Dropteam gets drop-kicked in IMG review

[Junglist]

I for one have no regrets about buying this game and will gladly ante up again, if need be, when the engine reappears.

[poesel]

Same here. If not for what the game is but for what it may become and being able to participate.

Ok, correction: the game IS already a lot of fun (see: Sunday!) but I got the sentence so nicely formulated, I had to leave it like that...

[Redwolf]

For what it's worth, I just bought it just to support a game that has a Linux version and makes an effort to create something interesting, something new.

I seriously doubt that it sucks for me.

But even if it does - it doesn't make any sense to bitch about the gameplay monotony/similarity of 98% of the games on the market and the lack of non-Windows games and then not to buy a game that does both.

Also, I want to try the WW2 version and by sending my tiny 35 bucks I make an investment.

[Dark_au]

Well Battlefront / steve, I think its neccecary to maintain a non "fan boi" presence here. Having people jump on the review and say its wrong because they like the way the game is is not balanced. Especially when Battlefront have to come in officially to trounce the reviewer. Which is what elicited my sarcastic response. You are correct, from my first post i made it clear i did not agree 100% with the reviewer. However I do feel he makes some very valid and insightful comments. And with due deference to what Clay etc have turned out i will still maintain that the reviewers comments about DT not bieng well thought out is true. I think it has improved but it is still too gamey and promotes lazy tacticless play.

[Battlefront.com]

Dark_au,

Well Battlefront / steve, I think its neccecary to maintain a non "fan boi" presence here.

There is plenty of critical discussion going on here. Just because people aren't going out of their way to be nasty and an unnecessary pain in the arse doesn't make them fan boys. However, someone who does have a bad attitude can be seen as a troll. What I am suggesting is you not have such a chip on your shoulder that you cross over the line to the anti-fan boy status (i.e. Troll). We have no Tall Poppies here... so there is no need for such behavior.

Having people jump on the review and say its wrong because they like the way the game is is not balanced.

If that is their opinion, what is wrong with then expressing it? You seem to think that only a negative opinion holds any value. That's rather arrogant of you.

Especially when Battlefront have to come in officially to trounce the reviewer.

Why not? This is our game and our Forum. You are saying we are not entitled to express our opinion without first checking with you to see if you like it or not? Again, that's rather arrogant.

As I said in my previous post, I have a large amonut of experience with game making and game marketing. It is my professional and seasoned opinion that this reviewer was not a good pick for DT and did not spend enough time with it to render a balanced opinion of it. I could be wrong, of course, but I do base my opinion on a pretty solid base of experience and understanding of what goes on behind the curtain.

Reviewer matchup is critical, as is the skill of the reviewer himself. If the equation is wrong then you get a skewed review, either too negative or too positive. I've seen my fair share of both. Obviously I feel that this one was skewed too negative. Pretty much only you disagree with that opinion, which puts you firmly in the minority. Your attitude so far has demonstrated that that is exactly where you want to be.

Which is what elicited my sarcastic response.

Which was not warranted. You will also note that I have rebutted the reviewer, and you, quite rationally and professionally. If you don't believe that, then say so and I'll tear you a new virtual orifice and then ban you simply to prove you wrong.

You are correct, from my first post i made it clear i did not agree 100% with the reviewer. However I do feel he makes some very valid and insightful comments. And with due deference to what Clay etc have turned out i will still maintain that the reviewers comments about DT not bieng well thought out is true. I think it has improved but it is still too gamey and promotes lazy tacticless play.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you must stop positioning that opinion as if it is the only possible correct one to have. Other people honestly, and genuinely, hold different opinions. If you can not respect that, then you do not deserve the privilege of expressing your own opinion.

Steve

[ October 18, 2006, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Dark_au]

I was neither trying to troll nor thinking my oppinion was all encompassing. People are entitled to their oppinion as well. But what about the oppinions of those who have bought this game an have found it so sub-standard after more careful inspection that they no longer even come here to attest to their side. I know of at least 2 who I persuaded to buy this after very positive experiences playing the demo amongst serious players who wanted a tactical game. However the reality of the average players corner cutting play styles and lack of true tactical challenge lead both to abbandon the game in very short order too. I have expressed before that I do not feel the overview is repressentational of how the game is played online.

[aittam]

I see your point D_a but unless you set up your own server you have to accept people the way they are; if they play to win then coop and tactical manouvering are the way; but do not forget that tactical manouvering is related to the items we are given; so fi you are bot wrangling towards the bridge on death gulch, for me is perfectly sound to drop a 76 behind you and do a mad run damaging or destroing a couple of your vehicles, at the end for the price tag of a 76 I got to disrupt your manouver and got a couple of yours.

WWII will be totally different, more conventional tactics, but hey "you fight with what you got........."

[Battlefront.com]

Dark_au,

I was neither trying to troll nor thinking my oppinion was all encompassing. People are entitled to their oppinion as well. But what about the oppinions of those who have bought this game an have found it so sub-standard after more careful inspection that they no longer even come here to attest to their side.

All reasoned opinions are of value, of course. However, when you use terms like "sub-standard" you are injecting a value judgement into an opinion. In someone else's eyes your concept of how the game should be played could be "sub-standard" because it comes down to personal opinion. There is no such thing as an empirical list of standards and therefore there is no one way to evaluate what that standard is and how it applies to a particular game.

Find me a game that everybody can agree about everything all the time. It doesn't exist. I made Combat Mission from scratch, for example, and I know that despite the fact that many people find it to be the best wargame ever made (and we have awards that "prove" that), we also know that some people hate it. Does that mean that the people that don't like it are somehow right? No, it just means it wasn't the right game for them.

The trick from a game developer's standpoint is to find the right game for the right NUMBER of people that he can make a living at. If I made a game that I wanted and only needed 1000 people to buy it to make it worth the effort, why should I care if a few hundred million people hate it? Games are not popularity contests, nor should they be. So yeah, I expect there are some people that bought DT and regret it. It's unavoidable.

I know of at least 2 who I persuaded to buy this after very positive experiences playing the demo amongst serious players who wanted a tactical game. However the reality of the average players corner cutting play styles and lack of true tactical challenge lead both to abbandon the game in very short order too. I have expressed before that I do not feel the overview is repressentational of how the game is played online.

It is for those who wish to play it that way. What you need to do is find the right people to play with.

Again, from my own personal experience, CM was designed for the most serious WWII tactical wargamers. We spent enormous amounts of time simulating things accurately and making as sure as we could that the game would be played out with realistic tactics and not "gamey" tactics. Yet even with all that effort we know for sure that some people love playing it in ways that we absolutely did not want them to. They rush trucks over ridges to see where the enemy is, they use bailed out vehicle crews as suicide recon units, they always pick big heavy tanks on flat open terrain, etc. We even specifically coded stuff to make this difficult to do, yet they still do it. The fact that they can do this does not mean that the game is flawed, it means there is more than one way to play it. Generally that is a good thing, though it is admittedly frustrating when you go to play online and find yourself with the "wrong" sort of players, in your opinion.

To sum up... you want to play the game one way, other people want to play it a different way. The game inherently supports both styles of play. So try to find the "right" people to play with and against. Making concrete suggestions to change the gameplay is also good and productive, but don't do it with the attitude that your concept of how to play the game is the only "right" way to do it.

Steve

[Chilibird]

I personally prefer the arcadey aspect of the game. As much as tactical warfare can be an entertaining genre, it is best saved for turn-based styles.

Granted, DT does the tactical aspect well, since it is possible for 3 light tanks to take out a main battle tank, with proper coordination.

However, I prefer the arcady sense in that it's just fun. You can pick it up, drop a vehicle, and go shooting. You don't need experence to play. Granted, with experence, you become far deadlier in combat, but that is true of any game.

Basically, the reason I like it is because it is a realistic game, none of the HP stuff that ruins other games, is simple enough for those days you'd just prefer some mindless blasting, and can be complex enough for the days you feel like thinking more.

[Smeltz]

I have to agree with Iceman. It can be very hard to find a game worth its salt that doesn't attempt to consume every waking hour of your life just to learn the controls. DT has a pick up appeal that fits well with my real life. I can hop on and have a good two hours of fun and walk away. At the same time, with some coordination, you can get into an intense semi-realistic armored combat struggle. DT does an amazing job of blending these two important elements. Battlefield 1942 feels a bit too gamie for me, and a true blue blood tactical sim is just too in depth for me to invest the time. Balance is harmoniously struck with this game. There, an shining opinion, free of charge.

[Battlefront.com]

The one overriding truth of tactics is that someone is always trying to counter whatever tactics you are using. The less flexible your tactics are, the less likely they will produce positive results. That might be frustrating to some, but that's the way it works in real life. Look at Iraq, for example...

The Coallition forces have amazing levels of training and lavish equipment. They have tactics that are well suited to both, and both are well suited to the tactics. The problem is all of this stuff is not well suited to the enemy's tactics. This is "frustrating" for the Coallition forces. They want the enemy to be dressed in uniforms, approach over open areas, hold positions until routed or killed, and in general fight conventionally. Well, the Insurgents know they can't win if they act that way so they have developed their own tactics (which go back a few thousand years, but forget about that for a sec ). These tactics have yielded a lot of success and with fewer losses compared to trying out conventional tactics.

What's this mean? If the enemy you face in DropTeam sneaks a drop behind you with a well chosen vehicle that causes mayhem to your rear, don't criticize the other player or the game because what that player does works against your tactics. Instead, figure out a way to neutralize and even counter his tactic. That's what DT allows so do it. For example, perhaps have one of your players on "anti-sniper" duty. When the enmy drops something, the "anti-sniper" guy drives over or calls for extration and then drops nearby to make the hunter into the hunted, whacks him, and then sets up an AA turret or two to make another drop in that area more difficult.

That's just one example The truth is that a well disciplined and unselfish team will win against a mob team in DT. That doesn't mean the mob won't get in a few good licks here and there, but overall they should lose. But if everybody wants to play free for all, that's fine too!

My point here is to say that one shouldn't blame DT for how people play it. How it is played is up to individuals. All DT does is give players the tools.

BTW, when the reviewer was complaining about the long driving time... what was the guy doing? Trying to drive a Thor from one end of the map to the other? The Shrike exists for a reason, as does the Extraction feature. If the going gets tough, the tough get picked up and put down someplace else

Steve

[ October 19, 2006, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Moronic Max]

Uh, the reviewer complained about the pace of the game, and then cited Halo to demonstrate that he likes slow games.

Did that make anyone else laugh?

[Dark_au]

battlefront/steve.. i hate to point this out but an oppinion is a value judgement. Your comments on tactics are true but then both sides in iraq arent equiped with exactly the same equipment and numbers. If they were then you would see more traditional battleplans working. The trouble with the DT tactics as i have tried unsuccessfully to explain is that you can't just make it up. Tactics and equipment are an evolutionary process which tends to balance things out. DT has a heap of designs and tactical ideas plucked from thin air with no evolutionary influence. This is then also moderated by the "need for game play balance" which also screws with the evolutionary nature of warfare. The result is a mish-mash of ideas without a solid tactical or strategic background. This then is at odds to the overview which quotes realistic "tactical armoured warfare" the indication is that tanks are the important part. However the lack of evolutionary development for the units means that this is not really the case.

Believe me if dropping units behind you were the only gamey tactics it would be ok. Its the constant pushing the engine limits rather than actually face a tactical challenge that does it for me. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way but of course no one would admit it here because i'm the big bad ogre.

[Battlefront.com]

Dark_au,

i hate to point this out but an oppinion is a value judgement.

True to a large extent, of course. But there is a fine line when someone's opinion is such that it ignores the possibility that it is only that... an opinion. Your position is that there is really only one way that this game should play and, no surprise, it's the way you want to play it. If the designers didn't intend it to be played your way, and gamers are happy to play it contrary to your way, then you find them to be wrong. That's where the fine line is crossed.

To put it another way, I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like the way DT plays. I do have a problem with your position that because you don't like it then everybody else is wrong who does like it. That's simply not fair, nor does it reflect well on your tolerance of other points of view.

Your comments on tactics are true but then both sides in iraq arent equiped with exactly the same equipment and numbers.

Actually, the more similar the equipment the more important tactics become. Why? Because one can not blame an imbalance of equipment when equipment is a neutral factor. So if one side loses, then the most likely answer is because they didn't play the game well enough.

If they were then you would see more traditional battleplans working.

I wasn't aware that there were traditional battleplans for combat on other planets. I'm only half joking here because...

The trouble with the DT tactics as i have tried unsuccessfully to explain is that you can't just make it up.

It's SciFi... of course it has to be made up.

The result is a mish-mash of ideas without a solid tactical or strategic background. This then is at odds to the overview which quotes realistic "tactical armoured warfare" the indication is that tanks are the important part.

I don't know how you figure that. All vehicles in DT are armored and all are engaged in warfare. Where do you get the notion that tanks are the "important part"? They are a part.

DT has families of vehicles that are based on fairly traditional lines of development. Light vehicles that trade off protection and weapons for speed, heavy vehicles that trade off speed for protection and weapons, and medium vehicles that try to strike a balance. In addition to this there are a few specialized vehicles that, when used in the right context, can have a larger impact. Or what are called these days "force multipliers".

Believe me if dropping units behind you were the only gamey tactics it would be ok.

Why is it gamey? If you were the commander in a far future force and had the ability to drop a vehicle anywhere I wanted to, do you really think you wouldn't do it because you found it personally distasteful? I doubt it. You'd do it because it worked or wouldn't do it because it didn't work. The task of the other side is to try and convince you, through good counter tactics, that it doesn't work.

Now, if this were a WWII game (which, of course it soon will be) and the player had the ability to drop a unit anywhere he pleased, well... that would be rather gamey because in real life that wasn't possible. But DT isn't real life... it's set in the far future where things are different than they are today or in the past. That means tactics should be different too.

It's no more gamey to drop a unit behind the lines and shoot stuff up then it was for the Allies to drop paras behind the lines when launching D-Day. It is no more gamey to race a Tempest into an enemy's defenses and shoot them up as it was for the Germans to move their tanks through the Ardennes in 1940. It was no more gamey for French partisans to blow up railroad tracks when the Germans were trying to reinforce Normandy as it was for Grog to hit Thok on the head with the world's first stone axe when Thok was expecting a club.

I'm not being flip here at all, rather I am trying to show you that "gamey" is only something that is valid within the proper context. Trying to say that far future warfare should play out like 20th Century mechanized warfare is simply the wrong grounds to argue for change. Arguing that a particular weapon or vehicle is able to gain an unfair tactical advantage despite all attempts to counter it via innovative tactics is the right way to go.

Its the constant pushing the engine limits rather than actually face a tactical challenge that does it for me. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way but of course no one would admit it here because i'm the big bad ogre.

Oh, I am sure there are more than just you. But what you have to understand is that there are others who have the right "zen" feel for the game and like it just the way it is. You have, apparently, a far more narrow and preconceived notion of how the game should and shouldn't work. Since the game does not work according to this preconceived notion, you aren't enjoying it as much as the others. It's regrettable IMHO, but I don't think you're an ogre for thinking that way. My only problem with your position, as I have already stated, is that you feel it is the only way to go. I know I disagree, as do many other people here.

Steve

[ October 19, 2006, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Moronic Max,

Did that make anyone else laugh?

Yes

Steve

[konstantine]

Poor Thok. He never saw it coming.

p.s. Iceman said it. I am a long-time Combat Missioner yet I can't stand any tactical WWII FPS/platoon sim (like COH or whatever, and I'm also not buying TOW, sorry), nor can I stomach games like Unreal or the Battlefield series. This game is the only PC game besides the Combat Mission series that I have ever played beyond the first ten minutes and I was hooked almost instantly. Every other PC game I've bought (and there are about a dozen) are gathering dust. I just wish I could get online at the right times in order to play with everyone.

p.p.s. OK, I admit: I was addicted to both Tenchu and Gran Turismo for the PS1. But I was a different person then!

[bboyle]

Believe me if dropping units behind you were the only gamey tactics it would be ok.

I think you mean to say that gamey is folks playing in a way you personally dislike.

[Battlefront.com]

bboyle.

I think you mean to say that gamey is folks playing in a way you personally dislike.

That is the crux of the "gamey" debate in any game, so very well put. How does one sift through what leans towards "gamey" and what is leaning towards "legit"? It depends on the game, of course. And that is where I see the flaw in Dark_au's argument. As a game designer I figure this out by looking at the setting and ask "is this something one would expect to see, by and large, within the context of the environment being played in". If the answer leans towards a YES, then it isn't gamey. Conversely if the answer is NO, then it leans the other way. Quick example from WWII...

In theory paratroops could have been dropped behind enemy positions during a 1 hour conventional battle between ground troops. The forces for such tactics did exist in WWII and certainly a plane is capable of dropping such a force in the technical sense. However, there are real world reasons why this wasn't practical, despite being possible. The fact is that there is no example of such a matchup in WWII existing as far as I know of, and even if there was it probably was by accident. Since it isn't something that was done in WWII then a game that allows you to drop paras during a tactical battle between ground forces would be considered gamey. However, only if the game is trying to seriously simulate WWII combat, otherwise if it isn't then anything goes and the whole notion of gamey goes out the window since the entire game is gamey.

In the context of the DT environment, dropping behind the lines (so to speak) appears to me to be a legitimate capability that each force would have. Afterall, they are dropping forces all the time during the battle, so why would they be limited to just one specific spot of terrain? What possible reason could there be to deter or prevent drops any old place? Anti-air defenses, that's what. And guess what? DT gives the player placeable AA defenses! So if one side doesn't use them effectively, and the other side gets in and starts causing problems... well, what's gamey about that? It's perfectly legitimate. I know when I play I try to put AA defenses in spots where I think the enemy is likely to drop or has already shown a tendency to drop in. Sometimes I put a jammer in first so the other guy doesn't know there are AA turrets in place. It's a nice way to smoke enemy dropships

Dark_au said there are other examples, though I can't think of any that wouldn't fit a similar line of argument as I've just posted regarding the "drop anywhere" concept.

Now, there is another type of "gamey" tactics, but they aren't really what I would call "gamey". And that is taking advantage of a flaw/feature in the game in order to get an advantage that is somehow out of context with the game's environment. For example, let us say that there were no AA turrets and the game designers never intended players dropping any old place to be so effective. The drop anywhere tactic would therefore be seen as "gamey" by those who wish to play the game the way the designers intended, not "gamey" by players who feel that anything that can be done in a game is legitimate. Some take that to the extreme by including bug exploitation, others don't. These kinds of issues need to be debated and discussed within the community that supports the game. If the designers feel that they should do something about it, like add AA turrets, then that should solve the problem. If they do not feel that the tactic is a bad thing in the context of their game design, and leave things as they are, then that should be fine too. However, the latter may change the perception of the game, for example the developer of a serious WWII game saying "well, we didn't intend on having paras drop in the middle of a battle, but what the heck... it's fun so we're going to leave it in". It legitimizes the "gamey" tactic, but it delegitimizes the game as being "serious".

The key thing is to have the discussion about the specific feature in question and have an honest and rational debate. It's how games improve. Vague statements don't help, neither do players leaving without giving the developers a chance to hear them out. I know Clay and Stan listed to testers when we had debates like this and lots and lots of things were change in order to smooth out imbalances and improve the overall level of tactical gameplay.

Steve

[ October 21, 2006, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[bboyle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

bboyle.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think you mean to say that gamey is folks playing in a way you personally dislike.

I know Clay and Stan listed to testers when we had debates like this and lots and lots of things were change in order to smooth out imbalances and improve the overall level of tactical gameplay.

Steve </font>

[Carcaroth]

It seems this Bryan Clodfelter fellow just keeps going on about some long loading times, on and on and on...

*digs up his ol'commodore 64*

cos clearly someone has forgotten what a long wait really is. The aparent lack of patience allso surfaces when the game updates too often and the resolutions arent in the right order and people actually use cover in combat, oh boohoo why cant they just be in plain sight and show their side armor for a larger silhouette while they are at it and god forbid if they actually happend to move while hes trying to shoot them, perhaps he has more fun with a match and a can of ligter fluid, but then why is he writeing a review?

i strongly recommed some real army for mr. Clodfelter perhaps they can hammer some direly needed patience in his head...

Did i miss something there? or didnt he bother to tell the readers what kind of a game it actually is?

and an updater isnt awkward as long as it is automatic.

this: http://www.pelit.fi/index.php?id=68030 is where i learned of this game, a good and honest review, its a shame you wont understand a word of it...

[Battlefront.com]

I've got scans from the print version of that review. Pelit is a very good magazine. Or so we are told, since Finnish is a language that you're either born into or will never learn to speak well enough to be understood except for ordering beer (especially if you are Swedish, or so I am told ). Fortunately for us English speakers, you Finns speak better English than we do Come to think of it, so do the Swedes!

Steve

[Drusus]

That review is a big win for DT. The score given isn't that great, but what he says about the game is really, relly positive.

From Pelit:

Haluan julistaa kaikille Dropteamin ilosanomaa, sillä olen sen pelille velkaa. Typeryydessäni halveksuin sitä suhteemme alussa, kunnes vähitellen pelin runsaat hienoudet upposivat tajuntaani, ja halveksunta muuttui puhtaaksi ihailuksi.

While I am sure most of you understand the main points from that directly, I will translate it just for fun...

"I have to tell everybody about the joy of Dropteam. I owe that to the game. In my stupidity I despised it in the beginning, but slowly I began to understand the many fine aspects of the game. And despise turned into admiration."

The review is done after 1.1 but before the drop ship update. The point of the review is that the game is very promising one. So it is not all positive about the current version.

Also, the reviewer is a legendary one, I haven't read the magazine in years, but I know _that_ guy. Not bad at all...

PS. The translation is propably inaccurate.

PPS. The reason why you can order beer in Finland is because it is expected that you mumble something incomprehensible when ordering beer...

[Battlefront.com]

PPS. The reason why you can order beer in Finland is because it is expected that you mumble something incomprehensible when ordering beer...

Or if many beers have been served in one sitting, the mumbling hopefully is understood to be a question like "where is the bathroom?"

Thanks for the translation of that one passage. I think that sums up the positive and negative aspect of DT in its current state. For people easily frustrated or having preconceived notions of how the game should play, then the person might not discover the great and novel game experience that DT has to offer. Kinda like people not understanding what the big deal about electricity was when it was first demonstrated

Steve

[ October 24, 2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[aittam]

krrhh-ptui! this says it all

[Carcaroth]

That krrhh-ptui! goes to childish robot games (mechwarriors and such).