Jump to content

New Gameplay features ?


Recommended Posts

An understandable critique, I don't think we have seen everything going into bulge so far however. Wait for the pre order announcement outlining the features and additions in detail on the main website. If at that point there really isn't anything new gameplay wise than I too will be pretty disappointed, although CM is CM so I will buy it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sigh. They said up front there were not going to be any new features. Of course people are entitled to their opinion and each of our whacky opinions are just as valid. BFC have been clear how this is all going to work. It is all above board and we'll understood. Cintinuing to harp on about it has very little value. Are we going to have this same conversation when the next Eastern front game comes out?

Never mind I know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be noted that while the initially Normandy release contained only Wehrmacht forces for the Germans, CMFB will have Wehrmacht with Gebirgsjaegers, SS, and Fallschirmjaegers from the get go. Having the Bulge as a module rather than a new Family has been discussed before. Not forcing new players to buy Normandy if they want to play the Bulge certainly is a valid point. That said it is the same Front as Normandy and in that regard it isn't quite as "new" as the other Families have been. We'll never have the same breadth as the CMX1 titles did but I feel we are getting more depth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. They said up front there were not going to be any new features.

Wow. :D You seem to have a problem understanding business in a free market economy, don't you?

It are the customers posting here which are paying Battlefront's bills, ok? Attacking customers for not hailing every business decision IMO is not a good business strategy and is not serving companies.

Sometimes I have the impression some of you could be hired by a hostile company: to frustrate and expel as many customers as possible. ;):D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. :D You seem to have a problem understanding business in a free market economy, don't you?

It seems to be people like you and Wiggum who have a hard time understanding & accepting that CMFB is not going to have any new major features and that this was announced long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the next one jumping in to attack those customers, obviously disturbing a self-imagined elitist circle of inbred fans. I guess you mean with "we have not understood and accepted" that we were too stupid. Only stupid people would raise criticism about the feature set, if the holy company in it's eternal wisdom had decleared long time ago, that CMFB does not need gameplay improvements! Who dares not to agree!

I am wondering if that is a reflection of your own mindset if you cannot understand the criticism of customers, only because the developer has decided otherwise?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the next one jumping in to attack those customers, obviously disturbing a self-imagined elitist circle of inbred fans. I guess you mean with "we have not understood and accepted" that we were too stupid. Only stupid people would raise criticism about the feature set, if the holy company in it's eternal wisdom had decleared long time ago, that CMFB does not need gameplay improvements! Who dares not to agree!

I am wondering if that is a reflection of your own mindset if you cannot understand the criticism of customers, only because the developer has decided otherwise?

 

ROFL! I am wondering if that is a reflection of your own mindset if you cannot understand that people are going to disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care much for 'new features', because I  think this game is already close to perfection. New features bring delay and as said seldom satisfies anyone. I think there's some truth in most posts in this thread, but there isn't a game anywhere that can touch CM, so let's be glad that BF is willing to make such complicated and deep games. The engine is good enough as it is now and I hope BF will quickly go to the eastern front after this.

To all you guys at BF working on it at the moment (and I bet you worked REAL hard for the past months): don't mind us too much. What you are doing is outstanding and second to none. Thank you for all your incredible work. Combat Mission RULES!

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to raise my voice for that part of the fanbase which is unimpressed by CMFB due to lack of new major gameplay features. This is a cold statement without any peevishness or whining, I feel as much justified to make this statement as much as BF is justified to release their products as they see fit. However, I feel obliged to give BF my opinion, because giving feedback to company I like is the least I can do for them, and is something a true fan should do.

As I see it, and I might by wrong, the current CM engine reached almost its full potential. The major features I would like to see were discarded by BF as beyond the engine capabilities. Fair enough, thus, I have no high hopes for upcoming CM games in this engine. If a setting catches my attention, I might buy it, chances are I won't. The game will give me more toys, but the gameplay experience will stay mostly the same. After I finish all campaigns and scenarios from previous games and modules, which happens in like 5 years, I might consider to buy a new CM game just to get more.

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just said my personal opinion.

To clarify, when i say "just a few new textures" I don't forget the work necessary to add a winter whitewash version of each vehicle in game (not to mention the other new textures), I do appreciate the work of the people behind that kind of new content. But, at the same time, I also can't consider something really new this kind of addition, not as much as new vehicles or game mechanics would be.

In terms of contents for a new game CMBS added a lot, and introduced several new game mechanics and I recognize this. In the same terms of contents this new CM title doesn't stand up to the previous ones. I understand that the setting doesn't give much space for new contents or mechanics to be added (if you can add a few types of vehicles due to historical reality that's it, can't do anything more indeed), and that is one of the main reasons I would consider this content more adaptable to a module rather than a game. Still, if you want to create something that I would consider new, then some more advanced game mechanics could be added, or a Whole new interface, or a strong graphical revamp etc. etc.

I mean: if the contest doesn't give you much to add (weather, terrain, units, organizations) then the rest could be improved to add a lot for a brand new game. Or, given the fact I do like the CM game series (and how they are doing right now), then a whole new setting would interest me much more even if the gameplay features remain the same (CM North africa? Korea? any early war front? Arab-israely wars? anything that was suggested already and is hoped by many people).

 

 

  

Edited by Kieme(ITA)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum posters have demanded a Bulge game for years. Well, you're getting a Bulge game and you're already complaining without having even touched it? You're arguing over the game in a vacuum.

 I'm confused about this fixation on 'new features', too. When the game engine got AA targeting aircraft (a BIG new feature) the 'new features' grogs simply yawned. When CMBS got amphibious vehicles the 'new features' grogs hardly blinked. Hit decals, seasonal weather, new terrain types, bump map shading, improved animations, new vehicle types, flamethrowers, mine clearing tanks, AT bunkers. The 'new features ' grogs were unimpressed. What in heaven's name do you want to see? It seems the answer is a generic 'something else'. Because no matter what you get will always want 'something else'.

AA targeting, Flamethrowers or hit decals ar just minor stuff that somehow got patched into the patchwork of the engine.

Nothing of this gives the game a "new" feel, nothing of this changes the way you need to play the game.

A redone infantry movement/formations system or new FOW features or a reworked cover/concealment/entrenchment system or a new suppression/routing system...now that would a new features that would make a difference !

Also, a more realistic way to handle and represente buildings or a reduced action-spot size...a 3D editor or halfway interesting quick-battles or new features for the AI (script based for example).

Yeah, im totally unimpressed with CMFB.

 

Sigh. They said up front there were not going to be any new features. Of course people are entitled to their opinion and each of our whacky opinions are just as valid. BFC have been clear how this is all going to work. It is all above board and we'll understood. Cintinuing to harp on about it has very little value. Are we going to have this same conversation when the next Eastern front game comes out?

Never mind I know the answer.

Yeah they said it and they also said they will continue that way for a long time.

Do i like it NO !

Do i get excited to buy their future products ? NO !

It seems to be people like you and Wiggum who have a hard time understanding & accepting that CMFB is not going to have any new major features and that this was announced long ago.

Yeah, i have a hard time accepting that CMFB just plays like CMSF with WW2 weapons and snow...and that after all those years.

 

I don't care much for 'new features', because I  think this game is already close to perfection.

Sorry, thats delusional...

Its far from perfect and only the second best 3D wargame currently available and soon only ranked third when that other game gets released !

Edited by Wiggum15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinion on the matter. We have a market economy and people are free to choose to buy or not. So, don't buy the new game and if BFC have it wrong they will feel it and adjust. That is fine. 

It starts to be annoying when people make demands and act all offended when BFC don't bow to their impressive wisdom.

Sorry if I don't let the whiners off easy. Well actually I'm not sorry :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest it is only the fact that young people might be reading this that I don't tell certain people where they can go. For the umpteenth time if you don't like how BFC do things then don't visit it's forums.

I don't understand why you guys respond to criticism with this, why can't someone criticize the way the game is made on this forum, what makes it so different?

Regardless of the way he articulates it which can be pretty blunt, saying things like that leaves no room for any kind of discussion on how the game could evolve even if you disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest it is only the fact that young people might be reading this that I don't tell certain people where they can go. For the umpteenth time if you don't like how BFC do things then don't visit it's forums.

So you're only allowed to say positive things on here? I could not disagree more. Plenty of critique and suggestions have been given to BF in the past and they have taken elements of it on board to improve the CM series. Those who come here not just to praise, do so in the hope that by going to Battlefront's forum suggestions will over time be listened to - and this has proven to be the case in the past. 

My take on CM is that it is very good, but still some way off perfection. There are lots of tweaks which could be made to improve it, (eg Wiggum's suggestion for optional infantry movement formations strikes me as a desirable upgrade), and over time I hope  a few of these ideas will be taken on board.

The BF forums are big enough for threads which are generally praiseworthy/neutral as well as those which offer critique. I will happily read both, but if certain members don't like to read critique and have nothing constructive to say in response to those who make it other than, 'don't come here', then maybe they should just avoid threads like this one - which given its title is likely to offer a critical perspective. 

Edited by Odin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What other games are those, Wiggum? Just curious.

I cant name them here or post links because that could get me banned. Sorry.

All i can say isthat it has something to do with the Mius Front.

@ Warts 'n' all

Please dont be so aggresive and abusive. All i do is to ask about gameplay features.

Edited by Wiggum15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum posters have demanded a Bulge game for years. Well, you're getting a Bulge game and you're already complaining without having even touched it? You're arguing over the game in a vacuum.

 I'm confused about this fixation on 'new features', too. When the game engine got AA targeting aircraft (a BIG new feature) the 'new features' grogs simply yawned. When CMBS got amphibious vehicles the 'new features' grogs hardly blinked. Hit decals, seasonal weather, new terrain types, bump map shading, improved animations, new vehicle types, flamethrowers, mine clearing tanks, AT bunkers. The 'new features ' grogs were unimpressed. What in heaven's name do you want to see? It seems the answer is a generic 'something else'. Because no matter what you get will always want 'something else'.

Here Here. I am happy to get a CMx2 game based on the "Battle of the Bulge" which in reality was a campaign, as several other large battles of World War 2. Feature wise, the game does so many cool things. I don't quite understand the premise some seem to have that there has to be "new features" in every release that covers a different part of the war. Some of the carping by the author of this thread and one or two others might not be trolling but it sure is a wet blanket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something you're forgetting is the "porting" of the new features of v3 that weren't put into CMBN because they are a metric butt-load of work. The example that I have to mind is tank riders. Every rider-capable model (including all the multifarious variants of every family of AFV that's rideable) have to have specific work done to allow riders and to get the rider animations for mount, dismount and mounted action done. Snow a la Bulge is a lot more work than the Italian version. They've been refining shadows. Anyone who blithely refers to what's already been seen as trivial is trivialising the effort required.

Maybe Bulge "should" have been a BN module. BFC don't agree. This has been gone over multiple times and is becoming tired to the point of being the skeletal remains of a flayed deceased equine. If it was a module of the older family, it'd cost just as much as it will anyway, if not more, because everything new (tank riders, deep snow, streams, etc) would need testing for compatibility with everything old.

There's quite a bit of info out there on the differences between BN predecessors and the first west front "native v3" family (and even the differences brought into FB since BS), though it could do with being collated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Kieme(ITA)

I'm responding to your QB Map concerns. I posted: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121388-whats-new-for-cmfb-quick-battle-games/ and answered the question you raised regarding using maps made in previous games.  The two points most germaine are:

1. CMBN maps ported to CMFB were significantly altered in size, terrain, elevation, and AI orders.

2. CMRT maps ported to CMBS were often not significantly altered because I thought East Front players might enjoy playing with modern equipment on CMRT historical maps. 

It would be best to read all my responses to better understand my reasoning. But make no mistake; I am solely responsible for The QB Maps in all four games.  While I would hope all players would just love what I do, I understand my artistic choices are subject to criticism.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's referring to a game that doesn't allow you to play anything but the AI.

Yeah, it has no MP but it does simulate many aspects of WW2 warfare far better then Combat Mission does.

How many owners of CM play Mp ? Maybe 25% at best ?!

Whats the point, we are talking about Combat Mission here ?!

Please stay on Topic !

Edited by Wiggum15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...