Jump to content

New Gameplay features ?


Recommended Posts

C'mon boys....are we going to conclude that any form of negative criticism is not going to be allowed now because this is BFC's forum? Bit of a leap - though I know I'm putting words into your mouths. I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate here and point out that on several occasions (including literally today in the Red Thunder forums) a bit of well-reasoned criticism of a game has brought the Devs to the thread with good intentions.

The people complaining in this thread are basically having a very public tantrum, but its not like they don't have a shred of legitimacy in their criticisms. Don't let them ruin it for people who can be polite in a critique. Why shouldn't we give BFC our opinions, last time I checked a forum is meant to discuss a game, pros and cons ;)

It's largely not negative criticism, it's just baseless whingeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:o

A civilized but critical customer is being threatened with banning and every word is weighted on the gold scale but a permanent provoking and trolling of old forum members is accepted here? Even joking about injuries of others to provoke them is accepted here? I must say that as customer I am shocked that a company tolerates that. :o

You sir have apparently no sense of humor.

 

the joke which you don't apparently get is in reference to the tenacity of those who pushed so hard for getting tank riders them having them dismissed. Lighten up and stop trying to jump the martyr train. 

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<nipped>

 

We do have a vision and we're making it happen every day, which in this horrible industry (and it is horrible) requires a large degree of enthusiasm.  If we did not have vision we'd be out of business long ago despite enthusiasm/passion.  If we did not have enthusiasm/passion for wargaming we'd not be making wargames in the first place.

<snipped>  :D

Steve

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC . . .

@Steve,

May the tea-readers among us leap far to the conclusion that your recent relaxed and repeated appearances among us here mean that whatever has been consuming all your time and efforts is now almost, nearly, and just-about completed??!!  You don't have to say, just blink once for "yes" and twice for "no".  Thankee, kind sir.

Edited by Badger73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's not your mother tongue, but please go back and read: there are improvements. Not that they've ever been an intended part of a new family release: BS had a similar number of minor engine tweaks for its period/region, but wasn't "version 4"; if this was the first "not a new engine" release, would you be whingeing? When "version 4" comes out, you can complain if there are no new features. Families, inherently, contain support for a new area and/or period, which may include some engine tweaks, but just because FI was concurrent with the release of v2 and RT concurrent with v3 doesn't, by any means, imply that every new Family will have a full-blown engine upgrade associated with it. And it's never been asserted by BFC that this will be the case, either: you're just assuming.

Your assumption is incorrect. If you recognise that, and modify your expectations, perhaps you won't be so fired up about it.

 

yes, there are minor improvements, but the price is not small - eg. CMBS we have plenty of new models (vehicles / soldiers), three factions, three campaigns, scenarios, improvements / innovations (eg. the floating vehicles, aps, Ukrainian voices, electronic warfare, etc. )

CMFB is a module packed with new game - copy and paste, several scenarios two campaigns (5 scenarios) several new models and we have a "new game" in the "old" price.

55 bucks is a lot? for a total of about 25 scenarios - it's very much. And other costs? - Eg. Time - waited a year for a new game, and we get the same thing, and again we have to wait another year for something new (probably for another scenario)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sir have apparently no sense of humor.

 

the joke which you don't apparently get is in reference to the tenacity of those who pushed so hard for getting tank riders them having them dismissed. Lighten up and stop trying to jump the martyr train. 

Wow and I was thinking of saying Wiggum picked a fight with the polezei and got a billy club in the ribs.  I guess I spared myself a fusillade of scorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is 55 $? I´d purchase Grigsby´s War in the West beeing at 78,99 $ (ok, it´s on Xmas sale currently) as I would and will CMFB at 55. In both cases I know who made the games and what I can expect from them, now and in the future. The only thing I´d complain about before CMFB is actually released, is the Euro/Dollar rating now beeing at 1:1, but that´s not BFC´s fault. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't buy it then.

Yeah, I have to admit that I don't get it.  Okay, if like Europa Universalis and I don't like Total War I guess I can understand that for one release I might hang around the Total War forums and complain that Total War isn't like Europa Universalis but after a release or two I have to admit that I probably wouldn't be hanging around the Total War forums anymore.  In this case you have at least one guy stating that another game is superior to this one and maybe three or four other guys saying that the game is a waste of money before is it even released and they do this release after release for about the last - what - two or three years or something?  At what point does someone finally just pack it in and admit to themselves that the game isn't to their liking, is likely never going to be to their liking, and just decide to play something else?  Why waste the time investment in the forums here making demands that the developer has directly told them are unrealistic and will never be included?  I have enough other things going on in my life that wasting time release after release on a forum for a game I don't like seems like inexplicable activity to me.  

Edited by ASL Veteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have to admit that I don't get it.

Yup, it's a question for the ages!  Certainly many here have been wondering about this very thing since we first started talking about CMBO Alpha in 1998.  The legions of Steel Panthers and Close Combat customers that thought it was worth their time to tell people not to be interested in a game that hadn't even been released yet was, uhm, interesting.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While wiggum's attitude was clearly inappropriate, I dislike it as much as I dislike the unctuous attitude of many people vindicating Battlefront's decision to release CMBF without any new features. If CMBF was announced to introduce operations, multiplayer or online wego and replays, wouldn't you be jumping from joy? Isn't it hypocritical to denounce him for wanting something you want too?

I'm a teacher and I never praise a student to the point he would grow complacent with himself, I always wan't more from him. The reason why we are not living in caverns anymore is that we wanted more. Releasing a game without new functionality only content is a step backward. Now, I am a capitalist, I believe people are to be payed for their work, strange as it is, if BF would announced CMBF as a new module and said that content wise they value it at 55 bucks, I wouldn't mind, I wouldn't buy it of course, but it would fit their game-module-pack scheme. It's a question of principle. CMBF sets a dangerous precedence, from now on, if a new CM game is announced, we'll never now weather we'll get functionality and content or content only.

Again I don't have to buy CMBF and save me 55 bucks, the problem is that I wan't to spend those 55 bucks, I'm spending something far more valuable to me than money, my time, I'm loosing day after day that I could enjoy a CM game with a new functionality or improved gameplay. "Go play something else" is not a valid argument as there are no other companies making  decent 3D tactical squad based wargames.

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't buy it then.

It is a truism - for me, the CM are the same product like any other - a phone, shoes, anything - I'm not a fan, just a consumer - this is the deal - I spend money on a product, so I have my own expectations for its quality - not I am interested in the problems publisher, which is a version of the game engine, do not know much about this, and they are not my problems - no one is interested in my problems - it is not communism, we need not subsidize a product just because it is unique.
 
  and whether it is unique? CMBS, CMRT are unique, because apart from the scenarios we got a new version of the engine and lots of other content - CMBF give you something that would be unique?

 

ps. I read in the forums of many players, that if it were not my mods sound, the game quickly bored - and that means that the product must evolve to keep players, if not the sound, it's a different content.

Edited by waclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While wiggum's attitude was clearly inappropriate, I dislike it as much as I dislike the unctuous attitude of many people vindicating Battlefront's decision to release CMBF without any new features. If CMBF was announced to introduce operations, multiplayer or online wego and replays, wouldn't you be jumping from joy? Isn't it hypocritical to denounce him for wanting something you want too?

Nobody is "denouncing" Wiggum15 for wanting things added to the game.  We all want things added to the game, including me. 

I'm a teacher and I never praise a student to the point he would grow complacent with himself, I always wan't more from him.

Do you praise students for being boorish, argumentative, making up their own facts, and not listening to a word you say even though you are someone with more experience with the subject matter?  I sure as heck hope not, because that would make you one of the worst teachers on the planet!  Yet you are arguing we here should be doing exactly this for Wiggum15.  At the very least you are excusing and justifying his behavior despite it being counter productive (or at the very least pointless).  Sorry to have to throw that in, but if you want to make an analogy you have to be prepared for where it leads :)

The reason why we are not living in caverns anymore is that we wanted more. Releasing a game without new functionality only content is a step backward. Now, I am a capitalist, I believe people are to be payed for their work, strange as it is, if BF would announced CMBF as a new module and said that content wise they value it at 55 bucks, I wouldn't mind, I wouldn't buy it of course, but it would fit their game-module-pack scheme. It's a question of principle. CMBF sets a dangerous precedence, from now on, if a new CM game is announced, we'll never now weather we'll get functionality and content or content only.

You are entitled to your opinion, but since we (Battlefront) designed the games and the terminologies that go along with it, our opinion matters a lot more than any individual customers'.  Here are our official definitions:

1.  Family = a collection of Base Game, Modules, and Packs that support a common to a specifically defined topic (which we announce).

2.  Base Game = the first release of a Family.  It is what all future content within the Family hang on.  It contains the basic terrain, units, and setting for everything that is to come.  It also includes campaigns and battles.  Base Games are the only things which contain "features" per se, as the rest are all additional content.  However, sometimes new features are only applicable to a specific Module or Pack (such as flail tank behavior is only applicable to the Vehicle Pack, so far).

3.  Modules = constitute a major extension of a Base Game.  It contains new campaigns and battles as well as major new forces to play with.  Features are never tied to Modules except as to explicitly give functionality to the content.  For example, Gustav Line introduced winter and Arnhem introduced AA weapons.  However, those features pretty much get included in all Base Games going forward as applicable.  These are priced lower than a Base Game.

4.  Packs = smaller extensions of a Base Game.  These contain units, campaigns, battles, or what not but nowhere near the quantity of a Module.  The Vehicle Pack for Normandy is the first such Pack we've released.  These are priced lower than a Module

5.  Upgrades = extensions of a Base Game's feature set.  It applies to nothing else other than the Base Game, though through extension it may apply more/less to specific Modules or Packs.  These are priced at $10.

6.  Patches = fixes to Base Games, Modules, and/or Packs as necessary to correct the features of things which have already been released.  We do, however, have a habit of introducing a few new features with Patches even though that is not what their intended purpose.  These are free.

 

Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg fits only one of these definitions... Base Game.  Therefore for you to call it a "Module" is as wrong as someone calling an Upgrade a "Patch".

 

Again I don't have to buy CMBF and save me 55 bucks, the problem is that I wan't to spend those 55 bucks, I'm spending something far more valuable to me than money, my time, I'm loosing day after day that I could enjoy a CM game with a new functionality or improved gameplay. "Go play something else" is not a valid argument as there are no other companies making  decent 3D tactical squad based wargames.

"Go play something else" is the only rational alternative you have if you don't want what we have to sell.  Endlessly complaining and mischaracterizing the way things are is an alternative response, but not a very rational one since we've shown absolutely no willingness to engage in what we view as self destructive behavior. That's just the way it is.  Nothing personal.

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 not I am interested in the problems publisher, which is a version of the game engine, do not know much about this, and they are not my problems - no one is interested in my problems

Of course we're not interested in your problems because you have nothing to offer.  So why should we care about your problems?  Battlefront, on the other hand, has something to offer.  If people like what it has to offer then it continues to stay in business.  Therefore, the way Capitalism works we must offer something that people wish to buy.  That doesn't mean we have to make something that YOU want to buy.  So in a Capitalist system you have the option to not buy what we offer if you do not like it.

 

  and whether it is unique? CMBS, CMRT are unique, because apart from the scenarios we got a new version of the engine and lots of other content - CMBF give you something that would be unique?

And here we go again... :)  It is very clear to me, and many others, that you do not appreciate the fact that CMx2 has never before simulated the Bulge and the battles along the German border.  For people who want to explore this setting there is only ONE game that offers this... CMFB.  Therefore CMFB is unique by definition.  Which once again shows why your narrow minded definition of what a game is falls flat on its face. 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

yes, there are minor improvements, but the price is not small - eg. CMBS we have plenty of new models (vehicles / soldiers), three factions, three campaigns, scenarios, improvements / innovations (eg. the floating vehicles, aps, Ukrainian voices, electronic warfare, etc. )

Well, that just goes and proves  you're either trolling or not paying attention.

Every allied AFV that can carry riders has been changed, there are lots of new units, from UberKitties to half tracks. The two sides have entirely new TO&Es, which is effectively the same amount of work as generating the US/UKR/RF trinary. There are four campaigns, lots of scenarios, master maps. For improvements we already know about before the full data is released, we have deep snow, streams, amended shadow-casting technology, alterations in the QB field (and a metric buttload of QB maps).

Now, of course, you are entitled to feel that it's not enough for a new family, but you're drawing some pretty fine distinctions, if you think that the new features and content in BS is significantly greater than the new features and content in FB.

CMFB is a module packed with new game - copy and paste, several scenarios two campaigns (5 scenarios) several new models and we have a "new game" in the "old" price.

Again, you're not paying attention or you're a troll. There is almost no copy-paste content. Everything changes. If you don't believe it, then you're simply displaying your ignorance of what's involved.

55 bucks is a lot? for a total of about 25 scenarios - it's very much. And other costs? - Eg. Time - waited a year for a new game, and we get the same thing, and again we have to wait another year for something new (probably for another scenario)

If you continue to ignore everything else (including the campaigns, in a paragraph about scenarios, FFS - this is pretty much proof that you're just a troll), then maybe $2 per scenario is too much for you, but you have to recognise that there's more than just scenarios (there's campaigns along with everything else you're willfully ignoring). 

While wiggum's attitude was clearly inappropriate, I dislike it as much as I dislike the unctuous attitude of many people vindicating Battlefront's decision to release CMBF without any new features. If CMBF was announced to introduce operations, multiplayer or online wego and replays, wouldn't you be jumping from joy? Isn't it hypocritical to denounce him for wanting something you want too?

We're not. Sure we "want" all those things. But lackwits like Wiggum and trolls (I think his last post just proved it) like Waclaw don't just want it, they stamp their little feet and outright lie about what the game includes, and ignore all efforts to educate them as to the realities of the situation. Over and over and over again. And they do so in a manner which is decidedly not cute. Surely, as an educator, you have a problem with willful ignorance? It's the lies and arrogant dismissal of all the work BFC put in as "worthless" or trivial and the lack of willingness to accept that some things are beyond the capacity of a miniscule programming team to deliver before Christmas that's being taken to task.

Check my (admittedly rather long) posting history; you'll see I, personally, have been quite scathing about some aspects of BFC's product. Check Steve's posting history: he's as open as you can get about the imperfections and will willingly admit that there have been compromises along the way in order for us to have the product on our hard disks that we currently do. And also that they aren't done yet. Surely that's the attitude you want in a student: always improving, and aware of their weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some thoughts, I have decided to buy the new CM title, given the following:

-the game, given the contents, setting, new features, feels to me more fit as a Normandy module.

-despite the higher price (when compared to previous CMs in terms of contents) I have decided to buy it because I want to support the CM games series.

-with the above stated support I have higher expectations for the next CM title (more content and/or new setting) and the future modules of existing titles (especially for CMBS, but this is a personal remark).

 

From what I infer from information and screenshots posted around I would have wished for at least more tree types (let's say a small conifer to represent younger trees and a large conifer with branches reaching the ground).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we're not interested in your problems because you have nothing to offer.  So why should we care about your problems?  Battlefront, on the other hand, has something to offer.  If people like what it has to offer then it continues to stay in business.  Therefore, the way Capitalism works we must offer something that people wish to buy.  That doesn't mean we have to make something that YOU want to buy.  So in a Capitalist system you have the option to not buy what we offer if you do not like it.

 

And here we go again... :)  It is very clear to me, and many others, that you do not appreciate the fact that CMx2 has never before simulated the Bulge and the battles along the German border.  For people who want to explore this setting there is only ONE game that offers this... CMFB.  Therefore CMFB is unique by definition.  Which once again shows why your narrow minded definition of what a game is falls flat on its face. 

Steve

nothing really offer? so far spent over 400 bucks for a series, it is nothing? (You can give it back if it's nothing) another 55 bucks, this is also nothing? (skipping my personal contribution to modding the game)
and what to communism itself - always read the forums that you have a small team that you have a lot of problems, we can not have any expectations, and therefore we should support you by buying your products and enjoy what we give (no matter what) - is just communism - I lived in a communist country and the authorities explained to us that we are poor because, for example. Western countries imposed an embargo on us and threaten us with the invasion and we should be happy with what we get.


CMBF is unique for new players, for those like me who having all part of the series, absolutely not unique - unless it gives you something new to mechanics and graphics of the game?

Edited by waclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some thoughts, I have decided to buy the new CM title, given the following:

-the game, given the contents, setting, new features, feels to me more fit as a Normandy module.

-despite the higher price (when compared to previous CMs in terms of contents) I have decided to buy it because I want to support the CM games series.

-with the above stated support I have higher expectations for the next CM title (more content and/or new setting) and the future modules of existing titles (especially for CMBS, but this is a personal remark).

 

From what I infer from information and screenshots posted around I would have wished for at least more tree types (let's say a small conifer to represent younger trees and a large conifer with branches reaching the ground).

Yes. It's Battle of Bulge you people and so much more. Try to code that deep snow feature!. And it's not communism, so community (‘commune’ and ‘common’) must support it :D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMFB will be lean on engine improvements. This is somewhat disappointing for some. That is completely understandable. I think probably ALL players like more improvements (I know I do). CMFB will be rich in content (scenarios/campaigns/QB maps/OOB/etc.). Making that content is very labor intensive. I know so from first hand experience.

For me, that justifies the price for this game. But opinions may differ, I respect that. Everybody must decide for himself whether he buys or not. No use for moaning and groaning; it is what it is. I do hope sales will be good though. No Battlefront equals no game, right (*shiver*)...

Engine improvements (Upgrade 4.0) are coming and will probably be ported back into CMFB in due time (like with CMBN). It will just require some more patience. 

Meanwhile, there will plenty to enjoy in CMFB. 

All in IMHO and for 2 cents only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, thank you for your reply.

I'm not going to quote you, just some notes I jotted reading through your reply:

1. This isn't about Wiggum, although on the first page of this thread, some people are derogatory to Wiggum, before he got into the tantrum, the OP and his first replies are quite civil. It just struck me as mean.

This is about some people in this thread that show attitude that, since CMBF has no new features, they didn't wanted any new features in the new game to begin with. This strikes me as hypocritical because as you've said everyone wants new features.

2. The analogy with the students was misunderstood, my fault, should have made it clearer. Again this wasn't about Wiggum, I was referring to the relation between playerbase and Battlefront. While we, as playerbase, should praise and support you, we also shouldn't cease to demand more and push you. Take for instance the machine gun patch that made machine guns lethal, I remember how adamant you were about the existing mechanics and how you slandered the "biliard pool" test somebody made demonstrating how in the game you could charge a squad against a mg. Yet, we annoyed you to a point when you gave way and the game is so so much better now. This is what I mean by demanding more and pushing you.

3. Your game, your terminology, your rules...my opinion, my disappointment, my problem. Fair enough.

4. I was describing that since CM games are the only wort wile 3D tactical squadbase wargames on the market, "Go play something else" isn't really an alternative at all. Its either play this or don't play the genre, you got us by the balls. This is how it is and needs no comment.

 

Best regards.

 

Edited by kulik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...