76mm
-
Posts
1,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by 76mm
-
-
Steve,Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Immersion is a relative feeling of affinity for a particular game environment. The higher the inherent affinity the higher the starting point for immersion...Meaning, the inherent level of predisposition to liking the game as a whole (setting, genre, particular design emphasis, etc) is the single biggest factor in how immersive the environment will be to that individual...The point here is that to the degree that someone doesn't want to be immersed dramatically affects their ability to be immersed no matter what the game does, or doesn't, have to offer. I think of this in terms of subconscious "opposition" to being immersed, which therefore has a significant impact on the ability of the player to be immersed, whether they consciously are aware of it or not.
While I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think that truly great games overcome any initial indifference or even opposition to the setting.
Two examples which spring to mind are some of the Total War series and Madminute's civil war games. I don't think there were initially many gamers jonesing for a samurai or medieval warfare game, but the series got the balance right and they were a big hit and quite immersive (although rather simplistic). And while there is a big base of Civil War fans, I'm not one of them, but found MadMinute's games very enjoyable even though I have virtually zero interest in the Civil War.
So I would say lack of interest in a particular theater or era is more of a "speedbump" than a "roadblock" to immersion.
-
I took my eyes off this thread for a few days and look where it goes. Wanted to respond to a couple of Steve's points:
I think you're overstating this considerably. Most people aren't saying that no departures were warranted, they just aren't necessarily happy with the direction CMSF went.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Some feel that CMBO hit some magical perfect balance of gameplay and realism, thus making any departure from it suboptimal.
Can't speak for others, but I can put the departures from CMx1 that I dislike into four categories:
1) The more detailed 1:1 represention is fine in theory, but I don't think the TacAI is up to the task yet. It's certainly improved, and will further improve, but frankly I'm only hopeful (not certain) that all of the "immersion-killing" issues will get ironed out. That's where this discussion devolves into a debate about game design.
2) Game features, such as detailed post-battle unit reporting, full-featured quick battles, many terrain/unit/fortification types, etc. have been left out of CMSF. Much of this is understandable in the first iteration of the new engine, but I think BFC tries too hard to justify many of these exclusions because they are not "relevant" to CMSF or to games in general, and that they are simply archaic holdovers from CMx1 that BFC sees no need to address. Maybe I'm the only person to miss these features, and maybe I don't have any good reason to miss them, but miss them I do, to the extent that they are a significant reason why I don't play CMSF anymore.
3) Still haven't clicked with the interface, but maybe this is a personal thing and I'll probably get used to it at some point.
4) I'm not interested in modern warfare, but understand why BFC went in that direction for this game and am certainly not bitter about it or anything.
Huh? I don't think anyone's looking for a "perfect representation of the real world", just something "good enough". What constitutes "good enough" is obviously a matter of personal opinion, and while CMSF has achieved this goal for many, for many others it has not. What "valid line of reasoning" do I need to say that I don't like playing CMSF (or anyone number of other computer games out there)?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:What I do feel justified in doing, however, is pointing out the hypocritical nature of the argument that CMx2 is somehow flawed because it isn't a perfect representation of the real world. That's just an intellectually pathetic excuse to justify not liking something, rather than being a valid line of reasoning.
And I continue to struggle to understand Steve's continued threats to ban Dorosh. I think his comments about the game are thoughtful and well-reasoned, even if you don't agree with them. While Dorosh occasionally throws the personal barb, Steve responds in kind, which I believe costs him the "moral high ground".
[ March 31, 2008, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: 76mm ]
-
Great examples. This kind of thing kills interest for me, because as Ken says, it makes it painfully obvious that I'm just struggling to manipulate complex code to get it to do what I want rather than participating in a "battle".It's the milling around while under fire; it's the looking to the left when the enemy - just spotted - is in front; it's the "blob" formation of a squad which means the front two or three men get hit while the rest don't know what's going on; it's a failure of the TacAI to properly position the 1:1 modelled men.[/QB]
-
C3K,
I totally agree with you. If I recall correctly, Dorosh started a long thread on this, or a similar topic, a few months ago.
The "why the hell are they doing that?" moments occur with much greater frequency in CMSF, due chiefly to the higher level of graphical detail, but also to the continuing ironing out of TacAI routines (which is understandable).
-
Yeah, this is another of the irritating (to me) deletions from CMx1, along with the additional ability to see which units killed what. Frankly, this small thing really takes out a lot of interest in the game for me...I want to see who did well, who didn't, who got that mystery kill?
-
I can live with that, but we gotta have partisans...and mounted cossacks...and female snipers.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:My prediction for the Eastern Front is that we'll get the majority of German and Soviet stuff simulated after a bunch of Modules. However, I think it is unlikely that we'll be doing the Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, and Free Poles (not that the latter was all that interesting compared to the rest). Finns? Well, we know there is a significant market for this so it's probably worth it.
-
Kellysheroes,
you're being kind of a nut. the amount of content included in CMBO, CMBB, and CMBO were an aberration, probably never, ever, ever, to be seen again in the history of computer games. view it as a one-time gift from the boys at battlefront and move on.
i've got some issues with the module system as well, but certainly have no problem paying a reasonable price for additional quality content. my main concern is that even after all modules are out we'll end up with about 10% of the content included in CMBB, for example.
-
Heh, I understood the distinction you were making and agree, but the problem is inevitably that one man's chrome is another man's flavor.Originally posted by Childress:Well...Maybe I was being obscure, but I consider chrome=decor (on map choppers, e.g.) and flavor=personality, i.e. providing a reasonable simulacrum of human behaviour; troops acting in a convincing, varied and realistic manner. CM1 had a bit more personality than CMSF in its current state, IMO.
-
Yes, I played and enjoyed ASL back in the day, and never played Firefight. Why? Because it looked BORING...generic units and basic maps don't interest me.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:If I go back to the Firefight analogy I thought it was a far better game than Squad Leader at the time. It had far fewer units and they well "Blue and Red", and the map was really basic.
Don't understand what this is supposed to mean?But the alternate fire/alternate move system that meant at any time the game was balanced was so much better than Squad Leader's where you really only got a feel for the where you were at the end of a full move.
Actually agree with you here...it got kind of crazy after awhile.Squad leader had loads of special features but they tended more and more to be add on's and special rules that slowed the game to a crawl in an ever growing badly written rules book...Squad Leaders rules weren't difficult, they were just clumsy.
I don't want "a simulation of modern combat stripped to it's basics." I want a realistic game which provides an immersive experience with as many of the chaotic elements of real warfare as possible. And I can suffer through LOS checks because to me interesting terrain is one of the key elements in making a tactical situation interesting. You can dispense with LOS checks altogether by playing a tactical game on a chessboard, but I beg to differ if you think this allows you to focus on "developing realistic tactics".You could pick up Firefight and play it in half an hour and it was a good simulation of modern combat stripped to it's basics so that you spent more time playing and developing realistic tactics than doing LOS tests and checking the rules.
I disagree. Actions playable on "simple and boring maps" represent a very tiny fraction of the types of tactical battles I'd like to play. In CMBB, I regularly play battles in forest, farmland, towns, villages, cities, steppe, hills, night, day, snow, rain, heat, etc. And that's how I like it. Don't tell me I should learn how to enjoy myself playing on the same generic map over and over and over again...Dorosh, might think the map was simple and boring but It's what you do with it that matters.
If you like chess and go, I encourage you to play them. I find them quite boring, and we're talking about something completely different here.A chess board is pretty basic but it's a game that once learned has huge depth. Probably the best example of simplicity in a game of depth is "Go" ; a simple grid with black or white pieces that once placed can't be moved, and yet the most advanced computer in the world isn't even a match for an average club player.
This is a very patronizing statement. In fact, ASL geeks like to take the tools that the designers give them and provide themselves with endless hours of entertainment, rather than playing the same scenarios over and over again, placing rifle squad A in location X instead of Y, etc.I think the ASL geeks tend to want the designer to do everything for them and provided the entertainment rather than doing it themselves.
Again, a very patronizing statement. ASL is not popular because of the "packaging". It is popular because it allows players to create a huge--practically infinite--variety of interesting, challenging, FUN, tactical situations.Squad Leader was far more popular at my club that Firefight because it had all those units and rules, great counter and maps, but look beyond the packaging and it wasn't anywhere near as good a simulation of the period it covered. -
Battlefront's approach to CMSF thus far seems to be to include stuff that "usually" happens in battles of the represented scope. This is perhaps natural in a new engine, and the last seven patches have properly been focused on getting these fundamentals right. In many cases Steve has said that feature X or Y is desired, but they have not had time to implement it. Totally understandable and no big deal.
But in too many cases the response is that a certain feature hasn't been included because it is "outside the scope" of the game or "doesn't occur in real combat", etc. While ASL probably represents one end of the spectrum with all of its quirky capabilities and functions, I think CMSF has gone too far to the other end of the spectrum.
Frankly, I haven't touched the game in months, and have only played sparingly at all, but I found the game to be a rather tedious exercise in firepower (things like troops in buildings getting wiped out by small arms fire, etc.) and devoid of the "little things" that make combat such a fascinating and unpredictable affair. It is one thing to quibble about particular features, but to me a tactical wargame which leaves out so much (rivers, foxholes, barbed wire, slopes passable to infantry but not vehicles, prisoners, etc., etc., etc.) just seems awfully sterile. The niggling bugs and feeling that I was fighting with the interface to get troops to do what I wanted didn't help (sounds like many have been fixed in recent patches, but I wouldn't know).
Admittedly, much of my boredom with CMSF probably stems from the subject matter and contemporary warfare in general (which is probably to a larger extent than earlier periods a tedious exercise in firepower) rather than the engine itself, but to me the constant justifications for keeping features out and the very narrow focus of the games/modules are not an encouraging sign.
To repeat for the umpteenth time, I have no problem with the module concept, but I hope that future games and modules are a bit more expansive than what we've seen so far.
-
Sorry, YD, missed Omenowl's request and besides am kinda cranky today.Originally posted by YankeeDog:I was responding to Omneowl's request for Snow in Syria for one of the CMSF modules, not your request for Snow in Belgium 1944. Snow would obviously be an absolute necessity for any Bulge game.
-
I presume from the smiley that you're joking about Dorosh "deserving" to be banned. While Dorosh is certainly opinionated, and his opinions often seem to differ from yours, I find that his posts are thoughtful and civil.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Dorosh's post count is 50% higher than mine and I'm paid to be here
Of course his post count would be a lot lower if I had banned him the first half dozen times he really deserved it 
Your threat to "enforce" the banning policy a few months ago kinda struck me the wrong way, even if you haven't banned anyone since then...
And no, I am not Dorosh's alt!
[ March 06, 2008, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]
-
Ummm, I'm not sure what post you're responding to, but I think it is abundantly clear that I am asking for snow in one of the WWII modules, regardless of whether it was actually on the ground in the Bulge. Has someone asked for snow in the Mideast game, or did you misread the thread?Originally posted by YankeeDog:Snow? Really?!
Of all the things to model in a land combat game in Syria, this would be somewhere way down the list for me.
-
Dorosh,
Many good points raised about unit capabilities, I fully agree with the thrust of your arguments.
-
Mainly weather--snow, lack of leaves on trees, frozen rivers, which are tough to do in a June 44 setting. Yeah, I could probably make frozen rivers out of pavement tiles, etc., but I'd probably rather read a book. I'm looking for IMMERSION! And I'm not really concerned about having every single unit type represented, but all the common vehicles are kind of a must--like how about trucks?!. One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s (I'm not suggesting to add laser hovercraft, but I find the limited choice, well, boring).Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:I guess I'm not seeing what would preclude you from using everything included in a June 1944 module/title to recreate specific situations taking place in July, August, September, October or November 1944 (or even parts of December)?
Hopefully the terrain will be adequate for what you propose, although in addition to your list, I think that BFC needs to do something to better represent European cities/towns (not just the skins, but building types, etc.). And frankly, I could care less how much snow was on the ground during the Bulge--I mainly play fictional scenarios, and I want snow, dammit!As for terrain, if the June 1944 title has rivers/river crossings and all that entails (railway bridges, pontoon bridges, river craft), what else would you need to simulate everything up to the end of the year?
Yeah, King Tigers, great...as mentioned above, I'm not asking for every single vehicle/unit type in the German OOB to be included, but if they include 3-4 vehicles in the base game and then dribble out 1-2 more vehicles per module every six months, I'll be mightily disappointed.The presence of King Tigers will be a "hook" for a Battle of the Bulge game and one can naturally envision those not being included in Normandy, historical presence or not. It would all hinge on the Germans, I think - and varieties of Luftwaffe ground troops, SS mechanized infantry, things like doodlebugs, Kettenkrads and other exotic kit which one would not necessarily "need" in order to portray the majority of actions...
Frankly, writing this post has made me recall that at the end of the day I got bored fairly quickly with CMBO as well--the gold standard I guess is CMBB, with the huge range of vehicles/units/ terrain/weather. I'm not asking for something like CMBB, but we're gonna need a lot of modules for the Eastern Front!
-
Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I would say that "focus" is units, terrain, and weather, and that the limitations on these present in CMSF (and potentially the Normandy game) constitute too narrow a focus. Maybe I don't understand your point?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities?
For instance, a post above hints that the Bulge might be a seperate game rather than a module. WTF? This would pretty much be the same units, with only winter terrain/weather effects thrown in. If a "game" is limited to Normandy, June 1944, I personally will lose interest quickly.
[ March 04, 2008, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: 76mm ]
-
Dorosh,
Of course you are right about the US unit types and the importance of additional terrain (and weather--winter, anyone?) for creating diverse and interesting scenarios, but my point remains the same: keeping a very narrow focus in the original games and not releasing enough modules to cover a wide scope of situations will lead to pretty sterile and unsatisfying (to me) gaming.
-
I totally understand why Battlefront went with the module concept and have no problem paying more for good content.
BUT, I've got to say that b/n the subject matter and lack of diverse units, I haven't fired up CMSF in months...I just find it terminally boring. A Normandy game limited to "US Rifle Battalion vs. German Kampfgruppe with four types of units" won't be much better.
I hope that for WWII the modules come out quickly and cover a wide variety of theaters/units, or I have to admit that the game is probably going to lose my interest pretty quickly. This from a guy who still regularly plays CMBB.
-
There's lot of posts in this forum about quick battles in CMSF, and the problems with them. Your questions are all addressed in these other threads. Try a search.
-
How exactly would the "gunner's sniper rifle" work? As a replacement to the coax? Tied to the main gun's optics and computer? Interesting idea, but kinda weird...
-
Maybe they meant US customs...geez, you don't want people sending weapons willy-nilly to a place where US troops are being shot at!
-
I recently had a similar problem; screen would go all wacky if I left the computer on for more than a day or two.
As part of my trouble-shooting, I unplugged the monitor cable from the video card and found that somehow a piece of lint had lodged itself among the connector pins. I removed the lint, and voila, since then no problems.
-
Steve,Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Now, where things get really specific is where the unit in B is. If it is on the opposite side of the wall from A, then the chances of it spotting a unit in A are proportional to the amount that wall blocks viewing. If that was a short wall and the units were standing, there would be no blockage at all. If one were prone and the other standing, probably no blockage either. If it were a tall wall and both units were infantry, then probably completely blocked. So on and so forth.
[/QB]
this is all very helpful, but I'd like to clarify: in the paragraph above, I understand that you're assuming that the two action spots have LOS, and now you're in the "spotting" phase to see whether the two units can actually see each other, right?
If so, it seems like spotting can actually serve as a back-up LOS check, as in the case of the tall wall you describe above, right? (In other words, chance of spotting is zero, so LOS is effectively blocked).
A different spotting scenario would be where a unit is hidden in underbrush or in a building, to which the enemy has LOS, but there is a probability-based "spotting" check to see whether the hidden unit is spotted.
Is my understanding correct? If not, my concern would be that two units with a high wall between them could spot (if not fire upon) each other (because the action spots have LOS) even though they shouldn't be able to.
-
In another thread, Steve said that BFC is considering allowing "licensed" individuals or groups to develop content. I have no doubt that there is a critical mass of hard-core players with the skills to develop high-quality content, and given the constraints on BFC's resources, this is the only way we're going to see anything with even a small fraction of the breadth and scope of CMBB (for instance).I don't give a hoot if it's made by BFC, modders or some 3rd party commercial entity. I just want plenty of good content on a regular basis and I'm more than willing to pay for it.
BFC would undoubtedly love to produce tons of content for me, but profitability is an obvious issue (and even if it was profitable, adding numerous members to the staff would have problems all of their own).
Basically, I'm not saying "Give me mods" but rather "give me content". How and by whom doesn't matter to me.
Of course his post count would be a lot lower if I had banned him the first half dozen times he really deserved it 
Immersion and gaming
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted