Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

Umm, you're not very good at it?

Well you did ask.

That you've had your poke at me... how about sharing your thoughts on the post itself, since you're one of the people that thinks that there is only one way to look at CM:SF. I'm curious to know how you suggest we reconcile diametrically opposing views in order to make everybody equally happy (not equally unhappy either).

Steve

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by monty burns:

The whole "you just don't get it" routine is starting to wear thin in my opinion.

Agreed, but then, maybe I just don't get it about the not getting it. And I'm still not sure about what the 'it' is I'm not getting, but I'm not getting it, so I'll never know. But if CM:SF is the future of 'superior wargaming' then I'm happy not to get it.

[Battlefront.com]

KNac,

IMO, up to a map size and force strength, RT is about right. if you want larger games (which MAY NOT be the scope CMSF was designed for, which actually I think is around a copmpany or a couple of reinforced platoons), WeGo is mandatory.

I agree with this. CMBO was designed as company level game and was largely turned into a larger scale game by customers. CM:SF is the same scale and we expect the same increase in units from new customers as well. But it won't be possible to play such games in RealTime. We would be fools to claim otherwise. The inherent limitation of RealTime is the number of units under one's control has a practical limit, even though that limit is slightly different for each individual (some have a zero unit limit ).

Steve

[kipanderson]

I posted this on another thread... but as this where the action is I amy as well post here too .

Hi,

Well I am as serious a wargamer as any, I go back to the SPI games of the late ‘70s, also as serious a military history fan as any. Have spent lots of time going through the archives of museums and have some Eastern Front manuals of which my copy is the only one I know of…anywhere… I play no PC “games”, only wargames if they are so good they are really a form of military history. The only ones I currently play are the CM series. Nothing else has ever made the cut for more than one of two test games.

Anyway… my take is that people are digging too deep. Way too deep .

If CMSF had launched as “bug-free” as we all expected it would be and with a friendlier UI all but the usual suspects/tiny minority would rave about it. It also would have got the usual rave reviews.

I am no programmer but if BFC had spent another month on “general bugs” such as the ATGM bug it launched with, another month on “crash issues” and lastly a month on “unit behaviour” such as pathfinding/TacAI 90% of CM fans, plus many new fans, would love it. That is “love the engine” but many would still prefer a WWII setting. Each to their own… I would prefer NATO Central Front .

I have just played out a modded version of the Brandenbug scenario plus a training scenario I built… all in 1.02. The training scenario was in many ways a WWII scenario in that it was a Stryker company but with all AFVs bar four removed attacking a village held by a single Syrian mechanised platoon, but without their AFVs. Everything that happened was very CMX1 in style… just better and more detailed . I was also using a full set of Direct Command Hotkeys for all bar one command, Cancel Target which cannot yet be Hotkeyed. It makes such a big difference that the UI issues are 100% solved… I have a list of the Hotkeys next me and am very quickly learning them all… it’s as quick to use as CMX1. (But dropdown menus when you left-click a unit would be my personal favourite UI method.)

There is no fundamental problem with the scale and scope of CMX2. The problem is that CMSF was sent out the door unfinished… three months early.

What is done is done…BFC have taken the hits in bad reviews as a result of sending it out unfinished.

Give it three months and CMX2/CMSF will be everything CMX1 was in its day…only way better .

CMX2 is everything and more than I hoped…it just needs to be finished .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The only possible qualification is whether or not the “unit behaviour” issues such as pathfinding and TacAI are down to the limitations of RT or not. And the only people who really know the answer to that are Steve and Charles.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is it simply because your presentation has failed?

Glass half empty thinking. I look at the people that love CM:SF out of the box and think we've succeeded. Since we knew we couldn't make everybody happy with our design decisions, we don't see our presentation failing when the people we expected to not like it in fact don't. Technical problems and bugs aside, we are quite pleased with the game's reception by those who "get it".

Steve </font>

[Member # 16622]

The thing I'd like to see answered, Steve, is the release schedule ?

Why was it put out now, what happened to "it's done when it's done" ?

Paradox pressure ? Need of cash infusion ?

Or was the game so complete in your and testers eyes that best way to get it forward was to test it on the bazillion different mixes of hardware the customers have?

I know you guys will patch it up eventually but the pre-release hype had no mention whatsoever that it's still work in progress. Perhaps if you'd been more forward with it, "This isn't done yet, you'll get to play it while we keep working on it, but expect some clitches", the moaning would have been lighter?

I know all your previous games needed patching and kept evolving, but IIRC the bugs weren't really this bad even with CMBO.

[mazex]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So far I seen a lot of complaining about various features, but so far I haven't seen anybody make the case that they are winning CM (WeGo or RealTime) by simply driving their forces straight at the enemy in a brainless fashion.

I posted this some time ago. I gave ONE order for each of my platoons and won the battle with 125 kills against 3 losses... That's nine clicks (one double click at each platoon to select it and then a move order). The paths they used to get to their detinations where rather amusing and the piling of burning and clipping vehicles was too...

/Mazex

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And yes... despite the Human ability to selectively read this Forum, there are a lot of people loving CM:SF, early development flaws and all.

I would just like to raise my hand as one of these. Sure I miss the old school QBs greatly, but then again who doesn't. I consider CMSF 1.01 and now 1.02 as just simply a starting point. IMHO some of the best improvements made to CMx1 came 2+ years(CMBB) after the initial launch of CMBO.

CMSF, the game that takes a few steps back in order to take more steps forward.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

For us, you listed a bunch of ways that it's our fault that we don't see it, but you didn't list the simplest answer of all, which is that your newest widget fails in its effort to show us all of its cool features.

That's just the problem... we can't make someone see something in a positive light if they don't want to view it that way. RT play is a huge advance, and many hate it so much that they slam it without having even tried it. How can we "show off" something if the person refuses to even look at it? Same thing with people saying the game is a "clickfest". It's an emotional reaction to something they percieve, and there is no amount of showing them what to look for that will change their minds.

I've said it before, though. If we had CMx1 style QBs, WeGo TCP/IP, and no RealTime I bet you we would not have had such a negative reaction from a segment of our CMx1 customer base even if NOTHING else was different. But since they are in a foul mood, everything we've done is fair game for criticism. Even the stuff that, in our opinion, they should be celebrating.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Mazex,

I posted this some time ago. I gave ONE order for each of my platoons and won the battle with 125 kills against 3 losses... That's nine clicks (one double click at each platoon to select it and then a move order). The paths they used to get to their detinations where rather amusing and the piling of burning and clipping vehicles was too...

I should have qualified my statement Reading your post it would sound like there are some balancing issues in that scenario. Personally, I haven't played that one so I can't say for sure. Certainly such problems were seen in CMx1 as well.

I alluded to this in an earlier post. The nature of modern warfare means a far higher degree of lethality than in WWII. In CM:SF we also have some new elements to play with, such as AI Plans, that have to be played around with quite a bit before figuring out how to best use them. Victory conditions are also quite important to play around with too. So in a sense, making a good, well balanced scenario in CM:SF is harder than it was in CMx1. When we move back to WWII part of this equation will change, but the bulk of it will not.

To sum up... scenarios that are "too easy" in CM:SF are not due to the game being a RealTime "click-fest". It's got more to do with scenario balancing, which in turn takes a while to get the hang of due to the greater degree of flexibility and options offered in the Editor.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Umm, you're not very good at it?

Well you did ask.

That you've had your poke at me... how about sharing your thoughts on the post itself, since you're one of the people that thinks that there is only one way to look at CM:SF. I'm curious to know how you suggest we reconcile diametrically opposing views in order to make everybody equally happy (not equally unhappy either).

Steve </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If we had CMx1 style QBs, WeGo TCP/IP, and no RealTime I bet you we would not have had such a negative reaction from a segment of our CMx1 customer base even if NOTHING else was different.

Steve

And that still doesn't tell you anything?

You mention on this page that RT is a great leap forward, but I don't see it as such. It limits the size of game to play - you admit that on this page also - and it removes the ability to play back.

What advantages, then, is it supposed to impart? Other than a nice blurb on the box and expanding the market? I can understand the need to do that, but that isn't a revolutionary change, it's just a new marketing strategy. Gamers don't care about that. Nor will they. They care about the stuff they keep whining about - QBs, purchase points, etc.

RT doesn't provide the gamer with anything but additional restrictions. Fewer units to control, fewer units to control at once, more reliance on memorization of a new UI in order to do it all. No advantages other than some quasi-"realism" of having actual chaos substitute for simulated chaos.

[Harv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Harv,

That's because you "don't get it". I'd put in a smiley face there, but I'm not making a joke. Because you "don't get it" you don't see any improvements. That's been my entire point all along. If you "did get it" then you'd be one of the posters saying that CM:SF is a leap forward and not to listen to the whiners. And yes... despite the Human ability to selectively read this Forum, there are a lot of people loving CM:SF, early development flaws and all.

But to be fair CM:SF isn't as revolutionary as CMBO was. How could it be? There wasn't anything even remotely like it on the market. CM:SF is a conceptual continuation of CMBO, so obviously it has something like it on the market already.

To start with, the point of my post (which you seem to have missed) is that there simply is no comparison to the release of CMx1. CMBO took games from 2D to 3D, hexes to no hexes, IGOUGO to WEGO, unbelievable detail, a TacAI etc. etc...massive(!) fundamental differences to what came before it (in one package at least).

Now with CMx2 you've made huge and fundamental changes to what? I see asymmetrical objectives as new, and...? Everything else has been done before. Granted much of it by you, but I don't see anything more than evolutionary improvements on already existing features. So where is the massive shakeup for the wargaming world? Where are the sweeping changes to all of the established conventions? Where is the revolution? Where is all of the new "it" that I should be "getting"?

If you want to compare the two CM's release in terms of being the first release of the series and the inherent problems with that, then fine. But please quit freaking telling me (and some others) that I "don't get it" because it's so radically different from everything that's come before and apparently I'm too stupid to grasp how fantastic all of this new greatness is.

Going RealTime, radical reduction in abstraction, massive increase in unit details, completely redone graphics, an explosion of terrain types, a vastly improved editor, a huge array of scenario design tools, asymmetrical objectives, etc. are major improvements in our eyes. You see them as valueless. I can't make you see the value of what is in front of you if you do not wish to. However, in our eyes a rejection of everything new in the game and a pining for things that we left behind is seen as someone "not getting it".

And where do you see me rejecting anything new? Or pining over things missing?

Plus, don't you see the irony? We're getting slammed by some CMx1 gamers because CM:SF is not similar enough to CMx1, not because we didn't make it different enough.

The reason for the irony above is of your own doing. You kept telling us that it's totally new and different and nothing like CMx1, but then you continually make comparisons to CMx1, call it CMx2, make it look and feel like CMx1 and then wonder why people seem a bit confused and/or talk out of both sides of their mouths.

In other words, when I see posts like yours I see someone disappointed that we didn't make the 4th installment of CMx1, not someone who is disappointed because we didn't go far enough to distance CM:SF from its lineage.

When you see a post like mine you should realize that I'm disappointed because I keep getting told I "don't get it", when I can't see or find what I'm supposed to be getting.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And yes, the people that didn't like CMx1 games pointed to these harsh reviews and said "see, the game sucks because this one review says it does" while ignoring all the other reviews that said the opposite. It's selective reasoning and it's to be expected since it's the most common form of reasoning out there.

Steve

At what time is it *your* reasoning that becomes *selective reasoning*, considering that most reviews has been mediocre? Or does that never happen?

[Battlefront.com]

ham_v2.0,

Why was it put out now, what happened to "it's done when it's done" ?

I've answered this before, directly, but it is not surprising that you didn't see it. There are a lot of posts to go through

We tried our first ever simultaneous release with retail. We signed the deal almost a year before we actually released. Despite working 7 days a week, 12-18 hours a day over the last year (yup... fun way to live) we hit our first release deadline and the game wasn't ready. We managed to delay it a month and it still wasn't ready. At this point we delayed it another month, but that was all our contract allowed. So the game was pressed onto CDs an we kept working as if it hadn't been. Another month went by and we released v1.01 to conincide with the release of Paradox's retail version (which was prematurely, and in some cases illegally, sold to customers). And even v1.01 wasn't as strong as we wanted it to be, so we didn't slacken up the pace and two weeks later released v1.02. Now we are working on v1.03 without letting up and taking a break.

Do we blame Paradox for the release being the way it was? Not at all. We take full responsibility. We wanted too many things in the game and didn't allow enough time for it. Contrary to some of the accusations floating around here, we once again put too much into CM. We should have scaled the design WAY back and released after 2 years of 7 day a week development instead of 3 years. Of course, I can only imagine the reaction that would have received

Steve

[Darren J Pierson]

Anytime that beta testers are supposed to have had some problems with the interface but got used to (or even embraced) the new one after using it for extended periods of time then one can pretty much assume that reviewers are not going to like it. For many of us customers, the game is supposed to deliver entertainment, not frustration. Well, not the frustration that comes from not figuring out how to do what we want to do via the interface. Figuring out how to overcome the frustration of the enemy messing up our plans is a good kind of frustration. One of the key words in reviews is intuitive - and it is considered to be a good thing. I'm not reading a lot of people using intuitive about this game's UI. (Ignoring the childish sycophants who insult anyone who doesn't agree that this game is perfect).

My personal feeling is that customers who get BFC's vision for the game and embrace it are going to love the program "because they do get it." However, the attitude that seems to come out here from time to time is that people who don't get it do so because they aren't capable of getting it. It's just insulting. I don't know if it drives away any potential customers or not, but I would be surprised if it didn't.

For having been in sales for years I know that sometimes you have to sell a product - get the potential customer to see the good points and how it will satisfy their perceived wants. If the customer thinks it stinks from square one, no sale. I've seen sales people use the tactic of "discriminating buyers understand why we are the best and if you don't understand that, you aren't our kind of customer." It was amusing to watch a few fools fall for it and even more amusing to watch the sales person fall flat on their face with the people with the cash in hand turned and walked out the door. That's kind of the tone I'm getting here. Don't think it is intentional, and it comes more from forum members than BFC staff, but it is still present. I don't have to be coddled but I resent patronization. (And yes, the childish wailing of some flamers is just as annoying).

If the game has a lot going for it that the reviewers aren't getting - then sell those points to us. It isn't the customer's (potential or realized) job to search for the jewels in the system - they are supposed to be out there to dazzle us from the beginning. And if people want to simply say that people who don't see the gems never will, then fine, but thats incompetent sales tactics. As is letting the Sycophant Sod Squad insult people who are on the fence. Hell, if dalem ever says buy this game I will spread the news far and wide. His rational comments have been more significant to me than the petulance of the mindless defenders or whiners.

BFC, nor any other business, will never satisfy all the potential customers. BFC will support this game long past the time the cows come home and I tell anyone I talk to that fact. But despite your telling us how sad you are to see some of the CMx1 faithful leave, Steve, you sure don't come off that way. You are completely correct though, people have to accept the changes that have been made. Like you said, they don't have to like it either but they do have to accept it. My opinion is to listen hard to people, customers and reviewers, who loved your product in the past and are now walking away. Y'all are bright at BFC - you can separate the wheat from the chaff - but don't get too defensive. It never helps - at least not publicly. As marketing 101 says: perception is reality. Gotta get those perceptions a bit more positive in the gaming press. I want the game engine to succeed.

And yes, my grammar helps me look like an idiot.

[ August 11, 2007, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Darren J Pierson ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[panzermartin]

Hey its August, you should go on holiday for a week or something and ignore our whining..(temporarily of course )

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />For us, you listed a bunch of ways that it's our fault that we don't see it, but you didn't list the simplest answer of all, which is that your newest widget fails in its effort to show us all of its cool features.

That's just the problem... we can't make someone see something in a positive light if they don't want to view it that way. RT play is a huge advance, and many hate it so much that they slam it without having even tried it. How can we "show off" something if the person refuses to even look at it? Same thing with people saying the game is a "clickfest". It's an emotional reaction to something they percieve, and there is no amount of showing them what to look for that will change their minds.

I've said it before, though. If we had CMx1 style QBs, WeGo TCP/IP, and no RealTime I bet you we would not have had such a negative reaction from a segment of our CMx1 customer base even if NOTHING else was different. But since they are in a foul mood, everything we've done is fair game for criticism. Even the stuff that, in our opinion, they should be celebrating.

Steve </font>

[Sirocco]

I think it's harsh to suggest there have been no major improvements. The problem is that the polish isn't there and so the issues are more outstanding than they would otherwise be.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[kipanderson]

Steve,

I had not read the reasons before as to the premature release/bugs. I certainly do understand that predicting exactly when you would finish a year in advance is risky.

Knowing the reason why it was released with so many bugs is a relief .

When CMX2 has been fully debugged and then there is the near prospect of Panzer IVs/Vs/VIs crashing about all will cheer up .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

Oh I agree it's a terrible minefield to have to tiptoe in. You have a small and vocal group claiming "It's not RED! I like RED!" and you have another small but vocal group claiming "It's clearly too heavy because it's made of Iridium" when you made it and you know darned well it's made of Platinum.

Right. We're screwed no matter what. So the question is what do we do about it?

Anyway, this is turning into a lecture and I run the risk of patronizing - you know your business far better than I ever will. I guess all I can sum it up with is that there is a difference between losing established customers and pushing them away.

It is unavoidable because of what we are being asked to do. "I want TCP/IP WeGo" is a reasonable point of view to have. My answer to that is "sorry, but we have no plans to add it". The result? Someone who feels that feature is the be-all-end-all will leave if he choses to. People that instead say "I want TCP/IP WeGo and RealTime should be removed" is somewhat rational, but it isn't very reasonable. My answer to that is "sorry, but we have no plans to add the former and will never remove the latter". The result? Same as before, but the person has more of a HUFF about leaving. "The game sucks, everybody thinks it sucks. If they don't think it sucks, they are are a fanbois. You've ruined the game and you should be ashamed of yourself". That is an irrational position and there isn't much I can do with that one at all except to say "sorry you feel that way, but it would appear we didn't make CM:SF for you after. Sorry". The result? They get angrier and stay here to make it known that they are angry or they go away in a big huff.

My point here, Dale, is I can not give some people what they are asking for. I've been upfront and honest about it. But that isn't good enough and some feel that they should instead try to beat me over the head with their opinion every chance they get. I don't have much I can do or say to such a person because they don't want to hear what I have to say. So their departure, in a huff, is inevitable. But the sooner they go the better it is for everybody, including themselves. The people that hung around our forums blasting us daily for our "silly 3D graphics" and "unrealistic turn based game" during CMBO development were not doing anybody any favors either.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

And that still doesn't tell you anything?

Sure it does... that CM:SF was not designed for them. Just like CMBO had much of what Steel Panthers guys wanted except for hexes and IGOUGO.

You mention on this page that RT is a great leap forward, but I don't see it as such. It limits the size of game to play - you admit that on this page also - and it removes the ability to play back.

What advantages, then, is it supposed to impart? Other than a nice blurb on the box and expanding the market? I can understand the need to do that, but that isn't a revolutionary change, it's just a new marketing strategy. Gamers don't care about that. Nor will they. They care about the stuff they keep whining about - QBs, purchase points, etc.

Then why can't I bare to play WeGo any more? Because I'm fooled by my own marketing angle? Look... it's really simple. I am not asking the WeGo people to want to play RealTime, so why do they feel it is their God Given Right to try to piss on the people that do like it? Sounds like the height of arrogance and snobbishness to me.

RT doesn't provide the gamer with anything but additional restrictions. Fewer units to control, fewer units to control at once, more reliance on memorization of a new UI in order to do it all. No advantages other than some quasi-"realism" of having actual chaos substitute for simulated chaos.

You forgot to add "in your opinion". In "my opinion" you're being a bigoted, small minded, horses ass I could be mistaken since this is just my opinion, of course.

Steve

[dalem]

Maybe an irrelevant point, but, you know what struck me the other day?

Two weeks into the game and I haven't seen a single grog thread. I don't count the big Stryker threads because their discussing big theory there, not the nuts & bolts.

Where's the "M9 Beretta Overmodeled?" thread, with somebody posting "My CP got overrun and the CO dropped 9 Syrians with his sidearm! That's strange." With 20 links to "proof" that the M9 sucks and 20 links to "proof" that the M9 rocks?

Yeah, I know, we have something different now -guys who have actually done it. Recently.

But still. No grogs. Odd, ain't it?

-dale