gamer expectations are sky-high
because of a variety of factors including great-looking screenshots,
developer's reputation, a niche subject finally "done right" etc. So
they pre-order the game and when upon release reality hits them they
basically have 3 alternatives.

1) Realize that they got taken in by the hype, put the game on the
shelf and chalk it up as a lesson learned and move on. Most gamers act
this way.

2) Realize that they got taken in by the hype, and decide the
developer is going to pay for it - in blood - for deceiving them. A
minority, but one which can really hurt the developer. Not altogether
bad because if everyone just shelved the game without complaining
about it there would be no feedback for other people to go on.

3)The previous options are based on the gamer admitting to himself he
was wrong. A lot of people don't seem to be able to take this step and
instead try to rationalize all the game's problems away or actively
ignore those problems altogether. Peer pressure and constant
reinforcement of the "the game has no problems, only people who "don't
get it" have problems" message on the game's forum transform these
gamers into fanboy posse members.

Mind you, not all games which have a strong fanboy community are
problematic. There's nothing inherently wrong with the original Combat
Mission series or with a game like War in the Pacific, but "high
fanboy presence" is often an orange warning light for me.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On Dec 26, 3:35 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 dec, 20:16, rus4e....RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > The biggest fans of the game were the jokers who were paid to help
> > promote it at SZO and other sites. :\
>
> I'm pretty sure no-one was paid. What happens with some games and
> developers is not unlike what's called the Stockholm Syndrome in
> hostage situations : before release gamer expectations are sky-high
> because of a variety of factors including great-looking screenshots,
> developer's reputation, a niche subject finally "done right" etc. So
> they pre-order the game and when upon release reality hits them they
> basically have 3 alternatives.
>
> 1) Realize that they got taken in by the hype, put the game on the
> shelf and chalk it up as a lesson learned and move on. Most gamers act
> this way.
>
> 2) Realize that they got taken in by the hype, and decide the
> developer is going to pay for it - in blood - for deceiving them. A
> minority, but one which can really hurt the developer. Not altogether
> bad because if everyone just shelved the game without complaining
> about it there would be no feedback for other people to go on.
>
> 3)The previous options are based on the gamer admitting to himself he
> was wrong. A lot of people don't seem to be able to take this step and
> instead try to rationalize all the game's problems away or actively
> ignore those problems altogether. Peer pressure and constant
> reinforcement of the "the game has no problems, only people who "don't
> get it" have problems" message on the game's forum transform these
> gamers into fanboy posse members.
>
> Mind you, not all games which have a strong fanboy community are
> problematic. There's nothing inherently wrong with the original Combat
> Mission series or with a game like War in the Pacific, but "high
> fanboy presence" is often an orange warning light for me.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Here's the previewer in action in regards to Jutland:

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=941596&postcount=17

That doesn't sound indie to me; it sounds like an advocate.

He's compensated by the publications that he fronts games for, outfits
that provide marketing "tools" to developers and publishers.

IIRC, DG received awards from at least two of the publications with
which he's affiliated.

Go figure.

r4e
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 26 dec, 16:00, rus4e....RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Here's the previewer in action in regards to Jutland:
>
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=941596&postcount=17
>
> That doesn't sound indie to me; it sounds like an advocate.

So he likes the game and says so too on the public forum ? The
opposite would have surprised me.

> He's compensated by the publications that he fronts games for, outfits
> that provide marketing "tools" to developers and publishers.

Pretty narrow view of review sites you have there.

> IIRC, DG received awards from at least two of the publications with
> which he's affiliated.

"affiliated" ? Reviewers review games which get published at review
sites which give awards. Where's the problem ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On Dec 26, 10:13 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 dec, 16:00, rus4e... DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's the previewer in action in regards to Jutland:
>
> >http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=941596&postcount=17
>
> > That doesn't sound indie to me; it sounds like an advocate.
>
> So he likes the game and says so too on the public forum ? The
> opposite would have surprised me.
>
> > He's compensated by the publications that he fronts games for, outfits
> > that provide marketing "tools" to developers and publishers.
>
> Pretty narrow view of review sites you have there.
>
> > IIRC, DG received awards from at least two of the publications with
> > which he's affiliated.
>
> "affiliated" ? Reviewers review games which get published at review
> sites which give awards. Where's the problem ?
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

I took the comment at the Gamesquad forum that I linked you to as a
flame. I'm used to that kind of behavior on game sites, but I
certainly wouldn't expect it from someone who wears the mantle of an
impartial and unbiased reviewer of games.

Just to make my point and to demonstrate that I don't have it in for
SES, here's another of the reviewer's posts commenting on yet another
individual, one critical of a completely different game, CMSF:

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.asp?m=241718&mpage=1&key=&#241865

Does that sound like the guy is a legitimate journalist or simply an
enforcer\promoter who's fronting for publishers who buy advertising
and other services from the sites that pay him?

As to the "problem," that strikes me as rather obvious. These
relationships are so rife with conflicts of interest as to be
laughable. The fix is in, all the way from the reviews and awards to
the marketing schills and the forum cops who lock threads which they
perceive as undermining that which they want to sell you, whether the
"product" be worth owning or not. The least deceitful part of the
entire enterprise is the banner-ads. And that is indeed a problem for
anyone who might be unlucky enough to waste their hard-earned money on
a game that's not, well, all that it was cracked-up to be.

r4e
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 26 dec, 22:30, rus4e... RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:

> I took the comment at the Gamesquad forum that I linked you to as a
> flame. I'm used to that kind of behavior on game sites, but I
> certainly wouldn't expect it from someone who wears the mantle of an
> impartial and unbiased reviewer of games.

Since when are reviewers impartial and unbiased ? Of course they have
their preferences, likes and dislikes - just like everyone else.
Saying what they like and why they like it is half of their job as a
reviewer. Basically your point of view is that reviewers should write
reviews and for the rest keep their mouths shut on the forums.

Sorry, that might work for other industries where they've got
professional journalist who make their living writing reviews, but in
wargames writing a review is a labour of love - it's not going to make
you a dime on a per hour basis and you really need to love wargames to
even consider doing a review. So reviewers hang out on forums and so
do developers and publishers. And they all defend the games they like,
which they can because they've got the same rights as any ordinary
gamer. They've got that right because they *are* gamers as well as
reviewers, developers and publishers.

> Just to make my point and to demonstrate that I don't have it in for
> SES, here's another of the reviewer's posts commenting on yet another
> individual, one critical of a completely different game, CMSF:
>
> http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.asp?m=241718&mpage=1&key=𻃉
>
> Does that sound like the guy is a legitimate journalist or simply an
> enforcer\promoter who's fronting for publishers who buy advertising
> and other services from the sites that pay him?

I say it's a guy passionate about his games. And if you think they're
making lots of money on this you're mistaken - really.

> As to the "problem," that strikes me as rather obvious. These
> relationships are so rife with conflicts of interest as to be
> laughable.

Ok - this proves you're relatively new in here - no problem - but let
me tell you that this wargaming business is so small that everyone
knows everyone else and that conflict of interest doesn't even start
to describe the intricate relations between all the parties involved.
What keeps everyone honest is that just because it's a small world
rife with conflict of interest and everyone keeping tabs on everyone
else, you can't keep something hidden.

> The fix is in, all the way from the reviews

Mike, JeF, Vincenzo, KG Jag and other reviewers in here are going to
love to read this

> and awards to

Stick around until early January for our 4th annual Wargame of the
Year election - then tell me how the shills rigged it

> the marketing schills and the forum cops who lock threads which they
> perceive as undermining that which they want to sell you, whether the
> "product" be worth owning or not.

You really are new here or else you'd know what a Big Stink such
behaviour causes in here and at other locations - and I fail to see
what this has to do with Jim Cobb commenting on games.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On Dec 26, 3:57 pm, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 dec, 22:30, rus4e....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I took the comment at the Gamesquad forum that I linked you to as a
> > flame. I'm used to that kind of behavior on game sites, but I
> > certainly wouldn't expect it from someone who wears the mantle of an
> > impartial and unbiased reviewer of games.
>
> Since when are reviewers impartial and unbiased ? Of course they have
> their preferences, likes and dislikes - just like everyone else.
> Saying what they like and why they like it is half of their job as a
> reviewer. Basically your point of view is that reviewers should write
> reviews and for the rest keep their mouths shut on the forums.
>
> Sorry, that might work for other industries where they've got
> professional journalist who make their living writing reviews, but in
> wargames writing a review is a labour of love - it's not going to make
> you a dime on a per hour basis and you really need to love wargames to
> even consider doing a review. So reviewers hang out on forums and so
> do developers and publishers. And they all defend the games they like,
> which they can because they've got the same rights as any ordinary
> gamer. They've got that right because they *are* gamers as well as
> reviewers, developers and publishers.
>
> > Just to make my point and to demonstrate that I don't have it in for
> > SES, here's another of the reviewer's posts commenting on yet another
> > individual, one critical of a completely different game, CMSF:
>
> >http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.asp?m=241718&mpage=1&key=𻃉
>
> > Does that sound like the guy is a legitimate journalist or simply an
> > enforcer\promoter who's fronting for publishers who buy advertising
> > and other services from the sites that pay him?
>
> I say it's a guy passionate about his games. And if you think they're
> making lots of money on this you're mistaken - really.
>
> > As to the "problem," that strikes me as rather obvious. These
> > relationships are so rife with conflicts of interest as to be
> > laughable.
>
> Ok - this proves you're relatively new in here - no problem - but let
> me tell you that this wargaming business is so small that everyone
> knows everyone else and that conflict of interest doesn't even start
> to describe the intricate relations between all the parties involved.
> What keeps everyone honest is that just because it's a small world
> rife with conflict of interest and everyone keeping tabs on everyone
> else, you can't keep something hidden.
>
> > The fix is in, all the way from the reviews
>
> Mike, JeF, Vincenzo, KG Jag and other reviewers in here are going to
> love to read this
>
> > and awards to
>
> Stick around until early January for our 4th annual Wargame of the
> Year election - then tell me how the shills rigged it
>
> > the marketing schills and the forum cops who lock threads which they
> > perceive as undermining that which they want to sell you, whether the
> > "product" be worth owning or not.
>
> You really are new here or else you'd know what a Big Stink such
> behaviour causes in here and at other locations - and I fail to see
> what this has to do with Jim Cobb commenting on games.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Well dang Eddy, why would any of those distinguished individuals post
to a venue that Cobb refers to as "UselessNet?" But, let me QFT him
from the thread that I linked our readers to above, again in reference
to CMSF:

"If amybpdy has a CTD with the demo, please post here. A fool on
UselessNet says he's having trouble. I smell slander."

Wow, now there's some diplomacy at work, very nice forum presence over
there at the Wargamer, very authoritative. In point of fact, many,
many gamers that downloaded that demo were having absolute fits with
it, as is detailed later in the thread. But, hey, he's passionate
right, if he wants to flame and discredit anyone who undermines a game
that he's charged with, let him do it right? Having read your
comments above, it would appear that you'd have folks just shut up and
not post their impressions of the enterprise at hand when Cobb's
involved. If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with his
characterization of this forum.

r4e
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview