Immersion and gaming

[meade95]

Originally posted by c3k:

Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread.

I'm not sure where or how the impression that this thread is about design choices got started. I wrote the original post when I realized what it was that kept me from staying glued into the game. I used an example from CMx1 since that seems to be a common background.

I like the 1:1 design. I like the graphics. I like the modelling. I like the weapons effects.

Let me quote you from your post, above (parts of the original quote redacted for brevity and to make a point):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

FSW was one of the only X-Box games I ever owned (I sold off all that junk on eBay not long after) and I played it quite a bit... Our collective opinion, and a strong one at that, was the game sucked ass One of the major reasons was the way it handled terrain... Note that I said "likely" because I can tell you first hand that I experienced massive levels of frustration because the game wouldn't allow me to interact with the terrain as I wanted to and, according to the visuals, I should have been able to do... Steve

The important part, "...I experienced massive levels of frustration because the game wouldn't allow me to interact with the terrain as I wanted to and, according to the visuals, I should have been able to do..."

Hmm, this describes CMSF for me.

In CMSF, as I form my unit for an attack, I have high expectations. When I give a "slow" command to creep up to the top of a crest because the enemy is firing from the far side and I need more guns on the line, I don't lose the immersive feeling that I'm actually there if an RPG lands on my men. I do get frustrated when my men STAND UP and then got shot. (Note: savegame Al Amarah 008c 004.)

When I've finally positioned a team in a great location, in shellholes on top of a road, and they are blind because the LOS is drawn from beneath them, that is frustrating.

Nothing about those frustrations is due to the overall design choices in CMSF. It is due to the execution of those design choices. A more detailed design requires higher fidelity modelling. The points where it fails to achieve that higher fidelity are more obvious.

In CMSF you have modelled men at 1:1. (Quite nicely, too.) When they don't do the "right" thing, not necessarily what I ordered, the game's immersion falls apart.

This is not a critique on design choices. It is not a wish for the golden days of CMx1. It is not a complaint about the theater, the scale, the opponents, or the timeframe.

This is one customer's observations of what makes games addictive, fun, and replayable and how that feeling, once formed, evaporates suddenly in the midst of a CMSF scenario.

Thanks,

Ken [/QB]</font>

[meade95]

[abneo3sierra]

If I may put in my 2 cents here...

I *think* that what z1812 was saying was the cmx2 maps seem somehow almost too perfect? Kind of like an artist rendition? Not sure, that was just how I read it, and while I don't think so personally, I could imagine that.

Also, I do agree that the infantry at least, could use tweaking, but I am pretty sure that will happen anyway. Most of the *stupid* things the infantry does can be worked around in real time play. But it would be nice if there was a way to make more veteran units not make "rookie"mistakes of stopping in the middle of a street And yes, I know that is much easier said than done, but a nice thought anyway, right?

[meade95]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

c3k,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm not sure where or how the impression that this thread is about design choices got started.

Well, let's blame Dorosh then

I like the 1:1 design. I like the graphics. I like the modelling. I like the weapons effects.

Thanks for the clarification. It's a fine line between what you are saying (the game needs some tweaks) vs. Dorosh's hardline "if it isn't perfect, then it's useless" black and white thinking. I'll get into that more when I respond to his post.

In CMSF, as I form my unit for an attack, I have high expectations. When I give a "slow" command to creep up to the top of a crest because the enemy is firing from the far side and I need more guns on the line, I don't lose the immersive feeling that I'm actually there if an RPG lands on my men. I do get frustrated when my men STAND UP and then got shot. (Note: savegame Al Amarah 008c 004.)

This is a bit different then what I was talking about with FSW. In FSW they used the terrain they moved to quite well, as Cpl. Steiner pointed out. The problem is that this was a direct result of extremely restrictive modeling of terrain in terms of quantity, variety, and properties. As I said in my post above, a simplistic model means more consistent and predictable results. But it also means a more simplistic game experience. A lot of people like FSW, but I don't think many wargamers were among them. It was a puzzle game, and a highly abstract one at that. This ties in well with your next point...

Nothing about those frustrations is due to the overall design choices in CMSF. It is due to the execution of those design choices. A more detailed design requires higher fidelity modelling. The points where it fails to achieve that higher fidelity are more obvious.

Correct. CMx2 has a much higher level of fidelity of simulation than FSW or CMx1, for example. It also has a much higher level fidelity of the execution of those elements. The issue is that it isn't "perfect 100% of the time" because there are still levels of abstraction inherent in the system. That's going to be with us for decades. The question is do we stop all progress forward, as Dorosh suggests we do, or do we move the bar upwards yet retain some abstraction? For us sticking with a 10 year old system for the next 10 years is not only a bad idea but it is commercial suicide for us.

In CMSF you have modelled men at 1:1. (Quite nicely, too.) When they don't do the "right" thing, not necessarily what I ordered, the game's immersion falls apart.

I definitely can see why this happens for you, and others. It's natural to want to see near-perfect execution of your orders and to get frustrated when it doesn't happen that way. To some extent we had a lot of this in CMx1 as well, but it was for different reasons like the TacAI moving to the wrong building after getting shot at, stopping while using a Move to Contact in a bad spot, engaging the "wrong" unit when a better one came into view, etc. People either learned to live with these limitations or tossed the game aside for something else.

I think Bodkin put it best:

As the superior commander in CMSF I give orders but suspend my belief of reality after that, I accept some members of squads I'm in charge of don't always do the right thing. That is more realistic than any CMx1 game. However the question was about immersion and without doubt CMSF has a greater 'in game' feeling to it than any of the previous titles.

This is my feeling. I find the flawed representation of the real world in CM:SF far more immersive than the more flawed representation of the real world in CMx1. I'm not just talking about the guys doing what you think they should do, but the entire environment.

A simulation is a holistic experience and if too much emphasis is put on one element vs. the others then an imbalance, in the mind of the player, can easily be created. In CMx1 one could have got way too focused on the fact that you could (at times) shoot at targets that moved behind buildings, that artillery shells would land after 60 seconds was up in places where your guys shouldn't have been if they had been allowed to keep moving, that buildings could have no terrain around them other than Open, all buildings were 1-2 story boxes, etc. etc. not to mention the extremely simplified graphical representation of soldiers, terrain, and to some extent vehicles. Focusing on these things could easily ruin someone's immersion in the game itself.

CM:SF is no different in the sense that the more you focus on the parts you feel are inadequate, the less immersion you'll feel towards the sim as a whole. Since all sims have their shortcomings, flaws, and abstractions it's a matter of personal choice as to where your thresholds for these things break or stay true. Just keep in mind that no matter how many improvements we make to CMx2, you will always be able to break the immersion if your mind goes down that road.

This is one customer's observations of what makes games addictive, fun, and replayable and how that feeling, once formed, evaporates suddenly in the midst of a CMSF scenario.

We had a lot of people that couldn't get into CMx1 because of the soldier representation too, so again it's all about personal preferences. I don't fault you for having a different threshold for this stuff than a player like Bodkin. At least your not arguing that your perspective is the only one to have, quite unlike Dorosh who feels his view of a "perfect game" is the only one. The worst part about it is he is so convinced of his superior position that he doesn't see it for what it is... a bigoted point of view.

Steve </font>

[c3k]

Trying to keep this on track...

Earlier, I wrote, "In CMSF you have modelled men at 1:1. (Quite nicely, too.) When they don't do the "right" thing, not necessarily what I ordered, the game's immersion falls apart."

To clarify: I am not arguing that my men should act like automatons and carry out all my orders. If I order a "move" through the open and my men take fire, I'd expect that they'll pin, or perhaps break and flee.

However, the immersion snaps when they go off on their own...for no apparent reason.

Another concrete example: Let's say the enemy were to the East. An elevated road runs North and South. I had a squad in the lee of the elevated road, to the West of crest.

I ordered my men up the slope, toward the South-East, at "quick" for a distance, then directly East at "slow" to get to the crest. Somehow they missed a waypoint. They got to the crest at "quick".

Luckily, the enemy on the other side, about a platoon's worth firing at my other men, did not fire at my errant squad. So, there they were, over the crest, in full view at "quick".

What did they do next? They, my squad, transitioned to "slow", and moved to the South to get to the point they'd overshot. They ended up moving just a bit West of South.

Their final position was on the West side of the elevated road with their asses pointed at the furiously firing enemy.

This is a combination of the TacAI and of Pathfinding failing.

A workaround would be to select a specific "face" command for every single endpoint.

But that is what ends the immersion. At that point I am not a platoon or company commander intent on accomplishing the mission while preserving my men's lives. At that point I am sitting at a computer trying to work around a balky piece of software which just misses doing what I'd expect.

To reiterate my point, it is not that my men disobey my commands. It is that they disobey my commands and act in a totally nonsensical manner which frequently results in casualties, either to themselves or others.

I would rank the following areas as needing improvement, in order of importance: Pathfinding; TacAI; and Interface.

CMSF is close, but it not yet a game which keeps you sitting there saying, "I'll just play for 5 more minutes, THEN I'll feed the baby."...for hours at a time.

Regards,

Ken

[JasonC]

It is perfectly reasonable to try to push the envelope. It is not reasonable to confuse the value of making the attempt with its success.

At present, CMx2 is not more realistic nor more intuitive as a game than CMx1, for the reasons explained by the poster and previously by Mike and others in a similar vein. CMBB is a high bar to clear, you all set it. Your having set it does not mean your later attempts to clear it, actually do so. So far, CMx2 has not.

So wishing you all the success in the world, I continue to play CMBB, and not CMSF. I don't play games to help other men push envelopes. I play them to have fun.

Design for effect abstraction remains the secret of every game that has ever succeeded in grabbing and keeping my attention for years. Every attempt to replace it with greater engineering "realism" ever tried, to date, has failed. The idea recurs continually, despite it simply never having worked.

One can quibble endlessly about where to design for effect, about which abstraction to make, about how to mark the effects to realism slash playability and the trade off between them. But the continual attempt to substitute blind engineering literalism for game design in this area, has wrecked about as much human effort as the US air force.

I for one continue to hope someone, somewhere, sometime, actually notices and learns that lesson. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by meade95:

Dorosh - I agree with much of your comments regarding CMSF (the game) - However, your above comment is completely ignorant - Plain and simple (though such ignorance cleary affects much more than only one or two of ya...outside these States).

That banner was hung by the Military itself - Not by POTUS or his staff - Those words were never mentioned by POTUS on said day - That banner was hung for those on that ship who's mission WAS accomplished and done so, damn well -

Actually, I am a supporter of the President, and feel that the US military has been doing a hard job in Iraq well. Guess I got lost in my own rhetoric. Maybe I was just picturing Steve in one of his camouflaged jumpsuits. Many critics never realized that the President actually qualified to wear a flight suit by doing his military training and becoming a fighter pilot. You were right to take offence; I offer my apologies for the unintentional slur on the President of the United States and the United States armed forces.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is perfectly reasonable to try to push the envelope. It is not reasonable to confuse the value of making the attempt with its success.

At present, CMx2 is not more realistic nor more intuitive as a game than CMx1, for the reasons explained by the poster and previously by Mike and others in a similar vein. CMBB is a high bar to clear, you all set it. Your having set it does not mean your later attempts to clear it, actually do so. So far, CMx2 has not.

So wishing you all the success in the world, I continue to play CMBB, and not CMSF. I don't play games to help other men push envelopes. I play them to have fun.

Design for effect abstraction remains the secret of every game that has ever succeeded in grabbing and keeping my attention for years. Every attempt to replace it with greater engineering "realism" ever tried, to date, has failed. The idea recurs continually, despite it simply never having worked.

One can quibble endlessly about where to design for effect, about which abstraction to make, about how to mark the effects to realism slash playability and the trade off between them. But the continual attempt to substitute blind engineering literalism for game design in this area, has wrecked about as much human effort as the US air force.

I for one continue to hope someone, somewhere, sometime, actually notices and learns that lesson. But I'm not holding my breath.

I completely agree.

Over at gamesquad, they are talking about Microprose coming back to life. At consimworld, James Werbaneth is talking about wargames - the board variety - and I ventured the opinion that sequels rarely live up to the originals because technology usually gets in the way. I don't think technology is at fault so much as expectations on the part of the audience for the developers to use it - or perhaps those are simply perceived expectations on the developers part. Whatever. It's not my money or ass on the line so I can spout off all I want. It's quite liberating. But I never enjoyed M-1 Tank Platoon II half or even a tenth as much as the original, so the CM experience is nothing unique. Even in the realm of boardgames, cramming all those rules into ASL didn't necessarily make the game more "fun". AH's FIREPOWER vs. SNIPER. There are dozens of examples in PCs and boardgames one can illustrate this with. CMX2 v. CMX1 is nothing new. The earth still turns.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Childress]

Originally posted by c3k:

A more detailed design requires higher fidelity modelling. The points where it fails to achieve that higher fidelity are more obvious.

Bingo, Ken. It's like viewing an actor's face close-up on a HD digital screen instead of one derived from an analog source; the blemishes, wrinkles and razor burns really stick out. Pitiless, but there's the dilemma.

[Cpl Steiner]

The crux of this debate seems to be about whether or not problems with CMx2 are due to poor design or poor implementation. The view of Michael Dorosh and his supporters is that it is due to poor design. They argue that any attempt to produce an immersive wargame without abstraction being at its core is doomed to failure.

Well to examine these arguments I played a quick game of CM:SF today, specifically the "Rock Around the Block" scenario. During the game, I noticed a number of problems, as follows:

1) There seems to be a point a couple of metres in front of all doorways that acts as a kind of rallying point and this causes lots of problems. If a vehicle is parked near it, the men have trouble getting into the building without making really wide detours, as if they have to get to this rallying point and the presence of the vehicle interferes with their movement. This looks like a coding issue rather than a fundamental design problem.

2) Half-way through the scenario a fireteam got stuck, such that one soldier kept hopping over a wall one way and then back over in a continuous loop. At this point I quit the game. Again, this looks like a coding issue rather than a fundamental design problem.

3) The graphics still look kind of bland and uninteresting, and various graphical glitches seem to show themselves every few seconds, such as trees and bushes doing strange zoom-like transformations, shadows dancing in ugly ways, etc. CMx1 had much less of this. It was simpler looking that CMx2, granted, but it was also much smoother and gentler on the eye. In CMx2 we seem to be plagued by weird shimmerings and blurrings at every turn. Again, this looks like a coding issue rather than anything else.

4) The "snap to grid" aspect of CMx2 is still very disconcerting. Sometimes I will want a vehicle to just edge forward a few feet but clicking there results in no waypoint being put down. I have to click much further ahead and then the tank will start moving, even though I can then halt it's movement at the point I wanted to pick in the first place. Similarly with area fire, the grid rears it's ugly head. I feel this is just down to coding again. There is no reason why the screen couldn't display target and movement lines with more fidelity even though, under the hood, the grid is involved.

In summary then, I find CMx1 a more pleasant gaming experience in many ways that CMx2 but I don't think this is due to fundamental design problems with CMx2. It is just a simpler game, which has been refined over many years, and consequently has less coding problems as a result. Hopefully, with more refinement, CMx2 will become as enjoyable a gaming experience as CMx1 was and still is.

[c3k]

Cpl Steiner,

Your points are well made. I agree with all of them.

CMSF needs some coding tweaks. I am totally ignorant as to how much work is involved in tweaking the areas we've all touched upon. Those being pathfinding, TacAI, and the interface.

I think BF.C is the team to pull this off. I sincerely hope they do so.

Regards,

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

The crux of this debate seems to be about whether or not problems with CMx2 are due to poor design or poor implementation. The view of Michael Dorosh and his supporters is that it is due to poor design. They argue that any attempt to produce an immersive wargame without abstraction being at its core is doomed to failure.

No, not at all. If it is well designed it may very well be possible. BF.C is essentially a one man operation and may not be the company to expect to do it. And I know you can look at the staff roster and insist there are more than one person there, but really, you have one idea man, one coder, one 3-D modeller, one sound man, what looks like two skinners if Dan is still performing double duty, one business end/writer and one scenario lead. That's one dude for every major facet. Not that there are huge corporations pouring tons of money and manpower into wargames out there; other than Matrix and Panzer Command I'm not aware of anyone else working on tactical level 3-D turn based stuff, but I have no inside knowledge of how they do business either.

Oh, I don't have followers, just opinions like everyone else. I think I agree with JasonC and Cpl Steiner on some points, definitely with dalem on a lot of points, but as you can see, those opinions get met with hostility in some quarters which is why dalem doesn't post anymore, and you can see some of the personal attacks on Jason in past posts. Those kinds of attacks only highlight the weakness of the position of anyone making them.

Well to examine these arguments I played a quick game of CM:SF today, specifically the "Rock Around the Block" scenario. During the game, I noticed a number of problems, as follows:

1) There seems to be a point a couple of metres in front of all doorways that acts as a kind of rallying point and this causes lots of problems. If a vehicle is parked near it, the men have trouble getting into the building without making really wide detours, as if they have to get to this rallying point and the presence of the vehicle interferes with their movement. This looks like a coding issue rather than a fundamental design problem.

2) Half-way through the scenario a fireteam got stuck, such that one soldier kept hopping over a wall one way and then back over in a continuous loop. At this point I quit the game. Again, this looks like a coding issue rather than a fundamental design problem.

3) The graphics still look kind of bland and uninteresting, and various graphical glitches seem to show themselves every few seconds, such as trees and bushes doing strange zoom-like transformations, shadows dancing in ugly ways, etc. CMx1 had much less of this. It was simpler looking that CMx2, granted, but it was also much smoother and gentler on the eye. In CMx2 we seem to be plagued by weird shimmerings and blurrings at every turn. Again, this looks like a coding issue rather than anything else.

4) The "snap to grid" aspect of CMx2 is still very disconcerting. Sometimes I will want a vehicle to just edge forward a few feet but clicking there results in no waypoint being put down. I have to click much further ahead and then the tank will start moving, even though I can then halt it's movement at the point I wanted to pick in the first place. Similarly with area fire, the grid rears it's ugly head. I feel this is just down to coding again. There is no reason why the screen couldn't display target and movement lines with more fidelity even though, under the hood, the grid is involved.

In summary then, I find CMx1 a more pleasant gaming experience in many ways that CMx2 but I don't think this is due to fundamental design problems with CMx2. It is just a simpler game, which has been refined over many years, and consequently has less coding problems as a result. Hopefully, with more refinement, CMx2 will become as enjoyable a gaming experience as CMx1 was and still is.

I think everyone would like to see CMX2 become a winner, but at present, I think the reasons that many feel it isn't are easily explained. You make some good points. What happens from here is anyone's guess.

Sequels have historically failed to capitalize on the success of games that have gone before, usually by an attempt to add complexity or make use of technology. Again, this is nothing new. In a perfect world, the vendor wouldn't have to chase wider audiences but unfortunately, that isn't the reality.

[M1A1TC]

CMSF is not really a sequel. It's set in modern era, and uses a brand new engine

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

CMSF is not really a sequel. It's set in modern era, and uses a brand new engine

Ah, so it's just an attempt to cash in on the brand name then. Thanks for confirming that. I knew that the CM in CMSF stood for something, I just wasn't sure what.

Sorry, what slot do you fill at BF.C Inc. again?

[M1A1TC]

I am the guy who begged and begged for them to bring back the right-click menu, untill they did (in some way). Your welcome

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

This is a combination of the TacAI and of Pathfinding failing.

There is definitely room for improvement in CMx2. In fact, there was still a lot of improvement still remaining in CMx1 on these two points. Also keep in mind that CMBB had 5 years of development in it, CMAK 6. We're not even at 4 yet with CMx2.

JasonC,

It is perfectly reasonable to try to push the envelope.

Not according to Dorosh

At present, CMx2 is not more realistic nor more intuitive as a game than CMx1, for the reasons explained by the poster and previously by Mike and others in a similar vein.

And as explained by me a lot of the arguments are bunk. Intuitive play, however, has not really entered this discussion, though it is a compounding factor in immersion in many people's eyes.

CMBB is a high bar to clear, you all set it. Your having set it does not mean your later attempts to clear it, actually do so. So far, CMx2 has not.

That is an opinion and it is one I don't share. I don't disagree with your opinion, though, anymore than I could disagree with someone for thinking vanilla is the best flavor of icecream.

So wishing you all the success in the world, I continue to play CMBB, and not CMSF.

Well, they are two entirely different epochs and settings, so I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything.

I don't play games to help other men push envelopes. I play them to have fun.

The tricky thing is fun is always in the eye of beholder. As 1000 gamers out there if they think CMBB is fun and I think only 2 or 3 would say "yes". Ask 1000 CMBO gamers if CMBB is fun and you'd probably get about 400 to say yes. Does this make it wrong for you to love CMBB? No, but don't be so naive as to think that your opinion equates to anything greater than that.

Design for effect abstraction remains the secret of every game that has ever succeeded in grabbing and keeping my attention for years. Every attempt to replace it with greater engineering "realism" ever tried, to date, has failed. The idea recurs continually, despite it simply never having worked.

CMBB is proof positive that you're wrong CMBB was engineered for "realism" to the degree the computer could handle it. It was not an "effect based abstraction". If it were we wouldn't have had detailed armor simulation that rivaled DoD sims and surpassed every wargame ever made before it, not to mention dozens of other realism features.

And before you disagree with me, you had better explain how it is Charles and I never noticed your presence when we designed CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK

Steve

[DaveDash]

I've been an avid fan of the Total War series for ages.

It's basically civ style stratagy empire management combined with "realistic" real time battles.

Medieval Total War can be classed in a similiar field to CMx1. 2D graphics, abstractions, and so forth.

Along came Rome Total War, which moved to a 3D engine with more "realistic" modelling. Combat was hugely unrealistic, the AI was useless (no better really than MTW, it just couldnt handle the higher fidelaity) and so forth.

Then, along came Medival Total War 2. Much improved, built on the same engine, and well received by the fans. Many of the hard-core fans who claimed they would never touch a creative assembly game again came sheepishly out of the woodwork.

Such is the life of gaming. When a game moves to a higher level of fidelaty on a new engine it takes a revolution or two of that engine to get things working. We are in effect beta testers for the "real" CMx2, still to come.

The end result will be something better for all however, and I think BF have done a good job given their relative size compared to other massive software houses who really don't do any better (and in many cases worse) when trying to revolutionize their engine.

Gaming engines do come to the end of their lifespan, and it seems CMx1 was nearing it's end.

In the end it's all progress, perhaps 1 step backwards but it will be two steps fowards in the end.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Looks like you're still playing your dodging games with me. I know why you think you're doing this to avoid some sort of personal conflict, but when you get up on a soapbox without accountability you are only encouraging it. In other words, you can't have it both ways... if you want to aim comments at me (and you obviously are) then you are obligated to deal with the responses to them. If you are not, then I respectfully request that you leave this Forum and aim and go somewhere you know I won't respond to you. For now I'll leave this choice in your hands, since I currently don't intend on fulfilling your desire to be a martyr for your cause.

No, not at all. If it is well designed it may very well be possible.

The game you are picturing in your head, as you have continually described in these threads, will never happen. What you are picturing is not a commercially viable product. Not even for a multi-billion Dollar company. Therefore, in your eyes wargaming hit a deadend with CMx1 and there will never be anything significantly better than it. At least that's what I gather from your own arguments. It would be interesting to debate this further with you, but you have so far made no effort to.

Not that there are huge corporations pouring tons of money and manpower into wargames out there; other than Matrix and Panzer Command I'm not aware of anyone else working on tactical level 3-D turn based stuff, but I have no inside knowledge of how they do business either.

Look at your unreasonable expectations and then you'll know why so few people bothers trying to please wargamers. Trust me... corporate game companies have known wargamers are a waste of development effort for more than 15 years now. The few that didn't think that way went out of business trying to prove them wrong. We are one of a very small number of exceptions and even we frequently wake up and wonder why the Hell we should bother

Oh, I don't have followers, just opinions like everyone else. I think I agree with JasonC and Cpl Steiner on some points, definitely with dalem on a lot of points, but as you can see, those opinions get met with hostility in some quarters

That's really rich I've shown no hostility to c3k or Cpl Steiner, nor anybody else that presents their opinions as such and is willing to enter into a civil debate about them (including, I might add, JasonC's post in this thread and my response to it). On the other hand, those who purposefully create heat, then run away from the challenges that arise from them, are simply people that don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions. It is intellectual cowardice to purposefully provoke a response and then to fain indignation when it is received in kind. How such people, like yourself, can then claim some sort of moral superiority for cowardly bully behavior is beyond me.

which is why dalem doesn't post anymore

And instead he engages in rather strong personal attacks on me personally, and the work I'm involved with generally, in a place he knows I won't respond at all. Even more, nobody else challenges him either. Yup, he's on the moral highground for sure To your credit, at least you still put your comments here, where they can and will be challenged, despite your lack of interest in defending them.

and you can see some of the personal attacks on Jason in past posts.

Yup, JasonC does nothing to warrant the tone of the responses to his posts. Well, not in your eyes anyway. I don't think that is the majority opinion of JasonC's posting style, as relevant as his comments can sometimes be.

Those kinds of attacks only highlight the weakness of the position of anyone making them.

Dorosh, if you think me calling you an intellectual coward for refusing to debate me is an attack, fine. To me I consider it a statement of fact. So we're going to have to agree to disagree here

Before Dorosh gives you the wrong impression, let me state for the newbies that is that I have gone out on more than one limb to keep Dorosh here on this Forum even when by all rights he should have been banned for his behavior. I've spent more time dealing with the messes and enemies he's made here than anybody else in 11 years of managing this (and it's direct predecessor) Forums, save perhaps Fionn. I even brought Dorosh onto the CM:SF testing team against the strong objections of many (who are definitely saying "I told you so"now). I have earned a right to be extremely disappointed with his behavior and accompanying lack of respect shown to me. And yet I have not bounced him out of here despite all of this.

I think everyone would like to see CMX2 become a winner, but at present, I think the reasons that many feel it isn't are easily explained. You make some good points.

And I don't disagree with them either. Opinions that are based on personal preference should never be discounted. It's when people get up on a high horse and claim that their opinions are fact, and therefore any differing opinion is invalid, is when good debate goes into troubled waters.

What happens from here is anyone's guess.

Well, not really I've been pretty clear about the direction CMx2 is headed in from here on out. In general terms we are going to continue refining, expanding, and enhancing the CMx2 game engine. Each subsequent release will look less and less like CMx1 in some ways, more like it in others (especially once we are back in WW2).

Sequels have historically failed to capitalize on the success of games that have gone before, usually by an attempt to add complexity or make use of technology. Again, this is nothing new. In a perfect world, the vendor wouldn't have to chase wider audiences but unfortunately, that isn't the reality.

Actually, the reason is that few gamers are willing to repurchase what is, basically, the same thing that they already have. There are strong sales data to show that the closer a sequel is to its predecessor, the worse it will do. The general rule of thumb is 50% customer loss with each release. So a game that sells 100,000 first go will sell 50,000 second go, 25,000 third time around, etc. CMBB and CMAK fared better than this rule of thumb, but we certainly weren't exempt from the general declining trend. Ignoring this reality basically means going out of business.

Steve

[ March 30, 2008, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

DaveDash,

The end result will be something better for all however, and I think BF have done a good job given their relative size compared to other massive software houses who really don't do any better (and in many cases worse) when trying to revolutionize their engine.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly 10 years of good will can be chucked out the window by some. Instead of saying "OK, I don't like this one, so I'll take a pass on it" some thought they should go right to wishing us to drop dead on the spot. As expected as this behavior was (and believe me it was), it's still a disappointment to see.

Gaming engines do come to the end of their lifespan, and it seems CMx1 was nearing it's end.

Slight correction... it was dead after CMAK. There was nothing more we could do with that engine that was commercially viable. CMAK almost didn't happen since we wondered if it would be worth the effort. Fortunately we did make it and it was (barely) worth making.

In the end it's all progress, perhaps 1 step backwards but it will be two steps fowards in the end.

This is often the case with gaming. Look at JasonC's own post... note that he highlights CMBB (the second game) as the one to beat, not CMBO (the first game). The problem we have is that CMBO had nothing to compare against, so it got a lot of passes for its flaws and shortcomings. CM:SF, however, has something to compare to and, in some people's opinion, it comes up short. If CM:SF were the first tactical 3D wargame out there, and MOST importantly it was WW2 based, I think the reaction from these same people would be entirely different.

But again, we expected this sort of reaction so it's not like we went into this process blind.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

According to Dorosh I should be slamming you and calling you all sorts of names. Afterall, that is what "some quarters" apparently do when there is critical comments aimed at them

In summary then, I find CMx1 a more pleasant gaming experience in many ways that CMx2 but I don't think this is due to fundamental design problems with CMx2. It is just a simpler game, which has been refined over many years, and consequently has less coding problems as a result. Hopefully, with more refinement, CMx2 will become as enjoyable a gaming experience as CMx1 was and still is.

As I've said a million times over, I don't disagree with your opinion. You find CMx1 more enjoyable for various reasons, you stated what they are, and that's really all there is too it. You've not made the mistake of claiming that everybody else thinks like you, or that anybody who disagrees is a "fan bois", nor have you overextended your own personal views into something which they are not (i.e. facts). Therefore, there is no reason for me to take up a contrary position to your comments.

I honestly hope we can straighten the issues out for you as we move along. Your list isn't all that difficult to tackle, though some of the graphics issues you mentioned will probably only go away with a better system to play the game on (the tree stuff is a key indicator of framerate struggles). We had the same problems with CMBO in that many people didn't have a system that could handle the game. We hope that there are refinements we can make to the code to lower the hardware requirements some, or at least smooth things out for those who fall below the optimal system, but we can't say for sure until we've already made successful improvements. All I can say is we do constantly try to optimize code when there appears to be a benefit in doing so.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Childress:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by c3k:

A more detailed design requires higher fidelity modelling. The points where it fails to achieve that higher fidelity are more obvious.

Bingo, Ken. It's like viewing an actor's face close-up on a HD digital screen instead of one derived from an analog source; the blemishes, wrinkles and razor burns really stick out. Pitiless, but there's the dilemma. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Thank you for the vote of confidence. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly 10 years of good will can be chucked out the window by some. Instead of saying "OK, I don't like this one, so I'll take a pass on it" some thought they should go right to wishing us to drop dead on the spot.

/yawn

Now that all your hysterical ranting about me is over, name one person who feels that way and has expressed same. Just one, Steve. One person who has told you to "drop dead on the spot."

You can't do it.

And even if so, it certainly wasn't in this thread, so why bring it up? Emotional blackmail? Can't win a fair fight?

/yawn

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I am the guy who begged and begged for them to bring back the right-click menu, untill they did (in some way). Your welcome

Even if you had anything at all to do with it, Steve would never admit it.

You're welcome. PS - did you ever get that beta team slot you so stated that you so richly deserve? *wink*

[carlR]

It kind of bothers me what Steve says about graphics issues in the paragragh above.ie that it is the card not coping. I get all these issues (zooming trees/flickering shadows/disappearing terrain so that only the underlay shows/trenches that change colour and breadth according to camera position/instant redraws etc)with an 8800gtx (768MB) which is one of the most powerful cards on the market. This card should be able to cope. I have lowered the settings and switched drivers but this does not help (in fact it increases the number of problems). And I find all these graphical glitches to be completely distracting....