Game News Today's JA3 bits

Tags: Jagged Alliance 3; Richard Therrien; Strategy First

Here's a new portion of <A target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=47>Jagged Alliance 3</a> forum bits. This time <b>Richard Therrien</b> speaks of the idea of ToEE-style simultaneous turns in JA in <A target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=47;t=000010>this thread</a>:
<br>
<ul><i>Having enemies take their turn at the same time to speed up things make sense provided that they are not in view and are not taking current action against a merc (like firing a weapon). Otherwise, you risk having one merc shot in one area while you are looking in another and you would never know what happened.
<br>
<br>
Of course, you could always freeze and move the camera on a shot and continue the turn. Still, you might miss enemy movements passing in and out of view.</i></ul>And <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=47;t=000007>here</a> he speaks of multiplayer:
<br>
<ul><i>Deadly Games was nice but it also had a number of flaws. Beyond 2 players and depending on their play style, the games could get a bit long on the down time.
<br>
<br>
Multiplayer and how best to achieve it is being evaluated. The rule of thumb is that the basic (single player) game must not be negatively affected.
<br>
<br>
Still, wether the JA3 would include the multiplayer component or not (at this time I favor it being included but won't make any definitive statement for the moment) it is better to consider the solutions now as it might affect some basic game object structures. In other words, I want to avoid hacking the game to make multiplayer work, especially if it needs special rule sets to make it more fluid.</i></ul>

 

ATTENTION HERVE CAEN:

Take some notes from these people on how to treat a franchise properly. Hey, look, those on their forums actually LIKE them! "Best wishes" at the bottom of a post that looked like it might have caused flames. Hey, look at all the bug complaints that sound nasty. Well, not many sound nasty at all, and none sound like they are at the "to tears" point, really. And while it's true that those forums haven't been up long, they are also free from the usual garbage that filled yours. The devs aren't afraid to speak, not bothered by any possibility of the virulent gripes of people the company pissed off nor from what upper management would do to them with no option of a reacharound.

Don't you just wish you could have the same? Oh, sorry...what forums? Or for that matter, what following?

 

Hopefully the game sells so other companies will get the hint.

 

Let's hope SFI's forums don't end up like IPLY's.

 

Well, Jagged Alliance doesn't really appeal to morons who enjoy noninteractive combat, so I think it's not too much of a worry.

 

Kind of amazing that not only are they worried about the right things, and saying the right things, but are making two games instead of just one...

Has to be one of those "too good to be true" situations.

 

Strategy First is a damn fine publisher if you ask me, games like Europa Universalis and Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun kick serious ass and although I haven't played it, I've heard a lot of good things about GalCiv.

 

Let's hope that the Fallout license will go to a publisher with SFI's attitude, rather than another Interplay-like asshole.

 

I just picked up Celtic Kings for $5, another Strategy First title, and it's also good fun. I'm impressed with their work.

 

EU, Victoria et al. are Paradox titles, people on those forums does not seem to be as satisfied with the publishing by Strategy First: hard time finding games in the stores and june release date for Crusader Kings in NA when it's available elsewhere about now.

Azael: Paradox' Scandinavian publisher is Pan Vision.