Hagen Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Sorry, just trying to make a point, not be a wise guy. Many a would-be "super" game has met with fanatic online support only to later meet with commercial (and sometimes critical) failure. A hundred people posting that a game is great doesn't mean much more beyond the fact that at least 100 people will probably buy the game. On the other hand, if NO-ONE posted that they liked the game, that would truely be a bad sign. -Hagen (the guy who may soon find his posting privilages removed...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 you've confused me man. double negatives never been my strong point hehe speak english proper like what i do! hehe PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hagen, you seem to be taking some sort of pleasure in the possible failure of this game. It is better to present ideas for change, than come in and make implied predictions. From someone that supported the OOB idea and casualties and a few other things that are not in the game. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 I wouldn't go that far. He just wants to see the game be the best it can be and realises that testers aren't indicative of the market as a whole. (And in particular the wargaming market, to which this product is aimed). I think the OOB suggestion is a reasonable one, since as has been pointed out it just sumarises information already available through multiple clicks. I just don't micromanage that much myself, relying instead on superior tactics and planning to execute stunning victories (hehe i wish ) so that infividual casualties here and there aren't so important! o let us not continue the OOB debate etc here. btw! In the end it will come down to how well everyone's different ideas match up with those of BTS. Either way i'm going to get the game, a nob here or a flashing light there won't make much difference to my perceptions of it at this stage. But that's just my play style i feel, and for other people that particular nob and flashing light may be cruicial.. Your Millage May Vary. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hagen, you obviously don't want to apply the same logic to your own position: 5 people posting that a game is hurting because one single feature is lacking doesn't mean much more beyond the fact that at least 5 people feel the same way If you can so easily dismiss the majority of postings, I can even more easily dismiss the minority. Also, note that it is RARE to see positive feedback about any game on USENET, yet that is about all there is concerning CM. And I bet that 4 out of the 5 people saying CM is unplayable will buy Combat Mission with or without the OOB screen because if CM was SO bad they wouldn't be wasting their time here. I would guess more like 5 out of 5, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Point of this message is that Hagen... you should at least entertain the notion that you might, just possibly, in no small way, be flat out wrong. We already double checked our our position, discussed it with the testers, looked at the pro/con arguments presented here (including yours), put it into context with all that we have picked up about how hardcore gamers think, tossed it about with our first hand knowledge of what makes games sell well, and then checked it out against our design experience of making about 10 games over 6 years. Our conclusion: the OOB is NOT necessary for the game's success, but it could in fact harm it. What have you done to check out your side of the argument, except to try and ignore CM's obvious successful first impression because it isn't exactly like yours? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 Steve, I am replying here instead of that long thread about feedback, since we kinda went off topic there, and well...this is kind of a useless thread anyway.. Anyway, I will make a few points and take the rest of my comments offline and send them in through some customer feedback email for BTS or something if I can find one. Please keep in mind that the reason Civil War Generals and CWG2 sold so well was because of the theme. People love to buy Civil War games. Even The Blue and the Gray sold relatively well considering what the game was. Front lines had a crappy theme and didn't sell well. Neither did Powerhouse, Spacebucks, or High Seas Traders. Lords of the Realm sold well because it had a good theme that folks could understand and good graphics. The game looked good and played good for the first 20 minutes or so. LOTR had no end game. LOMM sold relatively well for much of the same reasons. Caesar 2 and 3 sold well because of a good tangible theme that folks understood as soon as they looked at the box. They also had excellent graphics. Pharoah will sell very well too. How hard is it for a customer to imagine a game where they build pyramids and other cool eqyption stuff? Not to mention the graphics... Your arguement about not catering to the hard core surprised me. It is exactly the hard core that are enjoying CM. Do you think the casual gamer is going to be turned on by the CM graphics or the subtle game play elements? I haven't been on C.S.I.P.G.S recently, so I can't comment as to the feedback CM has received there. I would be more interested in how many overall posts there are about CM. I would suspect not to many, but hey, I was wrong once or twice before. I am not out to rain on your parade or make you change your product, I just want to point out the problems I see, and hope they can either be addressed or that I will learn something about the game that will make it 'click' inside my head so I can enjoy it. I will take the rest of my comments offline, but I will leave you all with a little story. There once was a great white hope of a racing sim called Grand Prix Legends. On THE racing sim newsgroup,(Rec.autos.simulations) GPL was the talk of the town. Over 95% of the posts were about GPL, especially after the demo was released. 99% of those were insanely positive. If you think Fionn is a rabid CM fan, you should have seen the GPL supporters. There were maybe 1 or 2 total detractors for GPL. The press raved about it, the hard core sim gamers raved about it. In the end, GPL ended up tanking big time. Instead of the 400K+ world wide sales expected in the first few months, it has sold around 35k to date. Critics still love it, hard core fans still love it, it is even used as a bench mark by most writers when reviewing racing sims. But in the end it was a big waste of money and time, and all the positive praise from the GPL groupies amounted for naught. That's it for this episode of Story Time with Hagen. Thanks, -Hagen (hagenjg54@aol.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hagen, thanks for the well reasoned post. You should check out C.S.I.P.G.S though, I have a feeling (after looking at it just now) that you are wrong again Your points are well taken about a game's success. Please just keep in mind that I do this for my living, so this stuff is all old news to me. You are also missing a bunch of reasons why games do and do not sell. For some more poop on this, check out: www.battlefront.com/about Good games sometimes die because the publisher doesn't care about selling it for example. But back to the point here... A few people complaining VERY strongly about one particular feature is a HUGE red flag to us. We look at the feedback carefully, but if it is in stark contrast to everything else, and is argued in a certain way (i.e. all or nothing, game sucks without it), we are very likely not going to follow up on it. For the record, I never said we weren't catering to the hardcore wargamer. What I said is that we are not catering to the hardcore of the hardcore wargamer. IF we were, Combat Mission would be a 2D hex game, complete with simplistic CRTs, like every other one out there. Since we had no desire to do this, we were prepared to write off a certain percentage (and it is a LOW percentage) of our potential customer base. For every one "Hagen" we might lose we will gain 2 or more "Steves" and "Charles" out there. The hardcore is a small number to start with, but the ones that will argue against all evidence, and tossing out straw men arguments (like the one you used in this post) as fast as they can think them up, is a minority within a minority. Such people are so impossible to please that we can only do so much and then basically wish them well finding something else to play, or quietly watch them place the order in spite of their claims that the game sucks (this is more often the case ). Sorry, but I have to lump you in with the vocal minority minority group. Your earlier posts show a lack of perspective and willingness to considder that perhaps you are wrong and we are right. We can't please your every whim, so why should we bother trying? Certainly we try harder than most, but there is only so much we can do. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 I'd actually suggest comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical for a much more grognardy view of CM and for a MUCH higher signal to noise ratio. If you know war-historical you know how grognardy and serious wargamer it is. Well traffic has doubled or tripled recently with talk about CM. Go there an check out what they're saying. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hi how do I get these new groups - exact names please My new server on my isp doesn't have comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical and what is the one Steve mentioned? ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Homepage - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 ___ and what is the one Steve mentioned? ___ comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic I THINK that how it goes, at least... -Hagen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 How do I go about getting on the Usenet stuff? ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Homepage - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 CoolColJ You need a newsreader. Do a search for "Forte Agent" It's free and is what I use then simply find the newsgroups (it will tell you how) and subscribe to them) ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Providing your ISP has a news server,of course.If not,you can read them via deja news,or deja as it's known now-www.deja.com Mike [This message has been edited by Mike Oberly (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts