Lack of a Quality Single Player Game

[Valdarez]

The mechanics of this game are great, however the single player game is extremely lacking. Here are a list of problems

o Horrible Voice Overs for combat entry (British/German are the worst)
o Very little FMV intros (where is the eye candy / mission reward?)
o Lack of Quality Maps (additional scenarios)
o Lack of Naval/Air Squadrons (possibly saved for an addon)
o WWII story not told well at all

Of the problems listed above, the 'WWII story not told well at all' is the major failing of the single player Campaign. I was looking forward to seeing how the war started, how it unfolded, and how the battles played out during the war and what each battle meant during the war. Instead, we are given a paragraph intro along with a cheesy voice over prior to each mission.

Game Rating
Mechanics and Gameplay receive an A.
Multiplayer recives an A (assuming all of the crashes & bugs are fixed)
Production of Single Player Campaign an F (or the lowest value one can assign).
WWII Mode an F (once again the lowest value possible)

So I applaud the developers for creating a great game that is fairly well balanced, regardless of many complaints otherwise. It makes for a very enjoyable multiplayer experience.

At the same time, I am extremely dissatisfied with the single player mission and I hope the appropriate people within Atari are held responsible for such a subpar experience.

One thing I know about software, or business for that matter, is you do one thing well, be the best at it that you can, and then build upon that success. Providing mediocre solutions never wins approval. It's better to do one thing well than many things mediocre.

The mechanics of the game was something that could have been built upon, ufortunatley the Single Player Campaigns did not succeed nor did the WWII mode. Atari should have left off the WWII mode and focused on the single player mode. Once they got the Single player mode done, they should have then focused on the WWII mode.

At best, I think Atari tried to do more than they could deliver based on their resources. Unfortunately it is us, the gamers, that suffer.

At worst, the project was mismanaged, and the product had to be delivered early, when it was not complete, in order to receive some type of ROI, thus allowing the project and development to continue.

Either way, we the gamers recieve a subpar product. :(

Atari, take note.... this is not how you maintain a customer base for your products.

[blackj3sus]

i wouldnt give it an F maybe a D-

[Valdarez]

Hey bj, what is the redeeming value that you see that raises the rating from a F to a D-? The fact that you have some of the historical battles represented? I could almost go that route, but I am not a historical buff, so I do not understand the historical impact or importance of many of the battles. Hence the story aspect which is my major complaint and greatest dissapointment.

Even with that said, I still love this game as a MultiPlayer game. :)

[blackj3sus]

ok, the wwii mode is obviously unfinished... i mean the AI cant beat me even when the odds are extremely in it's favor (comon timegate)... so i agree with the F there. but the single player deserves a D at least because the AI puts up a good fight (how come AI can fight in campaign mode but not in wwii mode?) and the story (even if disconnected) is still present, giving u some background on each conflict. (allbeit not an A but definetly not an F)

[Valdarez]

A couple of the missions are difficult in the Single Player Campaign, and that's even on normal setting, I will give you that, however, the missions start out with background information in a cheesy 1 paragraph display that's straight out of the 80's console games, not computer, and then a horrible, and I mean horrible Voice Over intro into the game.

Like I said the mechanics & gameplay are good, they lend themselves well to the multiplayer aspect and to the single player even, albeit to a much lesser extent as the point of a single player game should be to engage the player not only with the gameplay but also by engrossing them in a story, something that is sadly lacking in this game. A player is left wondering what led up to each battle and why each battle is important (what happens if you win... what happens if you lose... will the war turn one way or another, are there key resources at stake... why are you fighting and dying???).

There's an important twist to the classical RTS that the game designers at Atari missed out on. They could have provided an open ended RTS. Most RTS games have missions that are linear, and A&A is no different in this respect. However, it would have been a nice addition if they had allowed the player to lose a battle, and then showed how it altered the war, perhaps making the war longer, or forcing the ware in a different route. Say that you were unable to defeat Germany in a key battle (D-Day), so they ended up owning Europe at the end of the war, but you were able to beat Japan. Thus, at the end of the war Japan would surrender, and Germany would promise no further aggressions against the remaining countries.

If RTS is about strategies, and the game is about the world war, then give the battles meaning, and let the gamer understand how they affect the war.

Sadly game designers have very few new ideas anymore and tend to stick with old school paradigms.

[Skipster]

Originally posted by blackj3sus
how come AI can fight in campaign mode but not in wwii mode?

Because in the campaign missions, the AI can be scripted for each individual map, because both the player and the AI have the same starting forces everytime, and the objectives are pre-set.

The battles in WW2 mode are really just random skirmishes with (IMO) way too many towns, and there are no set player objectives, so the AI has no idea what you are going to do, and must use generic strategy.

[Rocksk]

", and must use generic strategy."

which had poor scouting abilitys at the edge of the map, resulting in attacker alway win.

pooring finishing touch, defending AI failed to kill of attack even after bombing 80% of attacker building.

....

Just to be fair, i move my hq out of the edge to help give away my position.