This game aint just for grog snobs

[Priest]

Hehe those to really like the women, but due to their restrictions in time they have sworn off women to devote more time to the study of uniforms and such. Kitty would be wasted in such a role. Now Kitty in a WWII version of the movie TankGirl would be sweet.

[Franko]

But what if you enjoy being a grog snob?

Signed,

Grog Snob

[Cpt Kernow]

Michael

You miss the point of my post which is fair beause it has a slight emotional (angry) slant to it, so perhaps you are reacting more to that than the actual cold reasoning in my post. I have calmed down now(you patronize me again, but hey Im used to it now) and will repeat myself calmly to give you the opportunity to understand my main thrust.

The whole point of my prior post is that CM all ready appeals to the wider audience and that one requires no prior interest in WW2 or war in general to appreciate this game. In my previous post I demonstrated that game titles that dont rely on flashy graphics and twitching such as CIV can generate big sales. I postulate that this is due to the more mature age of the PC installed base.Because we can assume then that the appealing aspect of CIV must be its cerbral aspect not its graphics etc and one dosnt require a prior knowledge or interest in WW2 ( as evinced by myself and others like me) to enjoy CM we can conclude that as it stands CM is a highly commercial product.

What I consider as grog snobbery is the idea that CM would not appeal to the wide unwashed non grogs.

I think that it does and that the evidence supports my conclusions.

Just as an aside it would be fair to say that once one gets into CM one begins to develop a healthy interest in all things WW2. I am a thinking educated individual who likes to expand there knowledge base and CM has stimulated me highly in that respect. For this reason as another poster pointed out I really appreciate the presence of grogs on this forum as they are highley educational. I just dont appreciate that one attitude that lurks in a small number of grogs that somehow this game is there exclusive province and couldnt possibly appeal to anyone who isnt as interested as them in WW2.

Just to ram my point home Battlefront itself agrees with me and shares my opinion as evinced by this post:

Steve of BTS:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

got news for some folks... the bulk of CM's audience is not the diehard turn based wargamer. I would guess only a tiny fraction of the people who purchased CM have not played and enjoyed RTS and FPS type games. Hell, at the very least they probably have purchased and played at least one of the Close Combat series. My personal favorite games of all time are (not in order):

War In Russia (Turn Wargame)

Kampfgruppe (Turn Wargame)

Marathon (FPS)

Duke Nukem (FPS)

Quake (FPS)

Warcraft II (RTS)

C&C Red Alert (RTS)

Carrier Command (RTS)

FA-18 (Flight Sim)

Hellcats over the Pacific (Flight Sim)

Decent (Flight Sim, sorta)

Space Raiders (Flight Sim, sorta)

OK, so out of 12 games named above... how many of them are a) wargames and turn based? Gee... not many! So if I am even remotely representative of CM's fanbase, then why on Earth should anybody presume to think that the majority of CM's fanbase would turn their noses up at either a RTS or a FPS type game? Well, good ones anyway...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From [url=http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=004518;p=11]http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=004518;p=11[/uR L]

Perhaps we should settle this the mans way. You could send me a turn to see if all that fnacy book learning helps you out on the battlefield ( I strongly doubt it )

[ October 29, 2002, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by OddjobXL:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Broken!:

How true. I certainly wouldn't nitpick CM as often if it wasn't a great simulation.

I think, in a way, grogs and mainstream gamers attracted to Combat Mission have this in common. We like CM because it's realistic.</font>

[Engel]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

I like CM because it has depth. Because you have to use different units in a coordinated manner to accomplish anything..... Now, who said that CM wasn't suited for the average computer gamer?

I wouldn't say your an average computer gamer, based on your preference for depth. The vast majority of top selling computer games have very little depth, so I'd hazard a guess that the average computer gamer isn't looking for depth in games.

[Gremlin]

The vast majority of top selling computer games have very little depth, so I'd hazard a guess that the average computer gamer isn't looking for depth in games.

Could you please back that with hard data? I.e., specific titles and sales data?

Thanks.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Andeas wrote,

“Now for Kip, he is just a 'Grog Lite'™ - Janes is really not that up to snuff when it comes to WW2, and reading a poor translation of Wehrtechnik just does not cut it at all... ”

this thread is not a safe place to be….

I am running for cover!

All the best,

Kip.

[Gremlin]

Could you please back that with hard data?

Here's an abbreviated answer to my own question. According to the IDSA, via NPD TechWorld tracking, the top-selling computer game genre of 2002 by a substantial margin was strategy games (25.4% of units sold, with the number-two genre being children's games, at 14.2%).

Source: http://www.idsa.com/IDSABooklet.pdf

(And of course not only strategy games offer depth. There are RPG's, shooter, racing games, sports games, and so forth that are quite deep by any reasonable, fair standard.)

[prime^]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vast majority of top selling computer games have very little depth, so I'd hazard a guess that the average computer gamer isn't looking for depth in games.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A game without depth on the PC is nearly always doomed to fail, in fact even on consoles only the truely successful games are the ones that had a huge amount of depth.

CM's depth lies in its attention to detail, but many would argue it lacks depth, because it has no plot, no campaign, ultimately its just a set of rules.

Games I'm playing at the moment :

(PC)

Unreal Tournament 2003

Warcraft 3

Counterstrike

CM:BB

(XBOX)

Halo

Desert Storm

(PS2)

GTA3

Now everyone can argue depth and lack of depth in all those games (except maybe GTA3 and Halo, wich noone can argue lack of depth in).

Now apart from CM:BB and Desert Storm, these are all top selling popular games.

There is no reason CM cant go more commercial, without keeping the hardcore elements, flight sims do it all the time. I can never be bothered to play a flight sim with all teh realism functions turned on, for me it jsut isnt fun, but then I know people who hate them without the realism functions, but any reasonable flight sim that comes out now, has both options.

Going more commercial would do CM absolutely no harm, provided the core elements are left intact (even if it requires going to the options menu to get them).

In support of the topic starter, in my somewhat limited time on these forums, I have noticed a definite level of snobbery. Most times it is something very pathetic, like having a go at someone for mispelling or typing something (its an internet forum not an essay! ), but there can be some very patronising comments from "mature" posters, far too keen to win one over on someone that actually post something sensible.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Engel:

I wouldn't say your an average computer gamer, based on your preference for depth. The vast majority of top selling computer games have very little depth, so I'd hazard a guess that the average computer gamer isn't looking for depth in games.

My preference for depth doesn't mean that I don't play less thought-requiring games.

At the moment my harddisk contains among others (in alphabetic order): Archimedian Dynasty, Albion, Atomic Bomberman, CMBB, CMBO, Counterstrike, Descent, Half-Life, Nectaris, Nethack, Neverwinter Nights, Quake, Quake3, Settlers 2, Starcraft, System Shock 2, Worms and XCom3.

Is that average enough for you?

Dschugaschwili

[Gremlin]

in my somewhat limited time on these forums, I have noticed a definite level of snobbery. Most times it is something very pathetic, like having a go at someone for mispelling or typing something (its an internet forum not an essay! ), but there can be some very patronising comments from "mature" posters, far too keen to win one over on someone that actually post something sensible.

Unfortunately, that's been my repeated experience, too, over the couple years I've read and participated in these forums and the CM community. There are a couple bad apples in particular (obviously, I'm not going to name names--they're well enough known by forum regulars) who might seemingly be tainting the whole bunch by association.

On the other hand, despite some patronizing, elitist, and irascible posters who love to knock others to boost their own ego, this forum has generally been one of the most mature and polite gaming forums I've encountered, all told. The atmosphere around here is vastly more tolerant and intelligent than most gaming forums I've seen, where the level of discourse rarely rises above the level of Beavis and Butthead (minus the vaguely hip irony).

[ October 29, 2002, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

[Gremlin]

My preference for depth doesn't mean that I don't play less thought-requiring games.

It's funny that some people assume gamers generally only like one genre or level of depth in games. Lots of people, myself included, are as likely to play something like CM as something like Serious Sam or Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Most every gamer I know--and I know lots--enjoy all sorts of games, on multiple platforms.

It's not an exclusive either/or proposition.

I imagine there are some people who only listen to Schoenberg while superciliously deriding the rabble who like the Ramones, or who only drink a fine Darjeeling whilst reading Pope, but I think most people have somewhat broader tastes--I hope!

[Andreas]

I neither know nor care about the original cause for this thread. What I do care about is that quite often a requirement for some argument beyond 'I read it on the back of a chewing gum pack, and therefore my opinion is as valid as yours is, although you spent a lot of time and effort in formulating it, while I just regurgitate what I saw on the history channel last night before passing out.' is seen as 'snobbery'. It is not snobbism, it is called intellectual debate. This kind of debate is what advances our knowledge and understanding of things.

Now I can get very snobbish about this, and I have been snobbish, and will continue to be so. I see that as a fundamentally good thing, because it will lead to idiots wasting everyone's time quitting the debate in disgust at the snobbism, while those who don't know as much but are willing to learn can do so. I have learned an awful lot on this forum by sitting back and listening to others who know more than I do, and there are a lot of them around here. I would have learned nothing if I had seen them as snobs, and a lot less if the bandwith had been taken up by idiots with a half-penny opinion.

When I came to this forum three years ago I knew next to nothing about a lot of things. About 18 months ago, I knew next to nothing about the war with the Soviet Union. Since then, my knowledge has increased thanks not least to being exposed to those who know things on this forum. Again, accusing them of snobbism would not have gotten me anywhere.

End of rant.

[Bruno Weiss]

To snob, or not to snob. That is the question.

[ October 29, 2002, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Cpt Kernow]

Andreas

If you had read my last post ( You should have done )

You will see that I define grog snobery. The intelectual debate that you talk about is great and educational as I also pointed out and I in no way consider it snobery. What I consider snobery is grogs thinking that somehow this game is "FOR" them and non-grogs can not really like it or want to play it. I think i succesfully discount this perspective in a reasoned and calm discourse.

Read my last post and you will see that your rant was entirely unnnecesary.

[Engel]

Originally posted by Gremlin:

Source: http://www.idsa.com/IDSABooklet.pdf

According to that, the top selling games for 2001 consisted mostly of arcade-type games and sports games. Note that I'm discounting platform at this point.

But for this year, I can't say I can recall all that many games that I'd consider as having depth, apart from Morrowwind and even that isn't all that interesting.

I'd consider a game as having depth if you are still playing it years after release and are still surprised by it (come to think of it, I can recall only 3 games I'd consider that good; SS1, Thief and ADOM). Perhaps my perception of depth is too steep to be really useful for any comparison purposes (MP games can be discounted for the randomness and interaction the human element introduces).

[Stoffel]

There are only 4 games i play regularly.

(almost every day,thats Tacops and CM,Steel beasts and flashpoint)

Specially CM and tacops have what it takes for me,accuracy ,realism and fun!

As a professional soldier I like to implement tactics I learned.

Steel beasts is what I use at work.

And I am sorry to tell you that Red Alert isnt even close to these games as is Duke nukem.

Simple and only meant for a huge masse only interested in killing not in tactics nor in realism.

In fact the only other ww2 game I sometimes play that can match CM a little was Across the Rhine from Michrophose made in 1995.

But you dont even have that one on your list

I dont care about a tank having 3 or 4 roadwheels or if the armor somewhere is thinner than it should be.

I simply like good games.

And another thing you should not forget is that this game(cm)is made by grogs cause they thought something was missing.

Now does this all make me a grog...........

[Grey Fox]

Sometimes the NUTS are right and sometimes the GROGS are wrong.Do I detect a slight case of

elitism here? :confused:

[Bruno Weiss]

You mean, like a NUT SNOB?

[prime^]

Stoffel, that is exactly my point though, depth is in the eye of the beholder, there are many people who would have found Duke Nukem 3d to be quite in depth (including me actually). People have different checklists for different types of games, for something like Duke Nukem it worked like this :

It had a plot and a coherent storyline (although not amaxingly original one).

It had lots of things you could do within the levels.

It had humour.

It had "lots" of weapons ( a feature in this type of game and remember the time period when it came out).

Multiplayer coop and deathmatch modes meant it had longevity as a game.

Laser-tripmines in LAN deathmatch are quite possibly the funniest thing ever.

The graphics and gameplay "were" good.

So one persons shallow game becomes anothers in depth game

I imagine you looked at it and thought :

No realism.

Rediculously over the top.

simple plot.

Its not a "serious" game.

Which is fair enough.

To be honest ive lost track of how this relates to the main thread now - but its kinda interesting none the less

[Stoffel]

Dont get me wrong ,I do have Duke nukem.

I do like the game but only when I am really bored,have a bad day,than I simply like to shoot things.

Than I pick Duke out again.

I also played it in multiplayer mode and I had some of the weapon mods like the H&K mp5 and the sniperrifle with the infrared beam.

But its nothing compared to seriously gaming like CM.

I dont have Redalert though,if you have that game than you certainly are not a grog

So that is something the original poster should not be worried of

[Gremlin]

According to that, the top selling games for 2001 consisted mostly of arcade-type games and sports games. Note that I'm discounting platform at this point.

The original post that inspired my link to that data was specifically discussing computer games.

Here's a list of the top-selling PC games of 2001, according to NPD (I haven't checked their method of stat gathering):

http://www.gamers.com/news/1083373 bottom of the page

I can't comment on Harry Potter since I haven't played it, but you could make good arguments that there's depth in all the other PC games listed there--yes, even in Diablo II. It may not be the same type or level of depth you find in CM, but as another poster has pointed out in this thread, depth is created and enjoyed in multiple ways. Most of those games listed are thought-provoking and/or require you to make tactical/strategic decisions as you play.

And as for the console games listed, GTA3, Madden, the Tony Hawk games, and certainly Gran Turismo 3 all have some depth to them. They're hardly just mindless button mashing. Fwiw, I saw someone playing one of those Pokemon GBC games, and while it looked pretty lame to me, it looked like there was actually some strategy and thinking involved.

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I neither know nor care about the original cause for this thread. What I do care about is that quite often a requirement for some argument beyond 'I read it on the back of a chewing gum pack, and therefore my opinion is as valid as yours is, although you spent a lot of time and effort in formulating it, while I just regurgitate what I saw on the history channel last night before passing out.' is seen as 'snobbery'.

Andreas:

I must say I have truly enjoyed many of your posts, occasionally laughing out loud when reading the depth of your knowledge on some very arcane subjects. However, I fully agree with the thrust of the original post.

I can give an example, but only from memory. That may be a good thing, since no one will take offence. I don't remember who made the post.

Prior to CMBB being released, someone started a topic about Russian AFVs, and how they would be countered in early war scenarios. A response to the post included a brief description of an event that was probably well known to folks who'd been reading the forum while beta testers and BFC were tantalizing us with snippets of information. The post covered an incident where an immobilized KV1 held up the advance of a German armoured column. The story was offered as an example of what players might expect from CMBB in the early war years.

A well posted grog - and I simply don't remember who it was - responded with a very nasty message. They told this individual that this scenario was well known to everyone on the board, had been discussed to death, and they shouldn't be posting this story without doing a search first.

It was a snobbish, superior, and supercilious grog response. (English grogs please note the use of alliteration and a serial comma). I can recall thinking, "Who the $%#@ does he think he is? Anyone posting here has to do a search to ensure they're not saying something that's been said before? Stop reading if you know so %^$#ing much!"

So, that's my example of what can happen when 'a' or 'some' grogs come to think of this forum as their personal sandbox. May they discover the neighbourhood cats feel it belongs to them...

[Priest]

Jagdratt

I think that is a case of a grog who happened to part of the "search patrol". Every board has those.