C'Rogers

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you're so concerned, why even pre-order? Edit: Wow, six posts went up between my typing a single sentence post and hitting reply.

Sometimes I'm surprised by the games that get named here. The first was an excellent game. On topic: swearing is a pretty easy issue to deal with. Would a single person <b>not</b> buy this game because it lacks swearing? Would anyone be offended that it was slightly sanitized? I'm going to guess no. On the other hand, swearing might be a very small detraction. I wouldn't be bothered by swearing, but I suppose if I heard a soldier throwing the f word around it would actually take me out of the moment. In general though, I think the Aussies/Euros have the better idea with lighter restrictions on profanity/swearing. I actually think there isn't much disagreement with the American populace, and that if policies were changed not many people would disagree, but no politician/group is willing to expend the effort to change things that isn't really that big a deal.

Actors play multiple roles? No, I demand that once you play a character I like you never work again. As for the sci-fi CM: Not sure how many people remember this, but in BFCs 'unofficial' thinking of what the first five titles would be, one was going to be 'sci-fi' (space lobsters). I'm pretty sure that idea got nixed as I had to go back six years to find the source. From Winecape's synopsis thread If I remember correctly, but I might be off on this, BFC was talking in very early stages of development (at least early we were privy to) about the engine being used for pre-20th century games (American Civil War as an example), but I believe the answer was the engine could technically do it, it just wouldn't work the way people would want.

Your point is very solid, however I would like to reiterate what you are saying in a different way. Would the US waste large sums of money and time on a useless technology? I mean, that couldn't ever possibly happen, could it?

The biggest improvement coming to CMx2 for someone just use to CMx1 is the computer opponent. I played four single player battles in CMx1 (that is across all three titles) and hundreds of multiplayer battles. I don't have the time anymore for multiplayer that much, but have been more than happy with the single player option. There were/are four things that were a problem with CM:SF; QBs, buggy release, setting, and uneven forces. The latter two are matters of personal opinion, the bugs were worked out, and it sounds like QBs will be improved for CM:BN. I think the only complaint left is auto generated maps (though I like CM:SF, so I might be missing something).

It has a lot to do with when the game comes out. Steam sales really get pushed in the Thanksgiving/Christmas season. I think Dragon Age and Batman: Arkham Asylum got sales within two months of initial release on Steam. Steam is simple economics of scale. A video game has a huge fixed cost, but very little per unit cost (even lower with digital distribution). Thus games like Left for Dead (one of Valve's franchise game) which will attract huge sales, can make money even if the price drops below $20 pretty quickly. BFCs position is probably correct that Steam won't increase their sales, so no reason to cut them a share of revenue or to pursue discount pricing. For the poor people in Australia getting 15 kb/s, I've downloaded games from Steam at over 2 MB/s. I can't imagine putting up with speeds that slow. It is an awesome service if, like me, you are patient for sales. I never buy games anymore for more than $25 - $30 (CM:BN will be the first exception in a long time). Just put a game you want in your wish list and wait for it to pop up on sale.

This was discussed when CMx2 was in development as well as after release. I've tried searching for the the relevant links but having trouble finding them. Anyway, I believe the idea was that originally this was going to be in and that there is no programming difficulties to putting it in. It was a design decision for it not to go in, not a programing one. I think the reason was that it would split the community. At least that is what I remember. The discussions go all the way back to when real time was first announced I think.

I'm looking at this from an advertising perspective as well which is why your comment confuses me. If there isn't an untapped market what's the point of advertising? Is there merit to BFC spending money to inform uninterested parties about the existence of the game? If I'd waited for noxnoctum to post I would've used him as the example on the argument of whether CM is niche or can have mass appeal.

I love Steam (and in contrast to the above post, do kind of see it as a messiah of gaming) but see where BFC is coming from. If BFC had no digital distribution or was suffering from massive piracy of their products it would make sense. However, they already have their own setup to do what Steam does, why incur the outside costs? Audience scope would be the one thing which it could offer; however I think that Meater and others are making the understandable mistake that there is a huge, huge market out there for wargames just waiting to be tapped. BFC has been pretty clear that they don't think there products will ever have mass market appeal, not because of the quality of the game but the genre they are working in.

I feel like by the time we get to CM:SF 2 people will still be arguing about why they disliked CM:SF 1. By arguing I'm being generous, more likely insults. At the risk of making myself look follish I'm going to try and sum up the vast arguments lobbied against CM:SF into four points for why some people dislike CM:SF. 1) The modern setting 2) The use of two unequal forces 3) The lack of "good" quick battles 4) A buggy release that some people never came back from All those are a matter of opinion and, if it is your opinion, you're perfectly justified in not likely the game. The game is designed to do something that you don't enjoy. There is nothing wrong with that, but that shouldn't detract from your opinion of the people that do enjoy it. I suppose there is also the argument that the game just doesn't "feel right" (the uncanny valley argument). My suspicion was that most people were actually affected by one of the above and used that as there reasoning, but maybe their is something about the interface that just causes a strong disinterest in some people. For my part I like CM:SF for a totally different reason than I did CMx1. There was an argument here about how people took the time to create countless scenarios for CMx1. For the life of me I can't figure out why. Of the hundreds of games I played (I know, a low count for some) I played two scenarios and each time wondered why I bothered. Initially I fell into the category for CM:SF that hated the game because of how QBs are done. I still don't play the game multiplayer much, but find the single player infinitely better than CMx1.

This is exactly how I play, but it is no where near as quick as QBs where. There is also Bolteg's issue. I'm probably at about 99% of my games where versus a live opponent instead of the AI. Here is what I and my friends did for CM:SF. One player designs the scenario, the other player chooses which side he gets. Is it as good as QBs, no. But it is a decent work around.

I think this argument is going to dead end in an 'I attribute such increases/decreases to A, you attribute them to B'. I am surprised by how easily the violent crime rate decrease after 1993 after is brushed off. Of course there could be other contributing factors but since 1993 we have also seen a mass increase in the rise of violent games. Were would the crime rate be without violent games? The 1960s level? Could video games be anything more than a very minor factor? Compared to say something like alcohol is there even a comparison? An observation on the wikipedia data. One of the things mentioned is that economic status is one of the prime indicators of likelihood of crime area is low income level. Who is more likely to be playing violent games? A rick kid or a poor kid? Maybe my gut reaction is wrong but I certainly feel like it would be the rich kid. I disagree strongly and will note that US crime rates have always been higher than the European averages. If I had to make a quick counter argument I would say in the US we have allowed dead zones to develop in our cities. There is little order and rare police patrols. Crime in the US is highly concentrated in such areas. I do not know if a similair situation exists within European countries. Sorry if this is short and unordered. I shouldn't have stumbled into this argument with the availble time I have. I know I am coping out but hopefully the argument will have not strayed outside the accepted bounds of this forum by the time the weekend rolls around.

Would you care to elaborate or do you just want a one sentence comment to say the arguments we are making have no weight without actually making it? The Japanese are a very structured society that has few restrictions on entertainments (at least of the non-medicinal kind). Even some of the things in their children programs would not be readily acceptable on prime time TV in America. I can just as easily and realistically postulate that unrestricted media (allowing obscene levels of violence/sex) can create a more rigid society by allowing people to enact their desires through fictional forms, thus making them better able to cope with the societal norms. Objectionable? Sure, if one is upset by fantasy, but that isn't the issue. Lots of things are objectionable to lots of different people. I find all sorts of speech objectionable but firmly believe that a person has the right to say it. Should I be bothered if someone wants to fantasize about something that is illegal in society (whether it be sexual or violent)? If he keeps it to himself and doesn't act on it I don't see the slightest reason why it should bother me, or why I should have a right to stop such products. Which, I think, is the crux of the issue. I don't think media should be censored because it is going to upset someone. Is a lot of media tasteless, absolutely. So what. It's just fiction, I don't have to partake in it, neither does anyone who finds it unappealing. Show me a study that x tasteless media actually leads to y unacceptable behavior and we are in a totally different ball park.

Only time for a quick reply. Rapelay is a Japanese game. The Japanese have many games for weird, often disgusting, sexual fetishes. They consider the idea that a person might find another person sexual likes disturbing a bit silly. They also have very violent games. The problem is you need to make a connection between disturbing content and disturbing actions (not just an assumption or belief that they should follow each other). I think, though don't have time to check, that the Japanese have one of the lower crime rates in the world despite the proponderous of such entertainments options.

For those criticizing GTA IV, check out the Rockstar game Manhunt. That game made GTA look like an ideal game for children to play in comparison. Also the only game that I actually felt myself actually become nauseated while playing.

I'm amused by the discussion of the predicatability of the weather in CA. Drive a few hours out here to Las Vegas and we'll show you what real predictable weather is.

Wow, between this and the 'what does the picture of a Tiger mean' thread, quite a lot of fast paced discussions/arguments over very little about CM:Normandy. As a note to people who are concerned about multiplayer competitiveness with visible trenches, why not just have more bunkers, less trenches? It isn't like the trench was the be all/end all defense in CMx1 and the defender couldn't hope to play without it. Anyone else looking forward to when they post the first picture of a Bren?

I thought the first was intentional? edit: Would like to add a little bug I just came across myself. Playing the second campaign of the included campaign (not marines). Put snipers on top of tower, had them target a vehicle that was all the way across the map. They tried to hit by throwing grenades (or where throwing grenades in air in some kind of 'we made it to the top' celebration)

I'm pretty sure Steve has said there are compensations in the game for exactly that. In this thread he does say that there is compensation for explosives. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84640&page=21&highlight=bunching

I think the more we have the discussion the more this will come up. I'd like to nip it in the bud, but I doubt it will work. I don't think Steve is remotely saying CM:SF is a replacement. But how often can soldiers be put out for a field drill vs. being sat at a computer? Let me make a sports comparison. Certainly in any sport the number one training you want your guys to do is be out in the field. Replicate real life scenario as nearly as possible. But any team that did that as its only training would be at a disadvantage. You want to have guys look at video, discuss strategy, discuss the opponent. You do this both because constant physical training is expensive, but also because you want the players to have a larger picture of the game. I think there are similar benefits to the military. Will CM:SF yield some kind of super-soldier, of course not. Is it even better than other alternative classroom/electronic teaching methods, I have no idea. But getting soldiers to think strategically in a variety of scenarios should be a benefit (whether it is using computer pixels or moving chess pieces). Now the exact degree of benefit is hard to say. But it is a cheap (relatively) alternative that provides a tactical realistic (again, relatively) picture of a few certain types of military engagements.

I had a little bit of a different idea when I first saw this. I think it would be nice if the resupply just worked automatically. Soldiers pick up the appropriate ammo for weapons they have. This might cause problems though when the wrong squad takes the Javelin. As for your suggestion, it would be very nice, if doable. I think it would be very hard to code the AI for this. How far in city vs countryside? What if the detached unit runs into an ambush? What if the main unit moves? What if the target supply vehicle moves? I think there is a reason we give units direct orders and not missions. We have enough problems getting the path finding right to go from A to B. I don't think they want to tackle giving missions to units. But I'd like to hear I am wrong because I have been frustrated by the resupply issue as well.

It isn't like BFC is rolling around in piles of money. Who says they even have the money for such a long development cycle? Years from now the budget might be frozen and they'll be hanging onto a product that they can't sell. Maybe after the product is done there is just one critical feature missing that contacts had said would be important, suddenly was. There are a lot of things that could happen between today and by the time the game is finished. Their current approach makes a lot more sense for a small developer. Continually improve the engine through gradual releases. They can keep going back to the military with improved versions and say 'do you see value in this yet?' If they do they can have a talk, if not BFC still has a viable business. If they went straight for military they would be putting all their eggs in one basket. They took enough of a risk trying to make money off of selling wargames. Edit: My reply was to GSX but I no longer see the relevant post here.

I think that there needs to be a concept change for this to be more of a training tool. One of the things Steve has said is they are not going to waste the time to code things that would be very rarely used For example ladders, they would have to not only code the reasons a player would want to use a ladder, but the many reasons they wouldn't. However for a training tool I think it would help to have such things in. 'I know poor trainiee, you thought going in the window would keep you off the streets. But it took a lot longer and the men weren't able to defend themselves.' As a game though, they would probably just be annoying micro elements.

Roleplaying elements/Platoon leaders: I might have be a considerable minority, but I never really cared for the platoon bonuses from leaders. Yes, a good leader is incredibly important. But I just felt like the method used was too abstract and seemed kind of like every other wargame, not CM. Cpl Steiner, As MikeyD said, nothing was dropped. Things either weren't on the top of the priority list or conflicted with other game elements. But I thought I would take a look at your list, and at least see how important each element was to me. Prisoners - I enjoyed taking prisoners. I would like to see it come back into the game. On the other hand I don't think taking prisoners ever really effected the overall battle/game for me. I would actually expect to see it more in CMSF than WWII (where conscripted Syrian militia decides it might not be a great idea to make a stand). Adjustable waypoints - Well I suppose that would be a little bit more convenient. On-map mortars - Yes. Though I think the improved artillery system is so much better I was glad to play without on-map mortars if it was a necessary trade off. Water - Other than a few scenarios I don't remember water being very important (this might have been due to my tendency to play QBs over scenarios). It is certainly an important scenario designing tool and can create interesting tactical situations. Fords/Bridges - As per water True Foxholes - By this I suppose you mean foxholes that are not just craters that the enemy can see off the start of the map. Yeah, they would be nice to have. Fall-back Foxholes - If by some weird engine design they were able to get foxholes in were the defender started and not fall backs, I doubt I'd mind. Command Delays - I loved command delays. I thought they were on of the key elements that made CMx1 what it was. But I haven't really missed them with CM:SF. I would be interested to know if there is even any possibility of them coming back. Tank Close-Assaults - Not sure what you mean. Exit Zones - Really? Invisible Vehicles Toggle - Don't think I ever used it. LOS Tool (not every unit has a weapon) - I think the simplest solution would be to allow all units to use the target command and an error message if the player tries to select anything. Pre-Battle Casualties - This seems more like a flavor element than anything concrete with the game. If you are into detailed reconstructions I can see the point. But on the actual gameplay, seems like a minor issue. Might be helpful in campaigns. Detailed Armour Hit Text - I am always surprised people use the CMx1 armor hit text and the word detail in the same phrase. We have an incredibly details armor system now, far better than CMx1. If I know one of my tanks is being hit that is enough for me, and I can usually tell this by graphics/sound (with the frequency some of my Abrams get hit by small arms fire I would've gone crazy if there was a text message) Kill-Tally Statistics - Yes. "Reserve" Reinforcements (CMx1 Operations)/Terrain Damage/Vehicle Wrecks Carried Over between Battles (CMx1 Operations) - I enjoyed operations, I played quite a few. That said, I seemed to be in a considerable minority. I'd rather have operations instead of campaigns, most people seem to disagree, and BFC is not going to waste their time coding for it. Trenches that have to be spotted - That would be nice. But trenches were usually spotted pretty quickly. In terms of enemy information that an attacker might know already I can see a number of ways in which the attacker would know were the trenches were. It would be good if they could be hidden, I understand that isn't going to be possible, and I can easily live that. Trenches that can be set up by the player, not the scenario designer - To me CM is about the battle. There are a lot of factors that go on before the battle, such as building trenches/fortifications. I'd like to have control of them, but am fine if I don't Fire - If they do fire, I want them to spend a lot of time on it. I want fire that spreads at a realistic manner. As flamethrowers are pretty necessary for WWII I hope they do this. Visibly Routing Units (sometimes routing off map edges) - I'd like more routing units. I never wanted units routing off the map edge. It was weird to think that if a unit was on Hill A and routed I'd get him back, but on Hill B I wouldn't because he was too close to the map edge. Building Damage Textures/Decals - Hmmm? Fences and Hedges - They weren't necessary for CM:SF, but should go in for WWII. Fences/Low Walls not impassible to Tracked Vehicles - If it can be simulated accurately with the appropriate dangers, I'd like to see it. CMx1-style Quick Battles (cherry-picking of forces, random terrain) - If cheery picking came back, and it was the only thing, I'd be very happy. Any programmer I have talked to has said random maps are incredibly complex and time consuming and I can understand why we won't be seeing them again (at least in a 'true' form). Cover Armour Arc (restrict AT fire to enemy vehicles) - While I want my tanks to open up on pretty much any target, with AT guns I think armor arcs are pretty critical. Target and Face command Separated (so vehicles can engage targets and still pivot) - This hadn't even occurred to me as a problem. Most of the time I think you want your unit facing what is shooting at (unless on the move). But it would be nice. To make the game a classic, for me, it only needs a few things. Cherry picking QBs (or some form thereof) is at the top of the list.

Lurker, While you and Steve have had a very exciting discussion about the perception of CM:BB I do think your long posts kind of got away from the original post. That is, did the graphics detract from from game play mechanics. I think the answer is probably yes and not at all. On the yes side there is the obvious. Every second spent on graphics is a second that can't be spent on implementing another feature. On the no side there is a couple of arguments. First there is the issue of graphic work and game mechanic work being split between different people (which, to a degree, I think is the case). So while you still have the same issue it is not a big a time eater as it might appear. The second point is that unlike other games the graphical user interface is not just 'pretty' but useful. Having what you see is what you get (or closer to that) is not in itself just "good graphics" but a part of the simulation itself. In most RTS the graphical interface doesn't serve much purpose. There is an underlying engine were units role to hit each other and take off hit points, the graphical interface just relates that in as pleasing a manner as possible. Graphics in CM:SF serve a more concrete purpose. How is the unit positioned against the hill, were exactly can the tank see, how steep is the terrain, etc? While these images may be graphically pleasing they are also critical parts of the simulation and strategy aspects. The third, and most important point, they had no choice but to make as good a graphics engine as possible. They expect to get at least five years out of this and I suspect graphical improvements will be harder to do later. So they, and any other sensible company in their position, would be required to put a lot of time into graphics. Why do we keep bringing it up? I think it is a scape goat to some people. There are features in the game that we all would want and we wonder if they just cut a little time off the graphics would it be in? As features can be added and, I imagine, the graphics not improved, I prefer this approach (but oh, how I long for good quick battles and the holy grail of multi-multi player). There is also the fourth possibility that Steve could come in and say that no, the graphics really didn't eat up much development time.