Jump to content

The CMx2, PBEM poll


Vadr

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It should never have been a frothy, irrational explosion at all. Period. Especially when I said about 1000 times that it wasn't a sure thing that PBEM was on the chopping block, only that it might possibly be. And to be fair to me and others... the mention of a backdoor and FTP solution was brought out rather early in the fecalfest, but routinely ignored because I refused to say that PBEM was sacred.

Steve

I'm not trying to open up the PBEM can of worms again, but I still am somewhat concerned about multiplayer philosophy in general.

And to be fair to those of us who were trying to be reasonable, the the backdoor solution was not, IMO, communicated very often or very well. In fact, I specifically mentioned (and others did as well) "some aspect of 'non-hotseat/tcp multiplayer' option.", and you responded to me only talking about PBEM. Now I am more than willing to assume that the enormity of the ficalfest caused you to miss that - I for sure didnt read all 400 post, mostly just looked for your responses.

But any way ... my one and only post in this ficalmess, was to try to express what I feel is a key component of any game that would try to be 'a best game ever' type of game - great multiplayer options - which only relates to PBEM in that it was the most popular CMx1 multiplay option.

If I have understood your position correctly, you guys are trying to make the best single player tactical wargame ever, and then add multiplayer functions to it. My personal preference would be to make the best tactical wargame that could be played multiplayer. I do understand that means I would be willing to sacrifice some play function, if it could only be played in single-player mode. In other words, if the best game you could make was XXX - but that had no multiplayer, I would rather have a game that was 90% of XXX, with multiplayer ability. Said a third way, I would rather you make a ferrari with 10 less horse power that I could race against a friend, than the super-powered ultimare ferrari that I had to drive on a race track by myself.

My justification for this stance is this: You mentioned that single play is by far the most played option. I agree with that. But I wonder if there has ever been a study of what mode produces the best gaming experiences. I would think that by far, the best gaming experiences in any game would be in a multiplayer mode. So from the perspective of 'the best game we could make would be the one that produces the best gameing experiences', I would think multiplayer options would need to be considered a key component from the beginning, as opposed to an option that 'we hope makes it.'

That absolutely does not mean I would want you to gut the design now to ensure PBEM or even multiplayer. But I am hoping that multiplayer, and even some sort of asynchronous multiplayer, is on the key component list.

If you have already answered something like this - then I missed it - sorry.

[ March 07, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for a while yet, they are saying. (3-6 months) :(

But when they are ready, and DO show us, we are going to get dehydrated, what with all the involuntary salivation . . .

At least, that's how I envision it. smile.gif

Gpig

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Gpig:

Not for a while yet, they are saying. (3-6 months) :(

But when they are ready, and DO show us, we are going to get dehydrated, what with all the involuntary salivation . . .

At least, that's how I envision it. smile.gif

Gpig

More like fed up with all the pouting, crying and whining about what is and what isn't in the new game and the long paragraphs defending the new direction the series has taken, followed by terminal angst and handwringing.

And that will be just Steve's posts. smile.gif The rest of it ought to be a real Dog and Pony Show.

I am stocking up on the popcorn now, and telling Mom to be ready for a lot of friendly greetings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

Now I am more than willing to assume that the enormity of the ficalfest caused you to miss that - I for sure didnt read all 400 post, mostly just looked for your responses.
I probably missed more than a good post or two in this whole mess, as I am sure you did as well (like me saying early on that we would provide a backdoor at the very least). And this underscores why emotionally charged rock chucking at me is a really poor way to communicate. If I spend all my time dodging rocks and chucking back a few of my own, it is really hard to concentrate on the issues. Though I think I still managed to do that pretty well considering I am but one person and the rock chuckers were many and highly prolific.

That absolutely does not mean I would want you to gut the design now to ensure PBEM or even multiplayer. But I am hoping that multiplayer, and even some sort of asynchronous multiplayer, is on the key component list.
It sure is, but if we run into problems we have far more flexibility with TCP/IP than we do PBEM. Using your horsepower example... with TCP/IP we might not need to reduce the horsepower, or perhaps only take it down a notch. For PBEM it might require pulling the high performance engine and sticking in something hauled out of an old Chevy smile.gif We can afford some amount of time to finetune the engine, but we can't afford to replace it.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...