Tiles / Hexes

[Holyman]

Mainly to Steve (Semi-god)

simple rules of life:

1. Do not fix what is not broken

2. What you dont do today you will not have to be fixed tomorrow

3. When trying to prepare for tomorrow - use the rear mirror

4. If you cant take care of your existing customers you are not ready to make new

According to me the most devastating thing one can do is to change things for the sake of change itself. It is clearly so that more wargamers can live with hexes than those that can live with tiles. You havent heard anyone say that "i will not buy this game if its not tile based" have you? SC2 will never reach the top shelves as does NO turnbased WWII strategy wargame, so i think you will gain by realising that you are constructing your games for your customers - mainly the core wargamers. To construct this game with the focus on making it sell more - to focus on money instead of on the customer itself - will most likely fail. It is STILL a WWII sim even if you make it look and even behave like CIV.

The best thing you could have done would have been to ask your faithful SC1 and potential SC2 customers by a simple questionnaire what main changes/inprovement they want. Strategic wargamers are a conservative bunch for a reason - they mainly want playability and the possiblity to explore what-ifs?

Steve wrote: "If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game".

Could it be that Hubert have had to listen to a "mini-retail monster" and not primarily the customers?

And i think you said it yourself: Tiles is not the key to if a game is sucessful or not. So my question is - why did you change it then? My guess is that you want to simply broaden your potential customer base and think that looking somewhat like the mighty CIV will make it more appealing. But guess what, CIV is not a success due to the tiles or graphics, its because its a great tool for the simulation of history (even if it is a populistic one). And it reaches a hughe crowd because many people are intrigued by history in general. WWII sims are a small branch of the sim market and i can promise you that it does not serve an "easily widened" customer base. But you must know this with your experience.

Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want.

[ April 21, 2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Holyman ]

[Bill101]

Holyman wrote: "Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want."

No, they can download the demo and try it out, rather than reaching rash conclusions before they've got even half an idea of how the game will be.

I can't understand why some people's minds are so closed to new ideas. There are without doubt a number of people playtesting SC2, all of whom had a good knowledge of SC1. I'm sure that they will soon tell Hubert if they think that tiles are spoiling the game.

But any amount of argument, without the experience of having actually played the new game, is not going to convince.

[RobRas]

Bill101 wrote: "I can't understand why some people's minds are so closed to new ideas". Tiles are not a new idea. Chess has tiles. Tactics 2 had tiles. It's an old idea.

But I admit that my primary problem isn't the tiles - though I believe they are inferior to hexes - but the isometric view. If I could get Top-Down map and simple graphics I would be a lot happier.

Furthermore even though I strongly suspect that it's way too late it is NOW that we can state our case and perhaps influence the decision. When the demo is out it's certainly too late.

[Bill101]

RobRas, actually I respect the argument for a top down view a lot more, though again without having played it I don't know how necessary it might be.

My view is that the game concept and its playability are the most important features, therefore if the game is hard to play in isometric, then a top down view should be offered.

I would like to think that if the playtesters come to that conclusion then Hubert will get working on one.

I played Civ3 for a while, and Talonsoft's Eastern Front a lot more, and in both of them I found their isometric view was fine. In the latter I did try out their top down view a couple of times, but I didn't like it at all.

It's all a question of how easy this game is to play.

[RobRas]

Bill101 - And Talonsoft Eastern Front games had the option of Top-Down view. Which I always used. I really hope that SC2 will have the same option.

[Exel]

Why does everyone who objects to a certain change get always flamed "anti-change", as Steve put it? The people who prefer hexes over tiles have good arguments, they don't support hexes just because they are conservative. Unless you haven't noticed, quite a few of the hex-supporters (including me) have made numerous improvement and new-feature suggestions in the other threads. The thing is, like I said in my previous post, that "new" does not always equal "good", and changing something just for the sake of changing it is not any more reasonable than objecting change just for the sake of objecting it. Let's not ruin this great debate by flaming each other by such mundane claims.

Secondly, please stop using Civ3 and others as examples for pro-tile and pro-isometric arguments. It is a totally different kind of game, and is thus non-comparable to SC. Just because 1st-person 3D view works in Battlefield 1942 doesn't mean it would work in SC2.

Originally posted by KDG:

Oh, and I'd say the female body is the superior shape. :cool:

Great! We agree on something as very fundamental as this!

That brings in the value of your tanks, as they rush around two breakthroughs, cutting off you opponents supply, allowing the ground troops to mop up. Additionally, if the other side has enough reserves to attack from 6 directions after a breakthrough, then more power to him.

Mhm. *nods* Yes, but increasing the value and usefulness of tanks as breakthrough units negate the need of increased number of attack directions in the first place. And I would still argue than 2-1 attack on a straight front is more realistic than 3-1. And being able to attack one unit from 6 directions on a continuous front can really be a game-breaker - this really needs some thought. In SC1 you could get 6-1 situations only if you had surrounded a single unit, but in SC2 such situations could apparently happen in any and every slightest wedge or bulge formed into a continuous front line.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />- Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here).

Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.</font>

[Holyman]

Bill101,

Your reasoning is strange to me.

I have tried dozens and dozens of both tiled and hexed games. Am i not allowed to have my own preference?

No ideas are new in SC2, all of what the genre has possibly to offer has been explored in hundreds of games and i can guarantee i have tried the greater part of them. (Useless info: My first encounter with this kind of games was "NATO commander" on my C64 back in the cold war days of 1984)

To imply that i am afraid of change is not the right way to put it: I dont like change that is uncalled for and i dont want.

Bill101 says:

"But any amount of argument, without the experience of having actually played the new game, is not going to convince."

By using this argument you can never influence anything that is not already built. Try using this theory when building a house of anything else for that matter... Also, If i have been in a couple a hundred houses i can guarantee you that i have a rough picture of how i want my house to look.

In my view we "the customers" that care how this game will end up, are encouraged to react on the new game. Otherwise they may shut down these threads and look another way.

I believe that what RobRas says is partly the truth when it comes to influencing the creation of this game. The sad truth as i experience it is that those who are controlling the creation of this game has started to walk down a path that they no longer can turn back from. We are going to get tiles and isometric view.

Can you remember that ANYONE has EVER mentioned that they want tiles and isometric view in SC2? No? So my conclusion is that they do not focus on their current customers, but on making a more populistic version to try to satisfy others than those who resides within this forum.

I hope they succeed, but its a dary business.

[Alexanderthe_OK]

Thanks for those screen shots and explanation Hubert. I was so disappointed to see the change from hexes to tiles and those screen shots suggest the game isnt going to be any good at all. I really was hoping for a game with the bugs fixed and not this one which I probably wont bother buying. Hopefully there will be enough other people thinking the same as me and we'll get a SC3 with hexes

[Battlefront.com]

RobRas

I'm one of those evil conservatives who just oppose change for fun with no arguments whatsoever. Just inventing a lot of reasons because I don't have anything else to do. Or could it possibly be that arguments could be raised for hexes? Or for a simple Top-Down board without all the fancy graphics? Oops, sorry. I'm opposing change again.

You are entitled to your opinions and what type of game you would prefer. However, it is arrogant to assume that YOUR vision is the only one for this game and the ONLY one that matters. If YOUR vision of the game does not match the game designer's, that does not make the game designer wrong. In fact, 9 times out of 10 the game designer has it right and the Anti crowd has it wrong. That has been my first hand experience over the past decade and I don't see it changing anytime soon. Your next quote illustrates my point very neatly...

But I don't doubt that fancy graphics and isometric maps sell more games. Me not buying it will easily be offset by someone else looking at the back of the box and going "Wow, look at that nice tank and the Eiffel Tower. I'm gonna buy this game".

What world to you live in? This is EXACTLY how the games industry works. I can cite case after case of half baked, crappy mass market games outselling quality hardcore games for exactly this reason. Quick reality check... how many games do you see in retail that look like SC1 and how many do you see that look like SC2? The answer is few of both, but the latter is pretty much the only thing you will see these days. There are very real reasons for this.

Now, that is not to say that the move to tiles was made strictly for graphical reasons. The Anti crowd ALWAYS accuses developers of this and here is no different. This is the game genre's equivalent to the "Race Card" played in criminal trials. Don't have a good case to make? Your position is the minority? Throw out the Sell Out card and accuse the developer of betraying his customer base. It is a pitiful, disrespectful, and highly immature response. Unfortunately it is also a standard component of the Anti argument.

Holyman,

1. Do not fix what is not broken

Illogical. If this is the case we would still be playing Tactics I in boardgame format. Innovation is not about fixing things that are broken, it is about making that which is good better. Sometimes that means fundamental shifts. Combat Mission did it when it abandoned the hex and I know for sure the game is far better for it.

2. What you dont do today you will not have to be fixed tomorrow

Again, another irrational Anti argument. Who is to say what is fixed and broken? You? I see plenty of people in this thread who disagree with you, and yet they are also customers. What makes your opinion more valuable than their's? It is also my experience that for every one Anti there are dozens more who keep silent because they don't like arguing with such people. We have internal statistics compiled over the last 6 years of business that back this up.

3. When trying to prepare for tomorrow - use the rear mirror

True, but if you keep your eyes on the rear view mirror you go off the road and crash. A successful game designer takes quick looks back while keeping the majority of his attention facing forward. Otherwise, why be in this business in the first place? To keep churning out the same thing year after year without doing anything different?

4. If you cant take care of your existing customers you are not ready to make new

Here is the #1 fallacy of the Anti crowd... they presume that there is only ONE type of customer and that they are it. It is arrogant to say the least. The truth is that there is no one type of customer and that it is impossible for any one game to completely satisfy this group. It is also a fact that the Anti crowd is in the minority. If they had their say, and the game developer catered to THEIR narrow concept of what games should and should not be, the game developer would soon be out of business. That is reality and unless you've been in Hubert's or my position you have zero credibility to argue to the contrary.

According to me the most devastating thing one can do is to change things for the sake of change itself. It is clearly so that more wargamers can live with hexes than those that can live with tiles.

Another common tactic of the Anti crowd is to charge that the changes are made without any rational reasoning or benefit. It is one of the easiest, though intellectually hollow, forms of argument. In other words, pretend that the opposite side has made no rational case. You can ignore the benefits and reasoning behind the tile system as much as you like, but that does not make it what you claim it to be.

You havent heard anyone say that "i will not buy this game if its not tile based" have you?

I also never heard "I bought SC1 because it had hexes in it". People bought SC1 because it is a great game. The game is what is important, not the presence of hexes or tiles. I made that point very clear in my previous post, but I'm not surprised to see it ignored.

SC2 will never reach the top shelves as does NO turnbased WWII strategy wargame, so i think you will gain by realising that you are constructing your games for your customers - mainly the core wargamers. To construct this game with the focus on making it sell more - to focus on money instead of on the customer itself - will most likely fail. It is STILL a WWII sim even if you make it look and even behave like CIV.

Again, you dismiss the game benefits of the system because you have emotional baggage tied to hexes. Not a persuasive argument. As for sales, I can promise you that the "core wargamer" makes up only a fraction of Battlefront's customer base, SC1 included. Your concept of how many people fit into your mindset is very off base.

The best thing you could have done would have been to ask your faithful SC1 and potential SC2 customers by a simple questionnaire what main changes/inprovement they want. Strategic wargamers are a conservative bunch for a reason - they mainly want playability and the possiblity to explore what-ifs?

As stated before, gamers are not game designers. If we listened to people like you Combat Mission would have been a clunky computerized version of SL/ASL. We would have been condemned to obscurity and jobs flipping burgers. And if that happened there would be no SC1, or at least not the way it turned out. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the people who argued as you did wound up buying Combat Mission and, for the most part, admitting PUBLICLY that they were wrong. So in the end they got a better game than their narrow, reactionary, backwards looking perspective could have ever imagined. Even better, thousands of NEW gamers were brought into this genre, breathing new life into a dying bread of games. It then made it possible to publish games like SC1 and SC2. Bottom line is that this is reality and we have a solid record to show for it.

Could it be that Hubert have had to listen to a "mini-retail monster" and not primarily the customers?

Nope, Hubert has listened to his inner creative genius and the vast majority of his customers. What he has not done is listened to those who are emotionally vested in a narrow vision of what gaming is.

And i think you said it yourself: Tiles is not the key to if a game is sucessful or not. So my question is - why did you change it then?

Why not? If the tile based system offers improvements (putting your fingers in your ears and singing out NANANANANAANA doesn't change this), then why not? And yes, as a biproduct the game DOES look better from a marketing standpoint. What is wrong with that? I personally will take a great looking wargame with great gameplay over a clunky, dated looking one with the same gameplay. Why should it be any other way?

The Anti's only possible argument against better graphics is if they come at the expense of a better game. Both sides can argue about this until they are blue in the face, but only the release of the finished game can provide an answer. However, in the mean time the evidence supports having faith that Hubert will prevail and the game will be better than its predecessor. The Anti crowd can complain, kick, and scream as much as it likes, but they have no track record to show. Hubert does and you should show him the respect he deserves.

Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want.

We are confident that the majority of customers will like SC2 better than SC1. And part of that will be because of the move to tiles. If we didn't believe this, then why would we be pursuing the change?

Exel,

Why does everyone who objects to a certain change get always flamed "anti-change", as Steve put it?

Not true. It is only a type of personality and a type of argumentation that gets someone branded as Anti. Reactionary, presumptuous, arrogant, demanding, demeaning, emotional, etc. argumentation does not make my heart swim with support and sympathy. I've seen this sort of discussion time and time again and it has ALWAYS gone one way. And that way is never productive.

The people who prefer hexes over tiles have good arguments, they don't support hexes just because they are conservative.

Incorrect. SOME of the arguments in favor of hexes are good ones. However, most are tripe. And in almost all cases the good arguments in favor of tiles (yes there are VERY good reasons for tiles) are dismissed. But only one system can be used for the basis of the game and therefore Hubert had to weigh the pros and cons of each system very carefully. Just because he decided tiles edges out hexes doesn't mean he has ignored the pro hex arguments nor the people pushing for it. It simply means he feels on balance tiles are better. Respect that or not, it is reality.

Unless you haven't noticed, quite a few of the hex-supporters (including me) have made numerous improvement and new-feature suggestions in the other threads.

Gamers can be selectively Anti and selectively open minded. I see it all the time.

The thing is, like I said in my previous post, that "new" does not always equal "good", and changing something just for the sake of changing it is not any more reasonable than objecting change just for the sake of objecting it. Let's not ruin this great debate by flaming each other by such mundane claims.

But that's it in a nutshell... the change was NOT made simply to change. The arguments in favor of tiles vs. hexes has been made very clearly and rationally. But because it is not in favor of hexes, it is dismissed as if it was never made.

Secondly, please stop using Civ3 and others as examples for pro-tile and pro-isometric arguments. It is a totally different kind of game, and is thus non-comparable to SC. Just because 1st-person 3D view works in Battlefield 1942 doesn't mean it would work in SC2.

Agreed. SC2 will be what SC2 is. It won't be Civ3 and it won't be anything else. The most comparable game to SC2 is SC1, a point which seems to have been missed in the rush to tar and feather the decision to move to tiles.

Holyman,

In my view we "the customers" that care how this game will end up, are encouraged to react on the new game. Otherwise they may shut down these threads and look another way.

I believe that what RobRas says is partly the truth when it comes to influencing the creation of this game. The sad truth as i experience it is that those who are controlling the creation of this game has started to walk down a path that they no longer can turn back from. We are going to get tiles and isometric view.

Again, you presume you speak for everybody and speak accurately. Two very dangerous assumptions to make. And yes, the game has gone down a road that it can not be turned back from. That, however, is not a bad thing. Games designed by committee never work.

Can you remember that ANYONE has EVER mentioned that they want tiles and isometric view in SC2? No? So my conclusion is that they do not focus on their current customers, but on making a more populistic version to try to satisfy others than those who resides within this forum.

Hint... if your rational arguments are trumped by other equally rational ones, trying to sling mud at the developer never improves your position. In fact, it marginalizes your opinions and therefore is counter productive to your cause.

You have no game design track record, Hubert does. You love his past work, you have no work for anybody to love. Who do you think is better suited to making the call of hexes or tiles?

Steve

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by KDG:

3) Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250

Thanks for bringing this up KDG, forgot about this problem from SC1, but I just wanted to clarify this point here as it seems to have come up often lately...

This is sort of true as I was limited by map size with SC1 but it was not really because of hexes. In SC1 I pretty much only used DirectX to safely change the resolution when playing SC (remember that small problem ), and used the generic windows graphical interface (GDI) for outputting graphics on the screen. This method was slow and because of this and because of the way I was doing things... long story short it limited the map size due to the amount of memory I could use at once.

With SC2, everything is pretty much DirectX, (keep in mind SC1 was my first game) it's a heck of a lot faster and thus the optimization allows me to do things a little differently, so the map size can be a lot larger which I think everyone will agree is a good thing.

Btw, another change is the new supported resolutions for SC2:

1024x768 (Default as in SC1)

1280x1024

1600x1200

Hope this clarifies things a bit,

Hubert

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by KDG:

Ahhhhhhh, your killing my brain....thinking abstractly hurts.....

OK, now that I got that out, point A and point B still wouldn't be perfect.

The distance between A and B in a horizontal or vertacle line would be greater(4 spaces away) than the distance diagonally if it takes 2 AP's to go diagonally(the equivalent of 3 spaces away). 1.5 AP's corrects this problem.

I agree with KDG, I know what he meant.

[zappsweden]

I think the game looks more like Civ2 now with the 3D view and Squares. Maybe that is the purpose, Civilization series sold alot I think.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

3. The "Hex vs. Square" debate is an old one which is voiced with more emotional attachment than fair minded thinking. The truth is either one works fine if it's surrounded by a good game design. A bad game design can not be saved by hexes no more than it can be made by tiles. Obviously that means hex or square is largely irrelevant provided the game system itself is good. SC1 is an awesome game that has succeeded not because it was hex based but because it is really good. Therefore, arguments that so much as hint at "the game will stink if hexes aren't used" has discredited themselves without any counter arguments being needed.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Tiles just call for a different balance in the forces on the map. You can't judge hexes vs tiles until you've seen what the designer has done with the rest of the game system.

Demo...demo...demo...

{c'mon people, pick up the chant...}

[Battlefront.com]

Alexanderthe_OK ,

Thanks for those screen shots and explanation Hubert. I was so disappointed to see the change from hexes to tiles and those screen shots suggest the game isnt going to be any good at all. I really was hoping for a game with the bugs fixed and not this one which I probably wont bother buying. Hopefully there will be enough other people thinking the same as me and we'll get a SC3 with hexes

Thanks for reminding me that I missed making a very important point. It is ironic that the people arguing against tiles keep talking about how Hubert did this for no other reason than looks. Ironic because looks are exactly how some of you are judging the game. Looking at screenshots and concluding that the game won't be fun is a pretty poor way to judge a game. Especially when it is coming from a game designer who has proven to you that he can deliver something you really like.

I know that most of you don't understand how utterly disrespectful and insulting your outbursts are, but they are indeed. Hubert has done nothing to deserve such behavior and I ask that you reconsider your positions into a more "wait and see" approach instead of convincing yourselves it sucks before you've played it. And if you can't, perhaps your time might be better spent having different discussions about different games instead? The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that.

Steve

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Gamers can be selectively Anti and selectively open minded. I see it all the time.

So what you are saying is that people actually form their opinions on a case-by-case basis instead of just being pro- or anti-everything? Well, let me tell you something; that only shows that people think, and that's how it is supposed to be.

FYI, open minded does not mean accepting everything new as it is. And just because you assess something and decide to object it doesn't make you an anti-change person. Even if it's just your personal preference without any arguments as its base. I have yet to bump into a single anti-change conservative on these forums.

People who object tiles or the isometric view here do so because they sincerely believe that they are inferior to hexes and a top-down view. They have every right to their opinion without being bashed as conservatives objecting all change. I find your comments about arrogancy and reactionism offensive towards everyone who is contributing to this debate but doesn't happen to agree with you. Is it so hard to argue without attacking opinions on a personal level?

[ April 21, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[RobRas]

Steve - wow, that was heavy. Allrigt, I (and others) have been labeled "anti-change", "reactionary", "highly vocal", "minority" and now "disrespectful" and "abusing". Basically for speaking our minds on a subject we care about. But I suppose I just misunderstood it when I thought that was the point of a forum.

Fine, tiles it is. I believe it is a wrong decision but of course it's the designers' call. I hoped this decision perhaps could be changed but I was wrong. I wish you all the best luck with your SC2.

[Bill101]

My own view is that we cannot properly assess Hubert's decision to use tiles until we play the demo.

Those who say that they won't touch SC2 without having even played the demo do give the impression of being narrow minded.

That said, I respect others' rights to comment on the hex/tiles issue. I'm all for free debate.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I think its getting a little bit too emotional in here.

Anyone who has designed anything, will eventually realize that you can't please everyone. And there will always be vocal critics who are just sure you've screwed it up.

I don't believe that Mr H feels insulted by some of the comments. I believe that he has noted those statements, but still hasn't heard anything different enough to make him reconsider his decision.

One of the things we forget when we have "discussions" on the internet, is that you don't know the maturity level of those you are discussing things with. So statements that come out rude or abusive, are really nothing more than an immature person who doesn't know how to express themselves better.

So lets try to be a bit more objective and not get so personally offended by statements that others make.

Realize that for some, you will always be wrong, and move on to a new subject.

[KDG]

Exel

I've enjoyed our debates, and since we finally agreed on the female form as the perfect shape, lets hope Hubert can incorporate this into the game. :cool:

We know tiles is the direction they are going, and I'm pretty sure Hubert will make the appropriate adjustments on unit strengths to make front line battles fair and realistic.

Hopefully you will get the over the top view you and many others wish for, and that we all will get a great game that we play for 5 years.

[Battlefront.com]

Exel,

So what you are saying is that people actually form their opinions on a case-by-case basis instead of just being pro- or anti-everything? Well, let me tell you something; that only shows that people think, and that's how it is supposed to be.

Ah, no. When someone has made up their mind and ignores counter arguments, that is not the way it should be. That is the Anti behavior I described. The same person might not care one fig about what packaging is used (open minded) but they go on a Holy War if someone dares suggest their pet feature could be anything but what they envision it to be (closed minded). Again, I have see this behavior time and time again and think I am pretty well "qualified" to call it for what it is.

FYI, open minded does not mean accepting everything new as it is.

Correct. Open minded means accepting that there is more than one possible point of view and that their own is not necessarily the correct one to use. It also means listening to the counter arguments and discussing them based on their merits, and not going towards emotional argumentation. The latter is the hallmark of the Anti crowd.

And just because you assess something and decide to object it doesn't make you an anti-change person. Even if it's just your personal preference without any arguments as its base.

It's the methodology that is being objected to by me. I've seen this pattern time and time again. It is a pattern, it does exist, and it is being shown off here in almost textbook fashion. If you don't see it or understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I have yet to bump into a single anti-change conservative on these forums.

Wha? I don't even know how to respond to that after reading this thread. I won't even try and conjure up the hundreds of names I've seen over the years that have participated in similar such discussions.

People who object tiles or the isometric view here do so because they sincerely believe that they are inferior to hexes and a top-down view. They have every right to their opinion without being bashed as conservatives objecting all change. I find your comments about arrogancy and reactionism offensive towards everyone who is contributing to this debate but doesn't happen to agree with you. Is it so hard to argue without attacking opinions on a personal level?

Because after voicing their opinions, and being challenged to an intellectual discussion, and finding out that the decision is already made they resort to (basically) throwing a temper tantrum. There is ZERO objectivity in the Anti crowd when they find they won't get their way. It must be their way or it is absolute crap and everybody responsible for the decision is a waste of space. I'll illustrate that further below.

RobRas,

Steve - wow, that was heavy. Allrigt, I (and others) have been labeled "anti-change", "reactionary", "highly vocal", "minority" and now "disrespectful" and "abusing". Basically for speaking our minds on a subject we care about. But I suppose I just misunderstood it when I thought that was the point of a forum.

Check out the lines of argument against tiles and for hexes that has been floated in the last couple of pages. Or do you disagree that the following sentiments have been made loud and clear by the Anti crowd:

1. Hubert is making a grave mistake. It can't possibly be the right decision. This should be self evident because hexes are the only way to go. Even though other games have not used them and worked out just fine.

2. Hubert is abandoning the core gamer that has supported him in the past. Worse, he is purposefully ignoring them.

3. Hubert is more concerned about sales than making a great game. There is no rational reason to go with tiles vs. hexes, so the decision to go with tiles must be because he's "sold out". To whom is unclear since obviously nobody in the world wants a tile based game.

4. Hubert has decided to change to tiles for the heck of it. No rational reason, just simply wants to change things for the sake of changing them.

5 Although the game isn't even done yet, it sucks. Can't possibly be any good because it doesn't have hexes. No chance. That's because...

6. Hubert doesn't know how to make a great game. Well, except for SC1, but that was because it was hex based. Now that he has decided to go with tiles, it is clear Hubert doesn't know what he is doing. Evidence? He won't do what we tell him to do.

7. This might not be because Hubert doesn't know how to make a good game, but because he doesn't understand his audience. His audience is monolithic and obviously pro hex. All other opinions are of no value because they aren't really his customers (even though they bought the game, love it, and are commenting in this and other threads).

It shouldn't take a psychology expert to see this is EXACTLY what is being said above in the Anti posts. The Anti crowd can't make a convincing argument against tiles so they are trying to brow beat Hubert into doing what THEY want. That is not to say their basic argument, in favor of hexes, is valueless. Of course hexes are a viable system, though just not the one that Hubert favors for his next game. Just because Hubert has shifted the game to tiles does not validate the things I noted above.

Fine, tiles it is. I believe it is a wrong decision but of course it's the designers' call. I hoped this decision perhaps could be changed but I was wrong. I wish you all the best luck with your SC2.

You are entitled to your opinion and, as stated above, I find no fault in it. You did not throw in the emotional baggage that others have. Therefore, I respect your position and say I am content to agree to disagree with you. Hubert can't please all the people all the time, so obviously SOMEONE will be disappointed with SOMETHING. The finished product will stand or fall on the sum total of its merits. I'm content with that and so should everybody here.

Steve

[Lars]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah, no. When someone has made up their mind and ignores counter arguments, that is not the way it should be. That is the Anti behavior I described. The same person might not care one fig about what packaging is used (open minded) but they go on a Holy War if someone dares suggest their pet feature could be anything but what they envision it to be (closed minded). Again, I have see this behavior time and time again and think I am pretty well "qualified" to call it for what it is.

We're not getting horses in CM2, are we?

[Jim Boggs]

Maybe the tiles will make it easier to design the Strategic Command: Pacific War.

(Hint, hint)

Hubert's pretty sneaky that way.

[Battlefront.com]

Lars,

Careful with comments like that. You're showing your age on this Forum hehe... good one!!

Steve

[Holyman]

Steve,

OMG! i cant believe im reading this! I hope you dont carry the official voice of battlefront.com as the signature implies. Is this the official stand and attitude that battlefront has towards the people that says things that they dont like? A game developer that seems to talk in negative, direspectful phrases towards the part of their customers that want to speak about what they want from the game? People that have spent maybe hundreds of hours playing their game and wants to say something about how they think it should be in the next version?

Beeing "an arrogant customer" i have to say that this tops everything i have read in any forum for years. I am dead serious. You are certainly not "da man" when it comes to understanding people and customer relations.

Major wake-up call (like a air compressor horn or something) -

This anti-crowd of yours only exists in your own head. It is probably something you have developed over the years to cope with the people that you need to classify as morons in your version of how the world should be runned. You need to seriously think about why it is that you have this urge to jump those who dont share your opinion. We are all individuals in this forum and there is no conspiracy against you or any other company that wants to renew their smelly game or whatever. There are just personal opinions.

And if you are ever responding to this, please keep it short so that i can find the strenght to read through it.

[kurt88]

I'm really getting tired of reading this thread so I won't anymore.

I also like hexes better than tiles but really WAKE UP! Hubert decided on tiles so stop complaining till you played the demo. He's not gonna change it. Better to hope that he can pull it off!