Jump to content
AttorneyAtWar

Media coverage of Black Sea

Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen an article because I can't find one, not even on Rock Paper Shotgun. Its a shame, Black Sea definitely deserves to get out there, I can see this game drawing the attention of a wider audience due to current events and the technology present in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is that there are possibly already some B2B/Govt. customers who are on top of this already, but yeah, would be good to see a review.  My experience is that Combat Mission is a hard sell, even with other grognards, due to how niche this product is and how varied the Grognard spectrum is in terms of interests.  I do my best to evangelize this product to the right people, but a lot of folks get overly intimidated (including myself with the CMBO demo back in the day).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can hope enlightened media members will realize the geo-political soundings, both historical and current events through the entire Combat Mission game system... You know... how these Virtual Game Experiences can generate real empathy for conflicts near and far, current and historical.

Imagine that... a "game" could be a factor in helping people understand "reality" :)

Hears Hope Looking at You,

Buzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the game's been out all of 2 days!  ;)  Rock Paper Shotgun recently put CMRT on their 'Bestest of the Best' computergame list for 2014 so they're certainly aware of BFC the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well CM should at least have a forum of its own under Land Combat on the SimHQ forums.  I will see if I can get them to do that and to commission a review of CMBS, which I think is by far the best game in an already very distinguished series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim Stone at RPS is almost sure to do a write-up soon, and given the (deservedly) overwhelmingly positive response CMBS has gotten here so far, I can't imagine his assessment will be anything other than positive.

[ninja'd in part by MikeyD... Ah well...]

Edited by sandman2575

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the game's been out all of 2 days!  ;)  Rock Paper Shotgun recently put CMRT on their 'Bestest of the Best' computergame list for 2014 so they're certainly aware of BFC the company.

 

Shouldn't the cutting edge media be aware of CMBS anyway ;)  Ugh... Yeah... there was a sporting event yesterday with weeks of post season hype and a clutch ending so ... give cutting edge media a few days to catch up ;)

Edited by Buzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the cutting edge media be aware of CMBS anyway ;)  Ugh... Yeah... there was a sporting event yesterday with weeks of post season hype and a clutch ending so ... give cutting edge media a few days to catch up ;)

 

Sorry I am part of the "Now now now!" generation!

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least give the journalists time to learn using waypoints properly. By the time first review comes up the reviewist will know how to use hull down position amongst the trees to his advantage. ;)

Edited by Hister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a danger with a game as complex and potentially novel that a fast-appearing review will be substantially incomplete and potentially hostile... Give the reviewers chance to get to grips with the systems (both the game systems and the systems being simulated) and we'll not be buried under steaming heaps of review-manure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a Russian article which I translated. It had a "game cashing in on war" kind of tone, which is grossly unfair I know.

 

http://caponier.ru/flashpoint-ukraine-combat-mission-black-sea/

 

Just go to "Google Translate" and paste the link in there.

I read it. It's OK for a pre-release quick overview of the game. Not much unfairness I could spot there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. It's OK for a pre-release quick overview of the game. Not much unfairness I could spot there.

I agree. There's a potential for reading some implicit criticism for bandwagon-jumping with an assumption that it's showing an escalation of the 2014- conflict, and no explicit acknowledgement that the game has been in development for several years, with a backstory that has no connection, save themes and location, to the current unpleasantnesses in the region. But that's just a weakness in fact-checking, rather than actively unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. There's a potential for reading some implicit criticism for bandwagon-jumping with an assumption that it's showing an escalation of the 2014- conflict, and no explicit acknowledgement that the game has been in development for several years, with a backstory that has no connection, save themes and location, to the current unpleasantnesses in the region. But that's just a weakness in fact-checking, rather than actively unfair.

Yeah, exactly. Journalists often make a sloppy job and jump to their own false conclusions. Still the article didn't had any other "negativity" in it besides their own misunderstanding ow how and when the game was conceived .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an attack at Battlefront, so please nobody take it as such.  I keep reading how Battlefront 'accurately predicted war in Syria'.  Other than there being a war in Syria I see very little in common with the backstory of the game and the actual war in Syria.  Pages 10-12 in the section titled "A Developers Conundrum" seems to point to Syria being chosen partly for gaming reasons.  Shock Force provided a great setting, though at some points I saw it as an Iraq war in Syrian skins, and I give great credit to not choosing a fictional OPFOR which was also mentioned as a possibility.

 

I have read in more than one article including the headline posted earlier in this thread that war in Syria was predicted by Battlefront (I have not seen Steve say this himself , though I might have missed it) But to me, judging by the backstory of the scenario and the 2 pages discussing development of it - it seems to to be more of a coincidence that a civil war is occurring there than an accurate prediction of a NATO invasion of Syria following a state sponsored  dirty bomb attack polluting major cities of the West for hundreds of years. 

 

If this has been brought up previously I'm sorry for beating a dead horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they got right was the theatre of operations, the rest... well, now in 2015 sounds extremely contrived. Maybe in 2003 or 2004, made more sense (the Assads had limited nuclear capabilities until the Israelis managed to pin point the location of a North Korean nuclear reactor and blow it into smithereens in 2006 or 2008, funnily with a very "mild" Syrian protest).

BUT certainly nobody saw coming that the Assad dynasty would be challenged in the way has been. The latest trouble in Syria dated back to 1981 or 1982, when Assad Senior troops made an example of Hama for the Sunni to mull over.

In any case makes more sense than Arma 3 setting. The politics and strategy of the whole thing are ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we can see, there needed to be a significant provocation by the Assad regime to get the US onto the ground and make a game at all.

Shock Force 2: the collapse of Saudi Arabia in a succession struggle, with the Iranians jumping in "to maintain regional stability", IS insurging in the north and NATO trying to secure the oilfields and keep them out of the hands of the Ayatollahs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we can see, there needed to be a significant provocation by the Assad regime to get the US onto the ground and make a game at all.Shock Force 2: the collapse of Saudi Arabia in a succession struggle, with the Iranians jumping in "to maintain regional stability", IS insurging in the north and NATO trying to secure the oilfields and keep them out of the hands of the Ayatollahs...

I have no problem with BFCs scenario and enjoyed it vastly. I just see it claimed as an accurate prediction of the actual conflict in Syria by 3rd party writers a bit curious, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with BFCs scenario and enjoyed it vastly. I just see it claimed as an accurate prediction of the actual conflict in Syria by 3rd party writers a bit curious, that's all.

Yeah, they're being a bit generous maybe, but hey, it's a journalist's job to make the news these days, ain't it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with BFCs scenario and enjoyed it vastly. I just see it claimed as an accurate prediction of the actual conflict in Syria by 3rd party writers a bit curious, that's all.

Yeah, that is a bit of a stretch. The Syria scenario was written at a time to create a middle east situation where US military forces would be involved that wasn't Iraq. At the time, Syria and Iran were the only remotely plausible options for potential flashpoints, and they went with Syria and dreamt up a backstory to justify it.

 

The actual disintegration of Syria into civil war was largely coincidental: the reasons the real war started don't have anything to do with the CMSF scenario. Although you might argue that the reason the war has got as bad as it has is because of the varying degrees of involvement and non-involvment from Iran, Russia, the US and neighbouring countries. And their attitudes of those countries in reality are what made Syria  the choice for a fictional middle east conflict for CMSF. It is the strong support from Iran and Russia that made Syria a focus of US attention and a good setting for CMSF, and also enabled the stalemate that meant the war there has dragged on for so long with all the external forces doing just enough to stop anyone one side gaining a decisive advantage.

 

So it's not really an acurate prediction of events, but the geopolitics that suggested Syria for CMSF are the ones at play in the real Syrian war.

 

The same as with the Ukraine situation. Ukraine was picked for CMBS largely because it was the country where various geopolitical forces clash between Russia and NATO. And again, although the scenario is fictional and not  accurate as a portrayal of what is currently happening, the forces that suggested Ukraine as the setting for a NATO/Russia clash are to an extent the same forces driving the real conflict in Ukraine.

 

So I guess when people are talking about BFC's prediction, it is a case of BFC (well, Steve) successfully picking out the areas where real tensions exist, rather than predicting actual events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...