View Full Version : Raging Tiger Review
Well, I finally found a third-party review of Raging Tiger from a guy who actually seems to have played the game, at least a little.
No sir, he didn't like it. It is apparent that his thing is RTS moreso than wargaming, but even so he has some harsh things to say about the interface.
Unfortunately for most of us here, the review is in French. Here is the URL:
http://www.hardgamers.com/critiques.asp?no=940
I've taken the liberty of making a machine translation, appended below, for those who don't read French. Sorry if its a bit fractured, I didn't spend much time cleaning it up.
Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War
By Tiblanc
Category: Strategy
Created: September 18, 2004
Edited: September 19, 2004
Editor: Shrapnel Games
Developer: ProSIM
In store: September 2004
Configuration: Pentium 2 300Mhz 32 Mb
Critic's comments
I have always reflected on an existential question. Why do games of strategy that try to be extremely realistic always seem to come with a terrible interface? It is not now that I am going to have my answer, unfortunately.
It would seem that there are people, somewhere, who feed on complication and like to transform simple things into complex operations. Let us take a simple example. To open a door, it is enough to lay your hand on the handle, close your fingers, perform a rotation of the wrist, and push or pull, depending on which side we're on. There are even people, and this is no lie, who developed a system which opens doors all by themselves when you walk up!
Raging Tiger is meant be a highly realistic wargame. The game takes place in the year 2010 in Korea. North Korea wants to attack the South, and the Americans feel compelled to go there with their marvellous army which seems very small. I did not know that it was possible to conquer a nation with less than 200 realistic men. Perhaps I'm missing something? Our role is that of commander who moves his realistic troops on a realistic virtual field in realistic real-time. It would seem that everything is realistic, except the fact that real commanders have, in reality, a much easier time giving orders to their troops. For instance, what is the intuitive manner of telling a unit to move to a given point? My days playing Warcraft tell me to choose a unit with a left click and to right-click where I want my unit to go. Apparently that is too easy. Here, it is necessary to right-click a unit to get a menu, make the correct selection, and to drag towards destination. If we have misfortune to fumble, such as a right-click at the wrong place, it is necessary to begin again. While playing this game they make little use of interfaces evolved over the years for our greatest good.
Putting aside the lesson how not to design an interface, the game gives other more or less interesting aspects. There is the terrain. It seems to have enemies hidden everywhere, but it is impossible to see them since the terrain blocks our eyesight. It often happens that our troops advance happily across the field and suddenly blow up. It is therefore necessary to try to send our scouts to locate the enemies and to try to move forward our other troops carefully so that they can shoot back. It is also possible to use our artillery to bomb a zone or air units to arrive behind a hill and bomb the bad guys, as in the movies. However, it is so unintuitive to give these orders that it is frustrating. The whole is encoded in a variety of abbreviations which make sure that you are never sure of what each thing represents. What is BBDPICM and what does it do? Put to one side that it is a type of artillery, I have no idea of what it is or of its strong and weak points.
Graphics follow the lead of the game, realistic. When certain persons say that the world is not nice to see, they are right. Our units, which seem drawn with Paint, move merrily on what seems to be a low resolution satellite photo of this region of the globe. The whole is accompanied with arrows when units move and of a black mini - map with small dark blue points. I would well like to know who came up with this marvellous idea. A quick glance to see the position of our troops shows nothing but a big black square. It is necessary to peer closely at the screen and to allow our eye to adjust to see some tiny blue points appear. Far from being practical. On the sound side, not much to speak of. No music. There are only some rare sounds which play once every so often. For instance, a sound of a motor when our tanks start or another sound of a gun when there is a barrage. The rest of time, it is possible to hear a fly.
Playability: Game has good ideas, but interface is so difficult to use that the whole results in a session of frustration. 10/20
Screenplay: There are a lot of incomprehensible military terms so that ordinary mortals will not know too much about what is going on. 12/20
Graphic Quality Welcome to 1990! 6/20
Music, sounds and sound ambience: Minimal effort. 5/20
Play Time: Difficult to say. There are about fifteen missions with the possibility of creating more, but it is necessary to be masochistic. 8/20
TECHNICAL TOTAL: 41
OVERALL INTEREST: 25 %
It is definitely proper to give a chance to the independent developers by accepting that their games are of less good quality than those developed with millions of dollars, but when faced with this title and another for the same price, it would be crazy to choose it. Why be bored to death playing a game when you could be bored without it? Unless wanting realism at any price, it is recommended to avoid this title since it causes irreversible brain damage. Keep out of reach of children.
Tiblanc
Siberian HEAT
23 Sep 04, 13:53
WarfareHQ is going to have a review of this game in a few weeks. Just FYI if you can wait that long. :D
He has a point about the interface.
Of course, that doesn't excuse him from not looking any further. At the very least he could end his review with a remark that the interface is so terrible he aborts the review. But since he doesn't say that it looks like the whole game is crap.
How can he fail to mention the nukes? http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/grin.gif
Oh that's right, because they are so hard to reach http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/sulk.gif
CPangracs
23 Sep 04, 14:51
LOL! I started laughing less than 2 lines into that reveiw. If this guy played anything, it was only the demo.
Yes, the interface, at first, is a bit to manage, but after playing with it for even an hour or so, it gets much easier. Obviously, the guy didn't bother playing it for more than even 30 minutes.
This is what happens when a non-wargamer tries to play a wargame, period. The fact that he doesn't know what BB-DPICM is, nor that he even bothered to try and find it in the manual (it's there), supports the idea that he didn't even play the full version! In fact, the manual isn't even mentioned.
Also, the guy actually thought that the battles fought on screen were the only units involved in invading North Korea? LMAO.
$10 says the guy is about 17 or 18 and spends countless hours playing Doom 3 and eating brie-flavored Pringles?!;)
Sorry, that's not really fair, is it? Why is it people can't actually play a game completely before reviewing it? I see it all the time, and, unless you actually PAY someone to review it, it's almost always unfavorable!
Oh well, this guy's in Quebec. Maybe Hub can talk some sense into him?! :laugh:
CPangracs
23 Sep 04, 15:19
WarfareHQ is going to have a review of this game in a few weeks. Just FYI if you can wait that long. :D
You mean someone will actually play it for longer than 30 minutes! Wow!
Now I'm REALLY worried! ;):cheeky:
Oh well, this guy's in Quebec. Maybe Hub can talk some sense into him?! :laugh:
"This is Hub 1 to Redleg 1. Adjust fire from EA Parliament Hill to EA Montreal. Infantry in the open- Fire for Effect. Hub 1 out."
Pat Proctor
24 Sep 04, 12:36
It is unfortunate that the bad reviews always come out first. The guy who takes the time to play the game can't beat the guy who spends 30 minutes with the game to the presses.
In a strange way, I think this review might actually encourage a hardcore wargamer to try the game. If it is too complex and too detailed for the casual gamer, it is probably right up the grognard's alley.
Here's another. These guys also seem too hung up on the interface to get into the gameplay much. One of them apparently blew a mental fuze or something and didn't even offer a rating. At least he's honest about it; he just didn't get it.
Scroll down about a third.
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=52
The fuze-blowing guy was so worked up that he used RT as a point of comparison for yet another game whose interface he didn't like, Car Thief 5. At least you made an impression, right? ;)
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=53
--- Kevin
Here's another. These guys also seem too hung up on the interface to get into the gameplay much. One of them apparently blew a mental fuze or something and didn't even offer a rating. At least he's honest about it; he just didn't get it.
Scroll down about a third.
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=52
The fuze-blowing guy was so worked up that he used RT as a point of comparison for yet another game whose interface he didn't like, Car Thief 5. At least you made an impression, right? ;)
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=53
--- Kevin
LOL :D Those are pretty good. I think Pat's right about the audience though...these guys aren't looking for this type of game. It's a foreign concept to them. I honestly never found the interface to be too bad...though I play Harpoon3 which is also supposed to have a bad interface. I guess I'll have to run into a good interface before I can compare.
Take care,
Brian
Deltapooh
24 Sep 04, 14:20
LOL :D Those are pretty good. I think Pat's right about the audience though...these guys aren't looking for this type of game. It's a foreign concept to them. I honestly never found the interface to be too bad...though I play Harpoon3 which is also supposed to have a bad interface. I guess I'll have to run into a good interface before I can compare.
Take care,
Brian
I think it comes down to the interest to learn. Its easier for some to blame their defeat on the game's interface.
Pat Proctor
24 Sep 04, 14:31
I freely admit that I could do some things to make the game more accessible to new players. And those things ARE on the slate (for air assault task force).
But I have a lot of other things on the slate, too. And given the choice between adding content for the loyal fan base and expanding the market appeal to people who might or might not actually like the game, I will choose adding content everytime.
Not that I am adverse to new players OR their concerns. I just only have so many manhours to commit to my passions.
Pat Proctor
24 Sep 04, 14:36
Just read the car thief 5 review. I have never had one of my titles mentioned in the same sentence as "crack-smoking chimpanzees". For me, this is a personal milestone :)
CPangracs
24 Sep 04, 16:23
LMAO! These are classic!
Well, the reason why I didn't buy RT yet is because of the ATF interface http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/sulk.gif.
I am a UNIX user, spending a majority of my time in a mouseless mailer and in the emacs editor with menus turned off, so I wouldn't agree that the ATF interface is just too hard on the clicki-bunti crowd. It is just not efficient, in lack of a better word.
(other factors also apply, namely the lack of savegames in two-player and a personal issue with the Korean theater of war)
CPangracs
26 Sep 04, 12:30
Well, the reason why I didn't buy RT yet is because of the ATF interface http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/sulk.gif.
I am a UNIX user, spending a majority of my time in a mouseless mailer and in the emacs editor with menus turned off, so I wouldn't agree that the ATF interface is just too hard on the clicki-bunti crowd. It is just not efficient, in lack of a better word.
(other factors also apply, namely the lack of savegames in two-player and a personal issue with the Korean theater of war)Okay, so, you don't have ATF and you don't have RT,...just out of curiosity, why are you posting in a forum dedicated to two games you don't even have? Do you have BCT but not the others? Is BCT's interface more friendly? I'm seriously interested in the answer to this.:confused:
What?
I have BCT and ATF. Should be clear from my message.
Okay, so, you don't have ATF and you don't have RT,...just out of curiosity, why are you posting in a forum dedicated to two games you don't even have? Do you have BCT but not the others? Is BCT's interface more friendly? I'm seriously interested in the answer to this.:confused:
I always new you were the mole Redwolf. Every time I talked about DV ATTACK you ALWAYS looked at me like I was crazy!! I win!! Where's my prize! Guys...?! :laugh:
LOL
Sorry guys couldn't resist. Redwolf don't worry my friend. I noticed your other posts around here. :D
I'm getting confused here. Yes I have BCT and ATF and didn't buy RT because of the interface and some others issues like no savegame in two-player mode. And yes I played it (ATF, BCT mostly collected dust). And no, I am not a computer illiterate (but hey, that's what they all say, do they?).
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 08:14
What?
I have BCT and ATF. Should be clear from my message.
Sorry, I should have said "You don't PLAY ATF and you don't OWN RT.".
My mistake.
Okay, so you can't figure out the interface, you don't like it, your hand cramps-up, whatever. If you don't play any of them for whatever reason, why do you participate in this forum?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing, I'm just curious.
Curt
If you don't play any of them for whatever reason, why do you participate in this forum?
Hey Curt,
My guess is that he no longer plays them because he doesn't like the interface, but if the interface was made more user friendly, he'd probably get back into it. Not a new problem/concern about ATF...at least over the few months I've been here. And it was basically the biggest gripe of the reviews posted in this thread. As ridiculous as they were, they probably did capture the only real issue folks have with the engine...the interface.
Anyway, I just see it as another recommendation for Pat to improve the game. Though he's already said he's not fixing the ATF interface, so I guess it's a moot point.
I guess my understanding is that AATF will have a different interface, which will be nice. But as far as I'm concerned the current one is just fine.
Take care,
Brian
Sorry, I should have said "You don't PLAY ATF and you don't OWN RT.".
My mistake.
Okay, so you can't figure out the interface, you don't like it, your hand cramps-up, whatever. If you don't play any of them for whatever reason, why do you participate in this forum?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing, I'm just curious.
Curt Well, we both know I am not too stupid or lazy to understand the interface, and you know the difference between disability to use and finding it too tedious to use. Much less willingness to spend money on more of the same. And the reason I am relatively quiet on this forum is that I use forums mostly for opponents and since ATF doesn't have PBEM or usable TCP two-player there is just few need. And I don't want a "user-friendly" interface, why else would I use a curses-based mouseless mailer? What I want is an efficient interface that doesn't waste my precious play time.
So, Curt, you have chosen the classic route of making insults - any insult - no matter how unfounded, to get a critic off "your" forum (which is a funny notion since I have been here longer than you are).
And it is pretty clear where this is coming from. Since you only licensed the ATF engine or have been contracted to do RT with the ATF engine, there is not a single thing you can do about the interface.
A semi-private forum, in particular a thread which is not titled "RT interface sucks!" is an opportunity, not a liability, to gather feedback for improvements without hurting your sales.
If you think you will make money off making wargames in 3 years from now with that attitude you are pretty optimistic, to say at least.
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 11:44
Well, we both know I am not too stupid or lazy to understand the interface, and you know the difference between disability to use and finding it too tedious to use. Much less willingness to spend money on more of the same. And the reason I am relatively quiet on this forum is that I use forums mostly for opponents and since ATF doesn't have PBEM or usable TCP two-player there is just few need. And I don't want a "user-friendly" interface, why else would I use a curses-based mouseless mailer? What I want is an efficient interface that doesn't waste my precious play time.
So, Curt, you have chosen the classic route of making insults - any insult - no matter how unfounded, to get a critic off "your" forum (which is a funny notion since I have been here longer than you are).
And it is pretty clear where this is coming from. Since you only licensed the ATF engine or have been contracted to do RT with the ATF engine, there is not a single thing you can do about the interface.
A semi-private forum, in particular a thread which is not titled "RT interface sucks!" is an opportunity, not a liability, to gather feedback for improvements without hurting your sales.
If you think you will make money off making wargames in 3 years from now with that attitude you are pretty optimistic, to say at least. I'm sorry you felt insulted, as that was NOT my intention. You clearly are defensive about something, but you truly aren't being fair to claim that I'm insulting you when I asked a valid question. You may not have liked my attempt at humor (the crack about the interface and the hand cramps), but that is ALL it was and nothing more, and it was INTENDED as "self-depricating humor" not as a barb against you. Of course I know some people don't like the interface, I didn't like it,...initially, but I got used to it, and I no longer find it a "waste of my precious time". If I had, I would never have invested MY time and money into making Raging Tiger.
Now, it seems, you don't even WANT a user friendly interface for any future games based on the ATF engine? Now you are confusing me - ATF and RT have a bad interface, BCT sits on your shelf collecting dust, but you DON'T want the interface to change? You can ASSUME I don't have any influence over the interface, and that's okay too. Do NOT presume that I "licensed" the ATF engine from Pat Proctor and that's that. I have been, and will continue, working very closely with Pat on RT and other projects. I consider us more partners in this and future projects, as I'm confident he feels the same. That being said, I speak for me, and not Pat or ProSIM Company.
Now, after all of this, you want to tell me I'm ruining my future as a game designer for asking someone who has no plans to buy my game and doesn't even like to play the game why he is posting in a forum designed specifically for players of the game to communicate? I was not trying to embarrass you or any othe ulterior motive other than why you post here not being a player of the games for which the forum was intended. If you still feel that I am in error or have no right to an answer to that question, then please tell me, but don't presume I am trying to shame you. I'm only asking a simple, valid question. If that question, in and of itself, shames you, again I truly apologize.
I really don't know why you feel I have some kind of grudge against you or dislike for you. I can't imagine that I have done or said anything to you in the past to garner this much dislike.
I think this is a case of mistaken meaning taken from a forum post, so I'll just shrug it off and say to you that I hope you find a game that suits all of your needs, and that I'm sorry you won't play ATF or RT. I still don't harbor any ill will toward you, and hope you can see my POV on this subject.
By the way, I think I and my game(s) are better served now, and in the future, by taking constructive comments from those who actually play the game(s), than those who do not.
Have a nice day.
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 11:48
Hey Curt,
My guess is that he no longer plays them because he doesn't like the interface, but if the interface was made more user friendly, he'd probably get back into it. Not a new problem/concern about ATF...at least over the few months I've been here. And it was basically the biggest gripe of the reviews posted in this thread. As ridiculous as they were, they probably did capture the only real issue folks have with the engine...the interface.
Anyway, I just see it as another recommendation for Pat to improve the game. Though he's already said he's not fixing the ATF interface, so I guess it's a moot point.
I guess my understanding is that AATF will have a different interface, which will be nice. But as far as I'm concerned the current one is just fine.
Take care,
BrianSorry, you were incorrect in your analysis of the situation.:D Although, your comment about AATF IS correct! A great many things will be different in AATF!;)
I don't have any comment on the interface, to me, it's no more difficult than a lot of other games I've played.
As mentioned by others, a big plus would be more multiplayer options, such as saved games and some sort of PBEM feature. I don't know how that would work- maybe a player setting where the game will "freeze" every xxx minutes, allowing players the chance to make changes to their orders and send them to each other?
A question about the unit weight characteristic- is it going to be implemented in the game engine sometime in the future? If so, I'm thinking it might be useful to add the information in the Combined Database while I'm working on it.
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 12:23
I don't have any comment on the interface, to me, it's no more difficult than a lot of other games I've played.
As mentioned by others, a big plus would be more multiplayer options, such as saved games and some sort of PBEM feature. I don't know how that would work- maybe a player setting where the game will "freeze" every xxx minutes, allowing players the chance to make changes to their orders and send them to each other?
A question about the unit weight characteristic- is it going to be implemented in the game engine sometime in the future? If so, I'm thinking it might be useful to add the information in the Combined Database while I'm working on it.
Although it MAY be implemented in the future, the values in there right now have no real use at all. I would forego plans to add that into the database, but maybe a "placeholder", much like the turret pK's? Just a thought.
Although it MAY be implemented in the future, the values in there right now have no real use at all. I would forego plans to add that into the database, but maybe a "placeholder", much like the turret pK's? Just a thought.
I guess the actual values will work as well as a placeholder. I can get a surprising number of the unit weights, so I might as well add them in while I'm at it. This is turning out to be a somewhat onerous process (although I managed to merge the units successfully, the weapons and IF ammo didn't do so well, causing me to have to go through each unit's stats in detail), so the more I can do now, the less I'll have to go back and change in the future...
I'm sorry you felt insulted, as that was NOT my intention. You clearly are defensive about something, but you truly aren't being fair to claim that I'm insulting you when I asked a valid question. You may not have liked my attempt at humor (the crack about the interface and the hand cramps), but that is ALL it was and nothing more, and it was INTENDED as "self-depricating humor" not as a barb against you. Of course I know some people don't like the interface, I didn't like it,...initially, but I got used to it, and I no longer find it a "waste of my precious time". If I had, I would never have invested MY time and money into making Raging Tiger.
Now, it seems, you don't even WANT a user friendly interface for any future games based on the ATF engine? Now you are confusing me - ATF and RT have a bad interface, BCT sits on your shelf collecting dust, but you DON'T want the interface to change? You can ASSUME I don't have any influence over the interface, and that's okay too. Do NOT presume that I "licensed" the ATF engine from Pat Proctor and that's that. I have been, and will continue, working very closely with Pat on RT and other projects. I consider us more partners in this and future projects, as I'm confident he feels the same. That being said, I speak for me, and not Pat or ProSIM Company.
Now, after all of this, you want to tell me I'm ruining my future as a game designer for asking someone who has no plans to buy my game and doesn't even like to play the game why he is posting in a forum designed specifically for players of the game to communicate? I was not trying to embarrass you or any othe ulterior motive other than why you post here not being a player of the games for which the forum was intended. If you still feel that I am in error or have no right to an answer to that question, then please tell me, but don't presume I am trying to shame you. I'm only asking a simple, valid question. If that question, in and of itself, shames you, again I truly apologize.
I really don't know why you feel I have some kind of grudge against you or dislike for you. I can't imagine that I have done or said anything to you in the past to garner this much dislike.
I think this is a case of mistaken meaning taken from a forum post, so I'll just shrug it off and say to you that I hope you find a game that suits all of your needs, and that I'm sorry you won't play ATF or RT. I still don't harbor any ill will toward you, and hope you can see my POV on this subject.
By the way, I think I and my game(s) are better served now, and in the future, by taking constructive comments from those who actually play the game(s), than those who do not.
Have a nice day.
Curt,
no matter how often you repeat the claim that I don't play ATF, it doesn't make it any more true. You are just a poor mind-game player who wants to draw me as an outsider attacking the community on this forum. It won't work, people here are not that stupid, and many know me longer than they know you.
Nowhere did I say I stopped playing ATF, you made that up.
Nowhere did I say I don't want changes in the ATF/RT user interface, you made that up.
Nowhere did I say I thought you had a grudge against me. You don't. Obviously you couldn't care less. You just thought that some targeted insults pulled out of thin air would solve your "problem" of somebody advising you that you are losing sales on your product due to technical deficiencies. Do you really think that works on me?
Nowhere did I say I never had plans to buy your game, you made that up. All that happened is that a review was slamming the interface and I said, yeah, the review is crap, but he has a point about the interface, that is what has been keeping me from buying RT, too.
%%
Now, as for your ideas about the forums:
if you think you can monopolize an independent forum to narrow it down to your customers (as opposed to ATF customers), and doing so by playing stupid mind games, I think you are in for a surprise.
If me being a non-customer of RT is such a big problem for you, then I suggest we split ATF and RT into separate forums. What you do with purchase feedback on "your" forum will be up to you then.
But for now I am a member of WFHQ, and I have been longer than you are, and I own and play ATF (sure as hell I won't own RT), and unless you manage to convince Don of any of your interesting ideas above, nothing about this is going to change.
Curt,
How often do you find yourself writing some variation of the words, "I'm sorry you felt insulted, as that was NOT my intention"?
A lot more than most people around here, that's for sure.
I'm sure that you feel you're being reasonable. I'm sure that you regard yourself as having a great sense of humor. But, the fact is, somehow your "jokes" end up insulting and pissing off a surprising number of people. That's well and good when you're acting as a private citizen, but here you are a representative of ProSim. At the moment, you are essentially slapping a potential customer in full view of the general public.
How much useful feedback have you just suppressed from more timid members? Is Pat going to approve of this display of customer relations?
--- Kevin
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 13:55
Curt,
no matter how often you repeat the claim that I don't play ATF, it doesn't make it any more true. You are just a poor mind-game player who wants to draw me as an outsider attacking the community on this forum. It won't work, people here are not that stupid, and many know me longer than they know you.
Nowhere did I say I stopped playing ATF, you made that up. What am I to infer from this? Well, the reason why I didn't buy RT yet is because of the ATF interface http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/sulk.gif.
I am a UNIX user, spending a majority of my time in a mouseless mailer and in the emacs editor with menus turned off, so I wouldn't agree that the ATF interface is just too hard on the clicki-bunti crowd. It is just not efficient, in lack of a better word.
Nowhere did I say I don't want changes in the ATF/RT user interface, you made that up. I said that you "don't want a user friendly interface", did I not?!
And I don't want a "user-friendly" interface, why else would I use a curses-based mouseless mailer? What I want is an efficient interface that doesn't waste my precious play time. Nowhere did I say I thought you had a grudge against me. You don't. Obviously you couldn't care less. You just thought that some targeted insults pulled out of thin air would solve your "problem" of somebody advising you that you are losing sales on your product due to technical deficiencies. Do you really think that works on me? You intimated in your post that you didn't play ATF for various reasons, and you outlined them, quite specifically. I actually DO care about what players of Raging tiger think, and by extension, ATF because they share many common things, such as the interface, HOWEVER, the interface hasn't changed in 3 years, and EVERYBODY has let it be known that they don't like it. Changes are in the works for the next iteration of ATF (AATF), and you know this, so you harping on the point is basically useless.
Again, nowhere did I do/say anything insulting to you, I asked a question - if I was mistaken in asking and didn't infer properly from your posts that you are an avid player of ATF and plan on buying Raging Tiger, then again, I apologize,...and sales are doing fine, thank you for asking.
Nowhere did I say I never had plans to buy your game, you made that you. All that happened is that a review was slamming the interface and I said, yeah, the review is crap, but he has a point about the interface, that is what has been keeping me from buying RT, too. Well, the reason why I didn't buy RT yet is because of the ATF interface http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/sulk.gif... (other factors also apply, namely the lack of savegames in two-player and a personal issue with the Korean theater of war) Hmmm, okay, so, let's break this down - you said you haven't bought Raging Tiger because of the interface. You knowing as well as I do that the interface for Raging Tiger is NOT going to change, and that the theater of war isn't going to change, I am then incorrect in assuming that you ARE NOT going to buy Raging Tiger? I stand corrected. How silly of me.
If you think you can monopolize an independent forum to narrow it down to your customers (as opposed to ATF customers), and doing so by playing stupid mind games, I think you are in for a surprise.
If me being a non-customer of RT is such a big problem for you, then I suggest we split ATF and RT into separate forums. What you do with purchase feedback on "your" forum will be up to you then.
But for now I am a member of WFHQ, and I have been longer than you are, and I own and play ATF (sure as hell I won't own RT), and unless you manage to convince Don of any of your interesting ideas above, nothing about this is going to change. Again, you'll have to go slow on this one,...I'm not too bright. You post the following:
Well, the reason why I didn't buy RT yet is because of the ATF interface http://schlepper.hanse.de/smileys/sulk.gif.
I am a UNIX user, spending a majority of my time in a mouseless mailer and in the emacs editor with menus turned off, so I wouldn't agree that the ATF interface is just too hard on the clicki-bunti crowd. It is just not efficient, in lack of a better word.
(other factors also apply, namely the lack of savegames in two-player and a personal issue with the Korean theater of war) You, now expect me to take that as contributing to either ATF or Raging Tiger?
You basically just told everyone why you do NOT like the game, and that you are NOT planning on buying Raging Tiger, and, incorrectly, I assumed you didn't play ATf due to the interface and the lack of savegames in two-play, etc.?
Now, I simply asked a question, and you incorrectly assumed I was going on the defensive. Maybe I SHOULD have been on the offensive, because no matter what I say, you attack me.
No problem, Redwolf, if that's the way you want to play this out, fine. I have tried to be very civil about this, and, considering my history with another member of this forum, I am being downright warm and fuzzy here despite your insistent attacks against me personally.
Again, it is a case of misinterpretation of a forum post all the way around, and for that, I apologize. I have been trying to learn how to get a thick skin due to recent attacks against me and my game design efforts. fortunately, I have been able to temper those attacks with knowing that the people who are attacking me have never created their own game and put it out to the consumer to be criticized, and probably are less tolerant than even I am of being criticized.
You call these posts "mind games", I call it diplomacy and trying to work out differences,...and never the twain shall meet.:nervous:
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 14:03
Curt,
How often do you find yourself writing some variation of the words, "I'm sorry you felt insulted, as that was NOT my intention"?
A lot more than most people around here, that's for sure.
I'm sure that you feel you're being reasonable. I'm sure that you regard yourself as having a great sense of humor. But, the fact is, somehow your "jokes" end up insulting and pissing off a surprising number of people. That's well and good when you're acting as a private citizen, but here you are a representative of ProSim. At the moment, you are essentially slapping a potential customer in full view of the general public.
How much useful feedback have you just suppressed from more timid members? Is Pat going to approve of this display of customer relations?
--- Kevin
Nice try with the troll post. Sorry, not going to work.
Have an awesome day, and don't forget to buy your copy of Raging Tiger!
XXXXXOOOOOO
Curt
Curt,
you don't even understand the difference between a "user-friendly" interface and an "efficient" user interface, do you?
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 14:39
Curt,
you don't even understand the difference between a "user-friendly" interface and an "efficient" user interface, do you? Sorry, Redwolf,...but a user-friendly interface is the same as an efficient interface. I doubt an efficient interface would be considered user-unfriendly, and vice versa.
If it only takes me 3 steps to complete a task, where it used to take 4 or more, I would consider it bothe user friendly AND efficient, or at least more efficient.
I guess I don't understand any major difference between the two. If I am off-base here, feel free to correct me.
I have no unrealistic expectations of the ATF interface, but I do know that, once mastered, it becomes very easy to do, because it becomes habit. I have more problems with other game interfaces, such as Operation Flashpoint, than I do with ATF, and that is only because I use one all of the time, and not the other, but BOTH can be considered inefficient and not user-friendly, depending on the user's experience and willingness to learn/use the interface for the other joys a game may contain.
Again, I think there have been miscommunications all the way around, and I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say. Honestly.
a user-friendly interface is the same as an efficient interface. I doubt an efficient interface would be considered user-unfriendly, and vice versa.
The two sets occasionally overlap, but usually not.
Perhaps you recall the old Wordstar word processor. Not user-friendly at all. Who would guess that "character right" is Ctrl-D, for example? But once learned, it was great for touch-typists, its target market, because the most commonly-used commands were on the home row, and you didn't have to reach all ove the keyboard (or worse, over to the mouse) to do basic things like selecting text and moving the cursor. emacs and vi, editors used by legions of professional programmers, use the same concept. Hideously difficult to learn, virtually no accomodation for human sensibilities, but once trained users can perform astonishingly complex real-world tasks with just a couple of keystrokes.
Consider instead the commonplace "Wizard" dialog. Very user-friendly, not very efficent. Great for beginners who need to be hand-held through a complicated procedure, but very slow if you already know what you're doing. Few people use them if they are not forced to once they've figured out a hot-key way to do the same thing.
ATF, at the moment, is unfortunately not firmly entrenched in either camp.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 15:57
The two sets occasionally overlap, but usually not.
Perhaps you recall the old Wordstar word processor. Not user-friendly at all. Who would guess that "character right" is Ctrl-D, for example? But once learned, it was great for touch-typists, its target market, because the most commonly-used commands were on the home row, and you didn't have to reach all ove the keyboard (or worse, over to the mouse) to do basic things like selecting text and moving the cursor. emacs and vi, editors used by legions of professional programmers, use the same concept. Hideously difficult to learn, virtually no accomodation for human sensibilities, but once trained users can perform astonishingly complex real-world tasks with just a couple of keystrokes.
Consider instead the commonplace "Wizard" dialog. Very user-friendly, not very efficent. Great for beginners who need to be hand-held through a complicated procedure, but very slow if you already know what you're doing. Few people use them if they are not forced to once they've figured out a hot-key way to do the same thing.
ATF, at the moment, is unfortunately not firmly entrenched in either camp.
--- Kevin
So, in other words, you are saying that ATF strikes an equal balance between user-friendly and efficient! Cool!;):cheeky:
So, in other words, you are saying that ATF strikes an equal balance between user-friendly and efficient! Cool!;):cheeky:
I think you know I meant it was neither, not both. Here's just one of many possible examples: cancelling an artillery mission.
It took a post to this forum for me to figure out that the correct, nay, only method was to right-click on the actual splash target marker. Yes, it was mentioned in the manual and the online help, but not very prominently. And, there was no mention of how to make the marker *reappear* once you've done something else and then decide you need to delete a mission. As it turns out, you have to reenter fire mission mode and select the firing units to get their markers back so you can right-click them. Good luck if multiple markers happen to be stacked on top of each other.
There you go. Neither user-friendly nor efficient, and this for a function that has to be performed with fair frequency.
A user-friendly method would be to allow highlighting, adjustment, and deletion of fire missions directly from the FM Log.
An efficient method would be to provide a keystroke to delete the "topmost" mission in the list, and a slightly enhanced key sequence to delete the "nth" mission from the list, or the "first" mission for a specific heirarchy, or to delete and shift the mission all at once, etc. There are numerous possible keystroke variations for a power user who wants to jigger fire missions without constantly mousing in and out of the dialog and scrolling all over the map trying to find who is firing what.
As you can see, usually in order to accomodate both user-friendliness *and* efficiency, it is necessary to provide parallel command paths. Most consumer software works this way; Word for example. You can trudge through the wizard repeatedly to set up your standard company memo format (user-friendly) or write a macro to do it with a couple of keystrokes (efficient). Most users start off valuing user-friendliness as beginners, and end up valuing efficiency once they start trying to get some real work done. I think most serious wargamers are the same way.
But the real point here is that those different sets of users generally need to be accomodated with separate facilities.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 16:43
I think you know I meant it was neither, not both. Here's just one of many possible examples: cancelling an artillery mission.
It took a post to this forum for me to figure out that the correct, nay, only method was to right-click on the actual splash target marker. Yes, it was mentioned in the manual and the online help, but not very prominently. And, there was no mention of how to make the marker *reappear* once you've done something else and then decide you need to delete a mission. As it turns out, you have to reenter fire mission mode and select the firing units to get their markers back so you can right-click them. Good luck if multiple markers happen to be stacked on top of each other.
There you go. Neither user-friendly nor efficient, and this for a function that has to be performed with fair frequency.
A user-friendly method would be to allow highlighting, adjustment, and deletion of fire missions directly from the FM Log.
An efficient method would be to provide a keystroke to delete the "topmost" mission in the list, and a slightly enhanced key sequence to delete the "nth" mission from the list, or the "first" mission for a specific heirarchy, or to delete and shift the mission all at once, etc. There are numerous possible keystroke variations for a power user who wants to jigger fire missions without constantly mousing in and out of the dialog and scrolling all over the map trying to find who is firing what.
As you can see, usually in order to accomodate both user-friendliness *and* efficiency, it is necessary to provide parallel command paths. Most consumer software works this way; Word for example. You can trudge through the wizard repeatedly to set up your standard company memo format (user-friendly) or write a macro to do it with a couple of keystrokes (efficient). Most users start off valuing user-friendliness as beginners, and end up valuing efficiency once they start trying to get some real work done. I think most serious wargamers are the same way.
But the real point here is that those different sets of users generally need to be accomodated with separate facilities.
--- Kevin
Of course I understood what you meant. The thing here, and please don't take this wrong, is to plan your artillery carefully, just like in real life. If a target is killed, you reenter the fire order for that unit and delete the remaining missions in the fire list by right-clicking, just like in real life. Also, if a priotity target pops-up, you will have to do the same! This forces economy of fires and the player must then decide where his fires are most needed, or it will take a bit of time to adjust that fire order. I'm sure you know that these things are not instantaneous on the battlefield, and in this game, you can even pause the real time if things get too intense.
Of course, being able to do it with a single click or keystroke would be more efficient, and that, I'm sure, is certainly a consideration for AATF.
Believe it or not, I've been thinking about interface a great deal, and I have spoken with Pat at length, most pointedly with the map editor and the scenario editing. Rest assured, better days are ahead for the AATF interface!
If a target is killed, you reenter the fire order for that unit and delete the remaining missions in the fire list by right-clicking, just like in real life. Also, if a priotity target pops-up, you will have to do the same! This forces economy of fires and the player must then decide where his fires are most needed, or it will take a bit of time to adjust that fire order. I'm sure you know that these things are not instantaneous on the battlefield, and in this game, you can even pause the real time if things get too intense.
You're changing the subject. The game already exacts a time penalty for cancelling and shifting fire. That is a totally separate issue from the control interface required to input the commands. You make it sound as if this was a conscious design decision to slow the player's input down "realistically", which I strongly doubt. Its just poor interface design.
I could name numerous other examples of inefficiency and user-unfriendliness. The nearly useless spot report dialog. The largely indecipherable overview map. The lack of two-person savegame causing you to lose hours of play on a network burp. The lack of any indication of current mission settings when placing fire missions. The inability to store mission templates for later recall. A host of minor but grating annoyances like the way those Flash animations pop every time I start a scenario, even though I've seen them 100 times already, and I can't find a way to turn them off. I could go on and on. Like some reviewers said, at times it really does feel like you're fighting the software moreso than the simulated enemy.
The simulation and content keep me plugging away, but the experience is way more painful and frustrating than it needs to be. I think AATF would do well to prioritize those basic useability issues over whizbang new features that remain trapped behind an interface that makes it too painful to enjoy them properly. That's my ultimate point here.
--- Kevin
Just so that I get that straight:
So AATF is already set to have a new interface, or at least a
substancially improved one, and you won't hear anything about ATF and
RT having deficiencies in the current interface?
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 18:20
Just so that I get that straight:
So AATF is already set to have a new interface, or at least a
substancially improved one, and you won't hear anything about ATF and
RT having deficiencies in the current interface?
Exactly,...it is old news,...or is there some new level of hatred you have for the interface? Is there a new PROBLEM with the interface?
Honestly, Redwolf, I am at a loss as to what you expect? Are you just venting frustration about an interface everyone knows isn't as efficient and user friendly as it could be?
I'm sorry, but this horse has been beat to death, IMO. If there is a new problem you have with the interface, please tell us what it is, but don't just say "the interface sucks", which is essentially what you have been doing.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
Now can we please move on? If there is a specific issue with the interface, then please address it with its own title in another thread. I implore you not to keep saying you don't like it and accusing me of not wanting to hear it.
Please?
CPangracs
28 Sep 04, 18:25
You're changing the subject. The game already exacts a time penalty for cancelling and shifting fire. That is a totally separate issue from the control interface required to input the commands. You make it sound as if this was a conscious design decision to slow the player's input down "realistically", which I strongly doubt. Its just poor interface design.
I could name numerous other examples of inefficiency and user-unfriendliness. The nearly useless spot report dialog. The largely indecipherable overview map. The lack of two-person savegame causing you to lose hours of play on a network burp. The lack of any indication of current mission settings when placing fire missions. The inability to store mission templates for later recall. A host of minor but grating annoyances like the way those Flash animations pop every time I start a scenario, even though I've seen them 100 times already, and I can't find a way to turn them off. I could go on and on. Like some reviewers said, at times it really does feel like you're fighting the software moreso than the simulated enemy.
The simulation and content keep me plugging away, but the experience is way more painful and frustrating than it needs to be. I think AATF would do well to prioritize those basic useability issues over whizbang new features that remain trapped behind an interface that makes it too painful to enjoy them properly. That's my ultimate point here.
--- Kevin
So, you are saying that it is too much to click once to close a small flash file? Sorry, but that just seems lazy. If you have the full version, you know that you don't get the start-up flash file if you select a mission outside of the main scenario. The flash file is the OPORD for the mission, and yes, it WILL be there as a reference for the player before they start the mission. Again, one simple click, and it's gone.
All told, there are about 6 less clicks or key presses, from start to finish, to start a game in Raging tiger than there is for Battlefield 1942, Rise of Nations, or about 20 other current, popular games. So no, that's not a valid point.
I would respond to more, but I have to run.
ta
So, you are saying that it is too much to click once to close a small flash file? Sorry, but that just seems lazy. If you have the full version, you know that you don't get the start-up flash file if you select a mission outside of the main scenario. The flash file is the OPORD for the mission, and yes, it WILL be there as a reference for the player before they start the mission. Again, one simple click, and it's gone.
Our toilet was recently splashing my wife in the butt when she flushed it. I argued with her that she merely had to get up before flushing, and after all she was going to wipe off anyway, so what's a bit more moisture, and to not be so darn lazy, but she didn't see it my way. Needless to say, I soon found myself adjusting the water level.
Its not a question of whether I'm too lazy to do an extra click. The question is whether I should be forced to endure trivial annoyances unnecessarily. In this case, a simple option to suppress scenario splash screen and Bob's your Uncle, problem solved. Eminently patchable.
If you'd like a more significant side effect of this same issue, click on View Order. Now you have to sit through the whole intro crawl before you actually get to the point of being able to review the order. Either disassociating the two or adding a simple link to "skip intro" would largely solve that problem too. These don't strike me as issues that need to wait for AATF.
As an aside, blaming the customer is rarely a successful route to a high customer satisfaction rating, although I will admit it is a remarkably common one for software vendors. I can only imagine what would happen to a Wal-Mart associate who told a customer to "stop being so lazy and find the dog food yourself."
--- Kevin
Oh well. There is a fundamentally different approach to computing at work here.
I think it's better to let it go and make another attempt when AATF is on the table and Pat Proctor in involved.
AATF it might be able to run Raging Tiger scenarios so Curt's work wouldn't be lost even on those who don't like the old interface.
I think it's better to let it go and make another attempt when AATF is on the table and Pat Proctor in involved.
Pat *is* involved. He's probably just busy with his "other" job right now. I'm sure we'll all be hearing from him before long.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
29 Sep 04, 08:33
Our toilet was recently splashing my wife in the butt when she flushed it. I argued with her that she merely had to get up before flushing, and after all she was going to wipe off anyway, so what's a bit more moisture, and to not be so darn lazy, but she didn't see it my way. Needless to say, I soon found myself adjusting the water level.
Its not a question of whether I'm too lazy to do an extra click. The question is whether I should be forced to endure trivial annoyances unnecessarily. In this case, a simple option to suppress scenario splash screen and Bob's your Uncle, problem solved. Eminently patchable.
If you'd like a more significant side effect of this same issue, click on View Order. Now you have to sit through the whole intro crawl before you actually get to the point of being able to review the order. Either disassociating the two or adding a simple link to "skip intro" would largely solve that problem too. These don't strike me as issues that need to wait for AATF.
As an aside, blaming the customer is rarely a successful route to a high customer satisfaction rating, although I will admit it is a remarkably common one for software vendors. I can only imagine what would happen to a Wal-Mart associate who told a customer to "stop being so lazy and find the dog food yourself."
--- Kevin Sorry, but I won't be baited.
Should there be an ability to suppress the OPORDS? Maybe, but it hasn't a thing to do with gameplay, and actually helps some people play the game. The idea is NOT just to please people who have played the series, but to open the series up to a broader audience. Personally, the flash files were something to make the game different than other games. I wanted to avoid the "cookie-cutter" look of many Tiller games, TOAW, SP, etc.
I will make a patch just for you and others who want it, if you buy the full game, that will replace the flash files with the OPORDS in html format.
How does that sound?!
Sorry, but I won't be baited.
Maybe not, but I wish you *would* adjust your excessively confrontational style when replying to game-related feedback on this particular forum. Pat provides an excellent role model in this regard. Notice how:
He stated his appreciation for the feedback.
He acknowledged the concerns.
He explained the situation dispassionately from his point of view.
He clarified how he expected to address the issues, or if he didn't expect to do something, why not.
While he didn't agree with everything, he did avoid belittling people's ideas or issuing personal insults or questioning people's reasons for posting at all.
In short, professional.
Should there be an ability to suppress the OPORDS? Maybe, but it hasn't a thing to do with gameplay, and actually helps some people play the game. The idea is NOT just to please people who have played the series, but to open the series up to a broader audience. Personally, the flash files were something to make the game different than other games. I wanted to avoid the "cookie-cutter" look of many Tiller games, TOAW, SP, etc.
I'm not saying the flash files were a bad thing. I'm saying they get old after you've already seen them a dozen times or so. I can't think of *any* other game I've played with a intro sequence that *didn't* allow the player to suppress the sequence altogether once they had outlived their interest. And the ability to review the OPORD without sitting through the intro crawl again is most definitely a "gameplay" issue.
Anyway, thanks for your attention to this issue.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
29 Sep 04, 12:27
Maybe not, but I wish you *would* adjust your excessively confrontational style when replying to game-related feedback on this particular forum. Pat provides an excellent role model in this regard. Notice how:
He stated his appreciation for the feedback.
He acknowledged the concerns.
He explained the situation dispassionately from his point of view.
He clarified how he expected to address the issues, or if he didn't expect to do something, why not.
While he didn't agree with everything, he did avoid belittling people's ideas or issuing personal insults or questioning people's reasons for posting at all.
In short, professional.
I'm not saying the flash files were a bad thing. I'm saying they get old after you've already seen them a dozen times or so. I can't think of *any* other game I've played with a intro sequence that *didn't* allow the player to suppress the sequence altogether once they had outlived their interest. And the ability to review the OPORD without sitting through the intro crawl again is most definitely a "gameplay" issue.
Anyway, thanks for your attention to this issue.
--- Kevin
Again, I will not rise to take your bait.
I have taken the time to respond to your concern, even when NO ONE ELSE has voiced the same concern. How many game developers do you know that would do something like that so quickly?
I have gone out of my way with you and Redwolf to be accomodating and civil, and Redwolf understands this and has conducted himself as such, why can't you?
I could go off on a rant here, but I'm confident anyone who reads these little missives will realize that I do, indeed, respond to valid problems I can address at my level (game design). I think that speaks for itself.
If you have a problem with the way I respond to things, expecting me to be stumbling over myself to thank you as some kind of savior, well, wrong place, wrong person.
Just because I have a problem with you on a personal level should in no way influence how I deal with others, and hasn't for the most part.
Remember, this is NOT the only forum dedicated to the ATF products, and there are a great deal more members in the community than just here.
By the way, have you bought the game yet?
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.