Metacritic reviews

[Battlefront.com]

This is why I dont tend to post here and many posters just plain give up. In your world and many others here, anyone who has anything to say against the game is instantly ganged up on by a few select posters who then hound the original poster to the point where they just give up.

This tired argument again? I don't understand why someone as obviously intelligent as you can't see what you're saying. Which is that you're saying there is no room for disagreement UNLESS it's to criticize the game. No room for criticizing or challenging the criticism itself, because then that's "ganging up" by "fan bois" and not a legitimate debate.

Anybody who doesn't have the strength or interest to debate a particular expressed position shouldn't bother posting it in the first place. Because someone who can't respect a difference of opinion doesn't deserve respect in return.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm trying to understand a point of view that the only thing that adds value to a CM product is additional features. Features as defined as engine improvements. I'm sure that just about everyone who reads these forums gets just as excited about engine / game feature improvements as GSX does. I certainly like game improvements. I even like editor improvements which many probably don't really care about. However, the other stuff adds value as well. Some don't seem to view things in that same way and it confuses me. We don't all play the game the same way, so my intent is to find out if there is anything in common among those who value game features to the exclusion of everything else.

The fact is that everything else still has to be made. There can't be a game that is just 'features'. A player doesn't just play 'features'. The player has to interact with the game in some way and the vehicle by which the player uses / plays the game is through the use of Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns. You have to have soldier and vehicle models and TO&E in order to use the various forces within the context of Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns. They don't exist independent of each other. All are necessary in order for the game to be played by the end user. You can't just play with a 'feature'. The features are the set of rules by which the computer tells the various soldier and vehicle models interact with each other within the context of the game. The TO&E provides the structure by which the soldier models are organized within the game. Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns are the means by which the player uses the TO&E and the soldier models within the game environment.

Features are great, but features by themselves do not make a game. Everyone can use their own judgement as to how they evaluate whether they want to purchase something or not. If someone wants to base their purchase decision on features alone - that's their choice. However, without all the other stuff there is no game to play. I suppose that the individuals who discount all the non feature portions of the game are simply assuming their presence and discounting it because of that or perhaps they don't use all the other stuff. That's the only thing I can think of. Certainly I almost never use the QB portion of the game so if BFC didn't make it I wouldn't miss it. However, BFC has to make all of it in order to make a game ... so while the buyer is free to discount anything other than features they should also understand that all the other stuff still has to be made and still has to be accounted for by BFC when making the game.

I hope that made sense ...? :confused:

[mjkerner]

Well, you said that a helluva lot better than I could, ASL, but that was confusing me too. How are TO&E, formations, terrain, weather, etc., not added value? To each his own; to me those things are the value.

[Battlefront.com]

I actually didnt say any of that, but if thats what you read, then I apologise for not getting my point across as well as you have.

Always good to pull back and start again if there seems to be a misunderstanding. Too easy to misunderstand posts.

Simply put my thoughts were that the Bulge could be a simple Module for CMBB as it didnt really add anything different from CMBN and that the cut of was not recognised back then.

Your premise is something different and I dont really understand where your coming from with it.

I'm not sure I understand you're lack of understanding. In fact, I think I understood your original postings better than your clarification So I'm going to try to answer your question with what I think is still your underlying puzzlement.

First thing you need to do is understand that there is a difference between the content and the game engine. Just because the content is using the same game engine, thanks to the new Upgrade concept, that doesn't mean everything can be lumped together without major complications from a development and distribution standpoint.

The primary complication is resource co-dependency. If we required all customers to purchase all Modules/Packs, regardless of interest, that would clear away all the technical and distribution problems preventing us having one big game. And believe me, we would WELCOME such simplicity.

However, I doubt very much that even a tiny fraction of our customers would want to be forced into buying every single Module/Pack that we put out. Based on what you wrote I think it's pretty safe to say you're not one of the tiny fraction either. So for the good of everybody that option is totally ruled out.

An alternative is to make some co-dependencies where the customer is required to buy X if he wants to also buy Y, but doesn't need either to buy Z. This is exactly what we do now and we do it in a way that is pretty obvious to the customer as to what is and isn't co-dependent. There are other ways we could do it, of course, but it would inevitably cause confusion when people go to make a purchase. In fact, our current way already produces more confusion than we'd like so I don't think it's in anybody's best interests to make it more confusing.

The bottom line here is that we have divided up the possible content of WW2 in a way that works best given practical considerations which, like it or not, are in the customers' best interests. You don't have to either like it or understand it, but it would be healthy to at least accept it. Because it's not going to change because it can't.

As usual, some folks here cant take any discussions on this subject without labelling the poster as some sort of looney malcontent hell bent on trashing CMBN.

I'm not sure how this sort of thing got into this thread as it's even more off topic than the above conversation

My own 2 cents worth is that the infantry formations in CM are probably more realistic than not, given how real soldiers behave in real situations. There's more than a few threads, for example, challenging the soldier's spacing. "No unit would ever be that bunched up in real life". I then link to a dozen YouTube videos showing highly trained and experienced NATO forces in Iraq or Afghanistan bunching up even MORE than in CM. Oddly enough the challenging position seems to run into problems at that point

Having said that, I also would like to see more diversity of how soldiers are positioned within the game given specific, context sensitive situations. Unfortunately this requires either major TacAI programming on our side or major micromanagement on the player's side. Or likely both. So for now we've no plans to change what works pretty well most of the time for most situations. Someday I think we'll expand the possibilities a bit more, but I think there's a lot more important things to knock off our ToDo List before we get to it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm trying to understand a point of view that the only thing that adds value to a CM product is additional features.

If that's what GSX is going on about, then I'd like to offer him the opportunity to spend 3 months of his time researching and making TO&E, then another 6 months of debugging it. I could then spend my time designing and helping implement new game features. For his work I'd pay him nothing, for my work I'd be paid handsomely. Seems like a fair deal to me

However, I think his point is a little more muddled than that. What he's saying, if I am understanding him correctly, is that he wants one huge pile of content that works on one engine. That way he can pick and choose exactly what he finds value in and disregard the rest. But because we have things divided up by Families he basically can't do that to the degree he wants to. What I think is confusing things is in presenting his case I think he's, knowingly or unknowingly, degraded the value of content in order to make a cleaner argument for a one engine solution. And that's what I've been attempting to correct.

The fact is that everything else still has to be made. There can't be a game that is just 'features'. A player doesn't just play 'features'.

True to an extreme! In fact, CM would sell better with fewer new features and more units/terrain than the other way around. Absolutely no doubt in my mind. Which means that if we have to err on one side or the other it would be the stuff people play with and not the way the stuff plays.

Atmosphere is also not created by features, but rather a very carefully executed combination of content and features. One without the other doesn't get the job done. In fact, this has been a perpetual problem with games which have tried to be "wargame construction kits". Inevitably people find them soulless experiences that don't quite feel right for any one particular circumstance. They may get some hardcore wargamers excited, very excited in fact, but game sales fail to materialize and the product either dies off or never really lives up to it's potential.

Features are great, but features by themselves do not make a game. Everyone can use their own judgement as to how they evaluate whether they want to purchase something or not. If someone wants to base their purchase decision on features alone - that's their choice.

And GSX has done just that. He has said that he doesn't value the content in Fortress Italy so he didn't (and won't) buy it because there's no new features in it. Each to his own so no problem with that from my perspective. But oddly enough he would have bought Gustav Line, which seems that he does place a value on that content even though the game features for Gustav Line are the same as Fortress Italy and the same as Battle for Normandy. Now, if it were possible to allow GSX to only purchase Gustav Line we'd be all for it. Why would we want to actively turn down money? However, as I've stated above, it's not practical to do so.

Steve

[altipueri]

TOE is OCD.

I,m with GSX.

oops me missus just returned. Back later

[Apocal]

Having said that, I also would like to see more diversity of how soldiers are positioned within the game given specific, context sensitive situations. Unfortunately this requires either major TacAI programming on our side or major micromanagement on the player's side. Or likely both. So for now we've no plans to change what works pretty well most of the time for most situations. Someday I think we'll expand the possibilities a bit more, but I think there's a lot more important things to knock off our ToDo List before we get to it.

If you could just make it so they don't move in a single-file line, that's 80% of the problem gone right there.

Also, I wasn't kidding earlier about the MP part. In-game lobby system for smoother matchmaking and I could get you like 20-25 consistent customers, and I'd be willing to pay like 15-20 bucks for it alone. Leagues and ladders and such are fine for WEGO, but if I'm popping in for an hour between errands, I'd really like to have another option for RT CMx2 MP than maintaining a huge list of opponents on IM and individually hitting up each one asking if they are down to play a quick battle.

[Michael Emrys]

If you could just make it so they don't move in a single-file line, that's 80% of the problem gone right there.

Yes, that could use some improvement. However, I suspect that most people who are demanding this have a slightly false notion of how most soldiers of the WW II era behaved under fire. One of a platoon leader's and his NCO's main jobs most of the time is making sure that his unit maintains cohesion and nobody wanders off and gets lost. Mostly this is achieved by each man following the man in front of him. This is even quite necessary in situations such as crossing a mine field or moving through dense brush. Sure, in open fields where it is relatively easy to maintain visual contact to one's sergeant, the men would spread out more, if they were well trained and disciplined, which did not always apply. As stated, one might hope to see more of that included in the game at some point in the not-too-vastly far off future, but for the moment the existing situation seems to me to work well enough if the player makes due allowances for it.

Michael

[JonS]

If you could just make it so they don't move in a single-file line, that's 80% of the problem gone right there.

Which would elegantly screw up all movement along linear obstacles and terrain features (which is the entirety of the urban environment, all roads, hedges, etc.).

[sburke]

Dang this discussion has gotten somewhat convoluted. I guess that is kind of the nature of things when you start with a site critiquing the game but doing so with such a small dataset that the margin of error is wider than the turning radius of a Ford class carrier.

Where the thread seems to have gone is a pretty old discussion of what constitutes value in the game and I think this is an example of what happens in trying to critique something that has different value depending on the customer you talk to. Hopefully I can make a positive contribution to that as I think I have a different perspective on the value of content. I can't speak for BF's customer base as frankly what I enjoy in the game and do with it is I think significantly different than 90% of their purchasers. I can however speak to what I and Broadsword get out of it and why BF's philosophy very much appeals to us and perhaps in doing so speak for that portion of the customer base that isn't vocal but agrees with our view- maybe all 5 of them. .

As anyone who is a consistent forum reader probably knows Broadsword and I love trying to run an OP layer campaign for our PBEM games. Neither of us I think spends too much time playing the scenarios and campaigns that come with the game though I do have other PBEM partners and we do play out the scenarios. For us the engine enhancements are great stuff. The more fidelity that BF can apply to the game, the happier we are. However that is not all that we look for in our purchasing. Content is extremely important. We play in as realistic and historically accurate terrain as we can manage. We also are trying to use historically authentic units. So from our view the additional content in map making and TOEs is actually very very important. Watching the debates about what goes into the ToEs is both educational to me about the development of forces during the war and also the development of tactics and the specific tools to develop those tactics. It has been referred to as OCD and that by a poster who doesn't even know how nit picking those discussions actually get, but I for one am thrilled that BF spends the time and effort on it.

Broadsword has also tried running a campaign in the Mediteranean and while it hasn't gotten the time and effort devoted to Western Europe, we both really like the variations in terrain and buildings that go with it. Personally I am working on an urban map and find CMFI/GL far more appealing for that than CMBN and it's modules. CMFI because of it's content is just better adaptable and visually appealing for a gritty close quarters urban fight.

As to the position of having one release and having all the content apply to that release I am not sure I really get the value there. Having CMBN, CMFI and the eventual Bulge release as separate families really doesn't seem to have much long term impact either financially or game play related. However it is broken down, one way or the other I have to pay for value to keep BF employed and producing games. Until the Charity organization gets off the ground employing game producers at no cost beyond donations at the checkout line of the supermarket it is going to stay that way. So financially it is irrelevant to me how it gets broken down as long as I can still purchase it. In terms of gameplay, again however it gets broken down I have to own the releases needed to play whatever period/theater it is I want to play. If it were one base engine and then simply module releases then if I want to fight the bulge I need to have the proper engine level required to play the material and the modules that are applicable. If I don't care for content I can simply purchase the base game and the upgrades. I can do that now. However if I want the appropriate units/ToE, building content weather effects, terrain features, additional flavor items then I need to purchase the modules. What is the fun of trying to game the Bulge without the appropriate weaponry/snow/Ardennes style buildings/pine forests etc. It is a 3D game and the content is a huge part of what makes the 3D so appealing. If BF says from a technical standpoint the only way they can really achieve that well is by separating the families what is the point of arguing it with them? You still have to pay whatever it takes to make this profitable for BF and you still need the appropriate releases to play whatever period interests you. I am pretty certain that if BF could manage it off one engine /family release they would. It would certainly reduce their workload in patching the various families to keep them consistent- and the patches lest we forget are free- BF will not get paid for the work they put in to getting the new features of MG ported to CMFI. Perhaps the other posters might want to consider that when they talk about value add.

[Battlefront.com]

A note about TO&E... it is not an OCD thing at all. Any more than a list of ingredients for a cake recipe are nothing but trivial details. Sure, you might still wind up with something enjoyable if you leave out the chocolate or the eggs, but it won't be a cake. CM is very much like that. One of the primary reasons for it's success and longevity is the TO&E that is the basis of every single game played.

Granted, some people might not care if a dude in one team is wearing the wrong uniform or if there's too many/few of a particular sidearm in a particular unit. On that score I do agree that people obsessed with minor details to the point of distracting them from enjoying the game may fit into the OCD category. Our problem is that we don't like having mistakes in the game, even minor ones. So if someone points out a minor problem we do our best to fix it. Does this make for a better game? Some say yes, some don't. But if we dropped the overall quality of the TO&E to what something like Company of Heroes has I'm sure not many of you would be OK with that.

Steve

[Ithikial_AU]

The biggest draw of BF's products (for me at least) is they don't age as fast as most other contemporaries on the market. You can get equal enjoyment out of them regardless of when they were released and a big part of this is probably the Upgrade system that's being implemented. CMx2 replacing CMx1 is probably the only break in that rule.

Interest in specific different theaters of war is the determining factor in making a purchase rather than features. This isn't a negative thing for this series. If I know I can play / buy a tactical wargame for a WW2 title set in Normandy 1944 and another on the Eastern Front circa 1942 (I know Bagration is 1944 - just for arguments sake) and they operate exactly the same with the differences being in the history rather than the game features / engine, that's a huge positive for this genre and pretty unique.

Now if only all my dreams came true and CM: Afrika was announced so I could command my fellow Australians again....

[poesel]

Now if only all my dreams came true and CM: Afrika was announced so I could command my fellow Australians again....

IIRC there was a post from Steve along the lines that they are planning to do just that (because of the unexpected success of FI). No date of course.

[Fizou]

Id buy CM:Afrika without thinking twice!

[Fetchez la Vache]

I wouldn't even think once!

[A Canadian Cat]

The disks are going to look wierd as I have an intel 128gig SSD tethered to a 1gig mechanical in cache mode. This means that the two drives are treated as one in a special intel RAID (rapid storage) array. This means any game I run gets cached to the SSD. Second time I run it things happen almost instantly. My typical windows boot is literally 10 or 15 seconds.

That sounds interesting. I have not heard of that before - entering research mode. Are you happy with the disk arrangement?

[Canada Guy]

I have a hard time thinking once. Where do you get the time to think twice.

I just went back to grad school and upgraded to Windows 8.1. CM has been broken since but I have not taken the time to fix it as I know that it will just distract me from my classes (and I just bought CM:MG). I would still buy CM:Afrika and it could sit on my shelf until needed. Much like GMT's Barbarossa series sit with unpunched counters. Can't wait until December when I will make a point to fix it over the holidays.

This is why Metacritic is kind of useless for me. CM is broken (not due to BF though) and I still like the game and would give it great reviews. That one guy arguing with his girlfriend about swearing in his review made me realize that I am way too old to rely upon some punk telling me what I should or should not like. Do some research, take multiple points of view and make up your own mind.

[Now if we could just get a toggle-able command lines back in]

[SquidvT]

Forget Metacritic and also the main PC press reviews. CM isn't designed to appeal to your "normal" gamer. Its actually designed to appeal to WW2/Wargamer fans.

And I love that about it. Its realism and intent not to compromise. Its not perfect, but is the most perfect game we have about the subject matter.

For me, I recommend it to all my gaming fans, even if they arent the target audience. Hell if they like war films the chances are they will like this (with a bit of guidance).

Metacritic is for console releases. Spreading the word is how to promote CM properly.

[Redwolf]

Spreading the word is how to promote CM properly.

And how is that working out for everybody?

[Battlefront.com]

And how is that working out for everybody?

Working fine for us! Thanks for asking.

Steve

[sburke]

There's the pitch and...... it's out of the park!!!!!!

Who didn't see that coming.

[Redwolf]

Is the working word of mouth why there are so many posters here with 2013 join dates?

[Apocal]

Is the working word of mouth why there are so many posters here with 2013 join dates?

Two things:

1) Don't confuse posters with players. Lots of people play, relatively few post.

2) The game came out two years ago. Among my friends I got to play, most spent two or three months playing regularly then quit for other games. I could occasionally cajole them into another MP game but most people swap games every few months.

[Battlefront.com]

Is the working word of mouth why there are so many posters here with 2013 join dates?

So you're back in the business of reading tea leaves? I had hoped you'd learned your lessons from 2007 timeframe. You were part of a crowd that was SO SURE of your ability to perceive how things were going for us, were you not? And how many of those predictions turned out to be even remotely accurate? Yet you still think you have an ability to divine how business is going for us. I'll give you credit for persistent optimism at least.

I'm not saying some day you might be right about something. But so far your track record doesn't indicate you should have much confidence in your own powers of observations.

And that's being kind

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Two things:

1) Don't confuse posters with players. Lots of people play, relatively few post.

2) The game came out two years ago. Among my friends I got to play, most spent two or three months playing regularly then quit for other games. I could occasionally cajole them into another MP game but most people swap games every few months.

Our detractors have always tried to use these sorts of things as evidence that we should go back to making CMx1. But we're more interested in what our sales really are vs. what they are perceived to be by a tiny group of malcontents. But we're kinda funny that way

And for those who think my word isn't worth anything (i.e. I'm lying), how about looking at other facts. In 2000 Battlefront consisted of 2 full time employees. In 2007, around the time of Shock Force's release, we were 5 full time employees. Now we're at 7 full time employees, a full time partnership (Webwing), and multiple paid part time workers doing project based work. Anybody who thinks small companies can expand like this on falling revenue obviously have never run a small company. Or are insane. I don't think we should rule out any possibilities

Steve