Jump to content

Graphics suck?!!?!?!


lordhedgwich

Recommended Posts

I am sorry to say this, but from last Steve's posts my opinion about BFC has changed. They do create good games, but, man, the way they treat customers/community members... simply not good. Maybe i am wrong, since i am new here. Only time will show.

 

I have to say I feel the opposite - I'm glad they stand up for themselves, and they are certainly never rude to people unless people are rude to them first.

 

He's explained the reasons why lots of the things people want won't be forthcoming in a totally clear, logical way, many times; and there are a small number people who just refuse to accept the answer and basically think they know better, and a (very) few number of those people can end up getting pretty nasty - so why not defend themselves?

 

I'm sure it'd be easier in a big company to let the forum manager, or whoever, deal with these kinds of things but Battlefront has, what; 4 and a half people working for them? There's really no one else who works there to do it, I don't think.

 

So, with that being said.... will the briefing text ever get any bigger? :P

Edited by jspec
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignore him, he's just pissed at the number of bugs he missed in Beta. Personally I wish they would spend my money on professional testers.

This is the first time I have ever had to reconsider a response based on knowing the one I wanted to write would likely force Steve to give me at least a temporary ban. Do you really have no idea how conceited,narrow and and childish that post was?

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say this, but from last Steve's posts my opinion about BFC has changed. They do create good games, but, man, the way they treat customers/community members... simply not good. Maybe i am wrong, since i am new here. Only time will show.

It's a bit of an ongoing theme and you are probably only disappointed because you haven't seen the one hundred or more similar threads to this one over the last decade.  First it was people who liked CMx1 and who always came onto the forums with an axe to grind about one thing or another - including a great deal of commentary about the business model which quite honestly isn't any of their business.  Now the old CMx1 types seem to have faded into the ether to be replaced by more forward looking types.  Even so, there is a way to request features and a way to not request features and when someone explains that there are limitations about what can be done and feature X can't be implemented the best response is to say 'thank you for considering my feature request.  I hope it will make it into the game at some point in the future'.  The least appropriate response is to say 'Because feature X isn't currently in the game and because I know it only takes two days to code it, I can't understand why BFC hasn't already added this feature to the game.  I can only assume the reason such a feature hasn't already been included is X' with X being whatever derogatory term the poster feels like tossing out at the given time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I have ever had to reconsider a response based on knowing the one I wanted to write would likely force Steve to give me at least a temporary ban. Do you really have no idea how conceited,narrow and and childish that post was?

Of course I do, it was deliberately offensive, in response to something that I found equally offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking it full circle...I stumbled on this comment at the SimHQ forums.

 

"Thanks for the response Magnum. My tastes in the past have always been (and remain) combat flight sims and titles like Steel Fury, SB Pro PE and the Arma series. The CM series never appealed because it looked awkward to play and visually clunky."

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4081575/Re:_CM:Red_Thunder#Post4081575

 

He looks like he is convinced to maybe try CM.  But note what games he plays and compares to CM.  He does not compare feature for feature, but looks at what he likes to play.  He lumps ARMA, GTOS, and Steel Beasts together.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I read something like this I can't help but remember Steve saying a few years back that the sales of CMBN were similar to the sales of CMBO. Think about that. BFC spent 3-4 years developing a new engine and used it to put out a game with much higher production values and their sales didn't increase.

Look at it this way - if they hadn't created the new engine, how many more CMx1 titles would they have sold between then and now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He looks like he is convinced to maybe try CM.  But note what games he plays and compares to CM.  He does not compare feature for feature, but looks at what he likes to play.  He lumps ARMA, GTOS, and Steel Beasts together.

I'm not sure what your point is. That people would probably like playing CM are missing out because they judge the game on its looks and not its features? Or reviews? Or demos? Eh, it happens, it's always happened, and it always will happen.

I'll say this again. In order to convince someone who makes even DEMO playing decisions based on superficial graphics, we would have to invest a ton of money. That investment comes at a real cost and a serious risk to us. Would there be enough of these types to justify the expense and sacrifice of other features? We think not.

Look at it this way - if they hadn't created the new engine, how many more CMx1 titles would they have sold between then and now?

Yup, which is something I said a few pages ago. We dropped the CMx1 engine, which earned us a ton of crap from "loyal" customers, because it was a dead end that had already run its course. CMx2 is also a dead end, but hasn't yet run its course. At some point it will.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that the people pushing us to "expand our markets" should know that we already know what we could do to double our customer base. Maybe even increase it by a factor of 10 if we got really lucky with the end result and market timing. But I can also promise you that it would not be at all like CMx2. It would have far less detail, far more bling.

So ask yourselves... do you REALLY want to push us into going for larger markets? Because making CMx2 with a better graphics engine is a half measure that would almost certainly not be financially viable. You guys should know us better than to think that we aim for half measures and financial instability.

It's definitely a be careful for what you wish for thing. The alternative to trying to push us into something that you don't want is to be satisfied with what you already have.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say this, but from last Steve's posts my opinion about BFC has changed. They do create good games, but, man, the way they treat customers/community members... simply not good. Maybe i am wrong, since i am new here. Only time will show.

It's already been said by those with a long exposure to my posting style. Respect is a two way street. I don't expect customers to fawn and suck up to me, I simply expect that they not be deliberately disrespectful. Even then I let a bunch of it slide. But at some point, a customer's chosen behavior pattern has demonstrated he does not have respect and therefore deserves none in return. And I'm still measured in my response to such cases, even though it might not seem that I am :D

Fortunately the overwhelmingly vast majority of customers who post here don't fall into the aforementioned category. Therefore, there's no problems. You just happened to have stepped into an exception. Even still, check out my responses. I am giving solid, rational answers that directly address the customers' concerns. Not my fault if it's not liked.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that the people pushing us to "expand our markets" should know that we already know what we could do to double our customer base. Maybe even increase it by a factor of 10 if we got really lucky with the end result and market timing. But I can also promise you that it would not be at all like CMx2. It would have far less detail, far more bling.So ask yourselves... do you REALLY want to push us into going for larger markets? Because making CMx2 with a better graphics engine is a half measure that would almost certainly not be financially viable. You guys should know us better than to think that we aim for half measures and financial instability.It's definitely a be careful for what you wish for thing. The alternative to trying to push us into something that you don't want is to be satisfied with what you already have.Steve

illegitimi non carborundum

You guys fulfill a need no one does.

I have enjoyed every game. We're they all perfect? No. Were there things I wanted that weren't in the games? Sure. Have I been annoyed at bugs and other things. Yup.

Do I enjoy playing every game. Yup. Even when I get my butt kicked. I would say you know your market pretty well.

I for one am really looking forward to the first CMBS module, next WW2 ETO game...and whatever comes next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I do, it was deliberately offensive, in response to something that I found equally offensive.

So you got pissed at one post that suggested your argument was false and that equals insulting essentially ALL of the beta testers. Thanks dude. The beta testers put in a lot of time testing the product some of them an enormous amount of time for the love of the game and this is how you respond? Yeah I have to say that really helps my opinion of you and your argument

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point, again, is only about the people who say there is no alternative to CM.  10 years ago it might have been true.  Its not today.  A self-fulfulling and self-serving definition of what a wargame is limits anyone from looking at what a wargame really is.

 

CM has many good points.  It is why I come back to play it.  But I also frequent a lot of boards and play a lot of games besides CM.  They are all wargames.  I only play games that scratch that tactical company-sized itch.  I wander the ARMA boards and sometimes can't understand why some of those people don't play CM.  I realize that they don't dig any deeper on CM because they get a lot of the tactical company-sized stuff out of ARMA.  When Hetman and a couple other command mods came out there was a lot of excitement.  That particular mod has one of the largest threads on the BI boards.  It would seem to me that a lot of people on this board consciously choose to not dig into ARMA to see what is there...or a lot of other games for that matter.

 

ARMA is a lot more detailed than CM in many ways.  But it is also incredibly incomplete out of the box.  It takes effort to make it work.  I use CM as a way to play with a lot less stress.  It plays so completely and simply compared to ARMA.  But it is a lot less detail than a fully modded ARMA, but that makes it easier to play.

 

You've built yourself a nice little world here at BFC, but it is extremely cloistered and has a real "not invented here" attitude about it.  Which is surprising for a small to medium-sized game company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Customer is always right and I disagree with you then how does BF resolve that? I say they follow my opinion as I am a customer and I am always right.

 

Sorry guys, but the customer is DECIDEDLY NOT always right.  

 

"I want it to work like this", or "I'm the customer, what I say goes" does not mean that as the developer, you have to ignore GAAP, or that you have to ignore DERP/FUDS CER/CLA.  Ugh, my kingdom, however small, for intelligent clients.

 

The fact that someone paid you $55 for a game does not magically grant them some semi-divine right to have their opinions turned into your software.

 

Listened to, yes (if you're a responsible company, and I think the fact that Steve replies in threads on the forums answers that question straight off).    Acted upon, no necessarily.

 

That's BFC's choice to make when they weigh: do they even want to do something?, what are their costs versus the revenue from you, and what they anticipate might happen from others "like" you.

 

Their judgement call, not yours. And unless you have the credentials that qualifies you in the business. little weight will be accorded to your opinion.

 

You are always free to take your business elsewhere, that's what a free market is all about.

 

Apologies for the semi-rant, but today was a day dealing with similar issues, and I'm all out of patience.

 

Steve, you're a far better man than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a mate who is a cabinet maker. Spent years acquiring the skills of his trade only to end up, over a period of time, punching buttons on a machine that churns out mass produced furniture that sells by the truck loads. Got sick of the mindless repetiveness so chucked it all in and sold his business.

 

Has a little workshop in his backyard now and makes one off hand made furniture. Makes enough to keep the lights on, food on the table and the bankers off his back. Goes to bed with smile on his face.

 

Have a couple of his pieces and very well made they are too.

 

Wouldn't have touched the crap he was churning out of his factory though.

 

Better graphics... I mean really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always amused by these sort of topics and threads. Great entertainment value.

 

Take a look at what you got and learn to love what you have, cause in my experience it won't change dramatically quickly.

 

Kinda like telling a wife or girlfriend she should lose 25 pounds and go to the gym so she can be as hot looking as the babe you see at work or walking down the street. There may be perfectly valid reasons in your mind as to why it would be a good idea and they may be valid, but don't expect to get the result you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stating the harsh reality of what >> I << expect when >> I << spend money on your products. If you cant live up to that well that's your problem to face in the future.

 

 

There, fixed that for you.

 

I've spent far more on BFC products than you have (I think).

 

That being said, I resent the fact that you feel qualified to speak for me as a paying customer of BFC. You generalize where you have no basis.

 

Next!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know what people want. They complain when the game changes radically and they complain when the game doesn't change radically. They complain when the game plays too little like other titles, they complain when the game plays too much like other titles. They complain when they don't get what they want, they complain when they do get what they want!

I think we all know what would happen if BFC went and rewrote their entire game engine from scratch to make it 'popular', if they sunk five million+ in borrowed money into fancy-schmancy graphics to attract the snotty-nose teenage xbox crowd. The complainers would go ballistic, they'd complain that CM had sold-out, had become indistinguishable from the other games out there. They'd also complain about the $150 pricetag for this fancy feature-fllled all-revised game they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, but the customer is DECIDEDLY NOT always right.  

 

"I want it to work like this", or "I'm the customer, what I say goes" does not mean that as the developer, you have to ignore GAAP, or that you have to ignore DERP/FUDS CER/CLA.  Ugh, my kingdom, however small, for intelligent clients.

 

The fact that someone paid you $55 for a game does not magically grant them some semi-divine right to have their opinions turned into your software.

 

Listened to, yes (if you're a responsible company, and I think the fact that Steve replies in threads on the forums answers that question straight off).    Acted upon, no necessarily.

 

That's BFC's choice to make when they weigh: do they even want to do something?, what are their costs versus the revenue from you, and what they anticipate might happen from others "like" you.

 

Their judgement call, not yours. And unless you have the credentials that qualifies you in the business. little weight will be accorded to your opinion.

 

You are always free to take your business elsewhere, that's what a free market is all about.

 

Apologies for the semi-rant, but today was a day dealing with similar issues, and I'm all out of patience.

 

Steve, you're a far better man than I.

No you are wrong. You must be because I am a customer and I am.....wait you are also a customer?.......damn it! I sense matter and anti matter are meeting. Yikes! Cross the beams? Didn't you say that would be a bad thing?

Herr Oberst you do know my response was tongue in cheek right? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point, again, is only about the people who say there is no alternative to CM.  10 years ago it might have been true.  Its not today.  A self-fulfulling and self-serving definition of what a wargame is limits anyone from looking at what a wargame really is.

There has ALWAYS been competition for our customers' time. Be it another game, work, children, finances, etc. Now is no different than any other time in our history.

I do not think we've lost many CM customers to Arma3 because it is direct competition. It's on a different scale, for starters. If we had a 1st person shooter with our current game engine we would no doubt be toast.

 

CM has many good points.  It is why I come back to play it.  But I also frequent a lot of boards and play a lot of games besides CM.  They are all wargames.

No, they are all games about war. It is not the same thing.

I only play games that scratch that tactical company-sized itch.  I wander the ARMA boards and sometimes can't understand why some of those people don't play CM.  I realize that they don't dig any deeper on CM because they get a lot of the tactical company-sized stuff out of ARMA.  When Hetman and a couple other command mods came out there was a lot of excitement.  That particular mod has one of the largest threads on the BI boards.  It would seem to me that a lot of people on this board consciously choose to not dig into ARMA to see what is there...or a lot of other games for that matter.

So if what you say is true, then the solution is for us to stop making wargames because we can't compete with the resources that Arma3 has. Let me say that again, you are arguing for us to give up and do something that we have a hope of succeeding at.

 

ARMA is a lot more detailed than CM in many ways.  But it is also incredibly incomplete out of the box.  It takes effort to make it work.  I use CM as a way to play with a lot less stress.  It plays so completely and simply compared to ARMA.  But it is a lot less detail than a fully modded ARMA, but that makes it easier to play.

It's easier to play because it is a first person shooter. We can never compete with that, so again you are arguing that we should give up.

 

You've built yourself a nice little world here at BFC, but it is extremely cloistered and has a real "not invented here" attitude about it.  Which is surprising for a small to medium-sized game company.

You continually miss (no, ignore) the arguments I have have presented that challenge your basic hypothesis. Just as happened in 2007 the last time we had a disagreement about Battlefront strategy and execution. 7 years later, we're still here. Now tell me, honestly, what was your prediction about our viability as a company back in 2007? Any of the other vets here remember? I know I certainly do without having to look back at the archives.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know what people want. They complain when the game changes radically and they complain when the game doesn't change radically. They complain when the game plays too little like other titles, they complain when the game plays too much like other titles. They complain when they don't get what they want, they complain when they do get what they want!

I think we all know what would happen if BFC went and rewrote their entire game engine from scratch to make it 'popular', if they sunk five million+ in borrowed money into fancy-schmancy graphics to attract the snotty-nose teenage xbox crowd. The complainers would go ballistic, they'd complain that CM had sold-out, had become indistinguishable from the other games out there. They'd also complain about the $150 pricetag for this fancy feature-fllled all-revised game they wanted.

 

/agreed

 

I want Combat Mission to play just like it has. Graphics are the icing on the cake, but if the engine sucks. you just have icing on, well, crap.

 

( caveat, I play mostly WWII, CMBN, CNFI, CMRT + modules, CMBS is new, and interesting)

 

I want it to matter that when I crest a hill with a tank and plan to engage a known tank in a known position that orienting my hull at 45 degrees adds protection.

 

I want it to matter than then my opponent has a Tiger, and I rush it with two Shermans with a good distance between them, that the turret traverse speed means he (or the Tac AI) has to pick one to kill, giving me a flank shot from the other.

 

Give me an engine that rocks, and better graphics as you can work them in.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...