dumbttt wrote:Molve wrote:I agree the campaign is too short, but not in the "I'm not getting my money's worth" sense.
Totally disagree. This game is a virtual copy of PG1, incorporating little new innovation while containing less content than a game made 20 years ago. The campaign path is but one area of the game that could use more content. The "Library" content is way too thin, I would expect a paragraph describing each unit. PBEM is a bizarre throwback, in 2011 we expect real-time multiplayer. Although not a huge deal, the graphic would have been much, much better. When I first saw the screenshot, I thought the game was made at least 5-7 years ago and some how never came up on my radar.
I remember paying $9 for PG1 (PS1) back in 1995. Even with inflation factored in, this game cost twice as much as the game it copied from. I realize that the developer are small-time operations and don't have the economies of scale that huge companies have, but $40–50 is definitely too much. While I don't personally care for the purchase price because I am a big fan of PG and have the money, I don't see how the average gamer would even consider paying $40-50 for such a game. Maybe $25 or less is more reasonable. That being said, I am glad someone is restarting the series, so no complaint here, I just don't see how they can hope to reach audience beyond the old PG crowd.
Sorry, but please start a new thread.
I would like to focus on the message that (most) people complaining about the campaign length aren't doing so simply because they want ever-more stuff for the same money.
If you disagree with the price tag placed on the game, feel free to discuss that. Elsewhere.
Instead, there is a valid gameplay balance issue at the heart of the issue. Simply put, the game doesn't have enough scenarios for the end game (in all branches of the campaign tree) to be fully enjoyable.
Adding more scenarios is a quality issue, not merely random whining from random users.
