Immersion and gaming

[meade95]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

I think the two of you guys just need to step back from one another. MD, you have some interesting opinions about the game. But fighting with Steve isn't gonna help. Try posting some suggestions back in skunkworks. Make some concrete changes. Even if you're an annoying git (I'm speaking of myself here) Steve DOES listen. You just gotta go use your powers for good.

Steve, I very much understand where you're coming from -- but I think you've gotta lay off on this back-and-forth stuff, you guys do seem to have an emotional history, so your reasoned arguments and his are falling on respectively deaf ears.

When folks get caught up in these things it just ends up with great threads like this one turning into a three-page war. I'd suggest moving the last 3/4 of this thread somewhere else and let c3k's ideas / call for opinions get back on track.

Well said -

C3K's ideas, observations and suggestions are what should be...being addressed here -

[JohnO]

Seems MD fan boys are showing up

[Guest BigAlMoho]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dirtweasele,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Have to agree with that as well.

No surprise considering all the wonderful things you've had to say about me personally at that other place. The irony of your forum name here is not lost on me </font>

[helm123]

Me to, interested in this other dark place where the real nasty posting happens.

[Guest]

I think it's best if everybody backs off this topic, no matter which "side" you're on. As I mentioned above, this is between MD and Steve, and even that's probably something that doesn't need to be happening, not in this thread, anyway. Let's get back to discussing the game.

[hoolaman]

I don't really care if the CMSF soldiers are like a clone army, never communicating with each other, milling about randomly. This is a game, and the animations are more than good enough for me to believe what I see. Although I hesitate to raise the tired old comparison, they are an improvement on CMBO IMO, while still requiring a bit of imagination.

What I do take from c3k's post is that even with generic animations, you need pathing that gets your guys from A to B in a realistic manner, and you need a capacity for your guys to deploy against a target and make use of terrain cover in a realistic or at least believable way. If these two things don't happen you get dead guys and a poor result in your simulation.

These are obviously very subtle behaviours and will continue to be tweaked I am sure, just as they have been all along the way, and I know any constructive reports of things that look weird should be encouraged.

[Webwing]

Sorry Phillip, this is not just between MD and Steve.

Posters that say they see no offense in the way the game, Steve and BF has been criticized are the ones that are very critical of the game and most don't even own it.

I can understand that they see no offense.

"The game is crap. I don't play it. I know better." This is repeated add infinitum in many different forms, very aggressive, less aggressive, etc.

If you don't like the game fine. No offense to you really.

What it implies is that if you like the game you must be a fool.

Someone compared this to the Emperor's New Clothes.

He means me and all the others that do like the game are fools.

Sorry Phillip, but I take offense.

I think the point most fail to understand is that this is not a fan site. This is the official Battlefront site. This is the home of CM:SF. Apart from BF staff we are all guests here. We should behave as such.

Some may argue that actually we are customers. Well, you don’t need to own the game to post here. Many that post and criticize openly state they actually don’t own the game. So technically no ground for complain at all.

Now, trying to pick up a fight with the guy that basically owns the place seems a bit strange. What can you possibly gain with that?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with pointing to things you feel are wrong in the game. This can actually help the developers. But why get so emotional about it and so aggressive. This is a game, we are supposed to be having fun with it. Why so much anger, anxiety, frustration? Why be so disrespectful with somebodyelse’s work?

“less rancor than most”. Why any rancor at all? Why be so aggressive to others? This might all sound a bit naïve in a wargame site though!

-

[ March 31, 2008, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

I think it's best if everybody backs off this topic, no matter which "side" you're on. As I mentioned above, this is between MD and Steve, and even that's probably something that doesn't need to be happening, not in this thread, anyway. Let's get back to discussing the game.

Huh? There is no "fight" and nothing "between us". I just wanted to know who wished that Steve was dead. I never read any such thing on this forum and was a bit surprised to see reference being made to such a thing. If the inference is being made that I suggested such a thing, it's false.

Anyway, as per the topic at hand, suffice to say JasonC stated very well what would have taken me five times as many words to sputter out without getting across half the meaning, so I'm content to leave it there.

Webwing - speaking in general, if a game doesn't appeal to you, why would you buy it? You don't need to own a Smart Car to realize that they don't deliver a family of four complete with groceries from point A to point B, so do you really need to own one before you can criticize it for being poorly designed for that purpose?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

No, never did And even if I had been offered it, I doubt many things would have changed at the time of release. Seems like meeting the deadline was the priority to releasing a top-notch product

Well, when JasonC, dalem, dirtweasel, Cpl Steiner and I start to work on the BEST GAME EVER, you are hereby invited to join the Beta Team. You can even be on the Alpha Team.

In fact, you can write it for us, because I don't think any of us know thing one about coding.

And if you know anything about 3D modelling, we'll need some help with that, too.

And if you know any girls, bring them along.

You'll also have to tend the bar, proofread the manual, and snake the toilets on occasion.

But you don't get to name it. That's the one part we've got. In fact, we have 325 "perfect titles" ready for debate.

We might let you vote.

[M1A1TC]

MD

Thanks for the all the job offers, Ill just take the texturing job

[Guest]

Originally posted by Webwing:

Posters that say they see no offense in the way the game, Steve and BF has been criticized are the ones that are very critical of the game and most don't even own it.

I can understand that they see no offense.

...

He means me and all the others that do like the game are fools.

Sorry Phillip, but I take offense.

Webwing, it's okay to be offended. I didn't say I *don't* take offense... just that the party needed to move elsewhere. Maybe even stop for a bit. Nothing useful was being said, and I think the particular Michael / Steve dynamic was just making it worse.

For the record, I like CM:SF and CMx2. Of course I want to see improvements. So I work toward them, mostly by complaining, hopefully in constructive ways. Folks who choose to do otherwise are only a problem if you allow them to become one.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Huh? There is no "fight" and nothing "between us". I just wanted to know who wished that Steve was dead. I never read any such thing on this forum and was a bit surprised to see reference being made to such a thing. If the inference is being made that I suggested such a thing, it's false.

Sweet mother of pearl, Michael, have you read over this thread? There are about a half-dozen ten-inch posts "between you", and that's just this little corner of the spitting hole.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Anyway, as per the topic at hand, suffice to say JasonC stated very well what would have taken me five times as many words to sputter out without getting across half the meaning, so I'm content to leave it there.

Right-o.

[c3k]

Hmmm, right. Okay then.... Ah, yes: immersion.

It seems that we've been immersed in some vitriolic exchanges. That is one type of immersion I'd LIKE to snap out of.

I recognize the reluctance that BF.C has about comments regarding upcoming patches. Twice bitten, once shy or somesuch. (If they post that the cyclic rate of the AKM is going to be adjusted then the patch does NOT adjust the cyclic rate but instead fixes every other known bug, oddity or glitch, they'll get hoist upon their petard.)

However, since 1.08 is being worked upon, are any of the issues raised in this thread - GAME RELATED ISSUES, LADIES - being worked on?

Are any of these issues even being thought about back at HQ?

The issues I'm speaking of revolve around pathfinding and TacAI. I believe there are examples posted several pages ago...

Steve has mentioned that CMSF will continue to be refined. What would you, Steve, LIKE to refine? What do you think CAN be refined?

Personally, I think the unit behavior needs to be adjusted regarding cover. I think a system of allowing my pixellated troopers to get up to the LOF without overshooting it would be the single biggest improvement. Right now I can only adjust my ordered waypoints in 8 meter increments. If my guys are 1 meter short, those next 7 are gonna hurt. Ditto with vehicles.

If I understand the mechanics, every 8 meters is an action spot. The exception being buildings. It seems the movement grid is broken into 8 meter spots as well. Is that true?

If so, how about an adjustment in action spot locations. I mean a parallel to what has been done with buildings. Buildings are tactically useful terrain. You have coded the game to increase the simulation fidelity around these pieces of useful (and often fought over) terrain.

Why not do the same for elevation changes?

Where there is a fold in the ground, add more action spots. Make the terrain movement grid more finely detailed. Make the TacAI able to be more responsive. Make the spotting algorithms more detailed.

Where the ground is uniformly even, within small variations, that would not be necessary. One part of a cornfield is much like another.

Where a hill crests is VERY important. Likewise the bottom of a ravine.

Is this possible? Is it a valid compromise between performance and gameplay?

Thanks,

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

MD

Thanks for the all the job offers, Ill just take the texturing job

Well, that's the way the way the cookie crumbles every time. You're on the team, anyway. We now have half-a-dozen know-it-alls in primo position to make the most advanced 3-D level, squad-based, company-level tactical turn-based wargame EVER that will oustrip Combat Mission, Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Muzzle Velocity, Operation Flashpoint and Panzer Command COMBINED and the only thing stopping us is the fact we don't know how to code it, market it, make the models, advertise it or deliver it to the consumer.

And we might have argued a little bit about what colour the uniforms should be, but only because dalem is a tight ass about such things AND TOTALLY DOESN'T OWN HIS OWN MANNEQUIN EITHER I MIGHT ADD.

But aside from all that, we're golden.

The only competition we have to worry about is...well, everyone who posts to this forum, really, since they're in about the same place as us.

But we have a great logo picked out for the business cards. So we're a step ahead.

[gibsonm]

Phillip,

Good luck trying to herd the cats.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by c3k:

snipped

I recognize the reluctance that BF.C has about comments regarding upcoming patches. Twice bitten, once shy or somesuch. (If they post that the cyclic rate of the AKM is going to be adjusted then the patch does NOT adjust the cyclic rate but instead fixes every other known bug, oddity or glitch, they'll get hoist upon their petard.)

snipped

Thanks,

Ken

Well I suspect that is why (apart from the NDA some of us signed) why you wont get much pre release feedback on 1.08 until you read the “readme” in hopefully the not too distant future.

[Guest]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Phillip,

Good luck trying to herd the cats.

Heh. Yeeeah... I'm kind of an idiot. When you step into crap, who is the worse for wear? The crap, or your shoes?

Originally posted by c3k:

However, since 1.08 is being worked upon, are any of the issues raised in this thread - GAME RELATED ISSUES, LADIES - being worked on?

Are any of these issues even being thought about back at HQ?

Good suggestions in your post, but these quetions are probably best answered by Steve. I am but a cog in the wheel of progress.

Originally posted by c3k:

It's the milling around while under fire; it's the looking to the left when the enemy - just spotted - is in front; it's the "blob" formation of a squad which means the front two or three men get hit while the rest don't know what's going on; it's a failure of the TacAI to properly position the 1:1 modelled men.

So, just so I can get a handle on this (subjectively I understand this stuff, I just want to see *how* you think it should be different):

1) How would you expect your troops to react under fire? Is it that the men shouldn't be doing what they're doing, or they should be doing it faster, or what?

2) What sort of formation should your troops be in? How will they know?

3) Do the rest of your men not know what's going on because they haven't spotted the enemy? How do you perceive that they don't know what's going on?

4) In what situations is the TacAI failing to properly position men? Is it just ridgelines / trenches? How should they be positioned?

That's just for my own personal edification. Do with my overly verbose questions what you will.

[Webwing]

C3k,

</font>

• Trees flash when plotting moves</font>
• Immersion and gaming</font>
• LOS errors</font>
• Arrghh. Gameplay frustrations</font>
• WIA in vehicles are the wrong color</font>
• Postgame request</font>
• Bradley bugs, v1.07</font>
• Red Target Lines and Yellow Target Lines need fixing</font>
• Hunt and Covered Arc is broken...</font>
• What just happened?</font>
• Recce Humvee's: Huh?</font>
• etc.</font>

Those are your most recent threads.

In your opening post you say you are trying to enjoy this game. If that is so you are looking in the wrong direction. You are probably looking only at the half empty part of the glass.

If all those issues you are talking about really break the magic, then I think the game might never be immersive for you. Yesterday I was half an hour late for lunch because I couldn’t stop playing!

It’s a personal thing that has to do with our imagination. So games trigger that, others don’t.

Obviously some bugs can bring you back to reality all of a sudden and that can be quite frustrating. But I never feel like that with the game now. Personal thing I guess.

Imagination is a topic that always interested me. Immersion in a game has a lot to do with that. The fact that the game uses an 8m x 8m action spot has nothing to do with it. Reason has not much to do with it, imagination does. Some games capture our imagination, others don’t.

Take a 5 year old playing with a ball pen. It’s an F-16, he will tell you. And he will be flying around making a sound with his mouth. For him that is not a pen, it is an airplane. A ball pen is very immersive for him. His imagination fills in the huge gap between the ball pen and an airplane.

With age we unfortunately lose that ability. We seem to need more sophisticated things to trigger that mechanism.

There is also a matter of time I guess. A game that is very immersive today, played again some years from now might seem quite boring.

I understand you want to discuss some things you feel need improvement in the game and that’s fine. But I’m afraid even if they are implemented they might not be the thing that will trigger the immersion for you.

I hope you find something in the game that triggers the fun and immersive factor and that you can enjoy the game as much as I do.

-

[c3k]

Phillip, excellent questions. I'll post my responses inside your post...

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

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

However, since 1.08 is being worked upon, are any of the issues raised in this thread - GAME RELATED ISSUES, LADIES - being worked on?

Are any of these issues even being thought about back at HQ?

Good suggestions in your post, but these quetions are probably best answered by Steve. I am but a cog in the wheel of progress.

Originally posted by c3k:

It's the milling around while under fire; it's the looking to the left when the enemy - just spotted - is in front; it's the "blob" formation of a squad which means the front two or three men get hit while the rest don't know what's going on; it's a failure of the TacAI to properly position the 1:1 modelled men.

So, just so I can get a handle on this (subjectively I understand this stuff, I just want to see *how* you think it should be different):

1) How would you expect your troops to react under fire? Is it that the men shouldn't be doing what they're doing, or they should be doing it faster, or what?</font>

[c3k]

Webwing,

Pulling from your post (and redacted somewhat):

Originally posted by Webwing:

C3k,

</font>

• Trees flash when plotting moves</font>
• Immersion and gaming</font>
• LOS errors</font>
• Arrghh. Gameplay frustrations</font>
• WIA in vehicles are the wrong color</font>
• Postgame request</font>
• Bradley bugs, v1.07</font>
• Red Target Lines and Yellow Target Lines need fixing</font>
• Hunt and Covered Arc is broken...</font>
• What just happened?</font>
• Recce Humvee's: Huh?</font>
• etc.</font>

Those are your most recent threads.

I hope you find something in the game that triggers the fun and immersive factor and that you can enjoy the game as much as I do.
-

First, a comment on your post: thank you. You crafted a thoughtful reply and even took the time to search my recent posts which, by their nature, reflect the areas of this game about which I am most vocal. I quoted the last part of your post to highlight how much you obviously care for and enjoy CMSF.

If you've taken the time to search my posts, I'm sure you'll note a similarity in tone to my posts. I WANT this game to be great. Right now, 6 months on, it is close. As I find errors, glitches, problems, bugs, whatever, I post them. My hope, for it is a hope, is that they can and will be resolved. In some cases the posts are not commented on by BF.C. In some cases they are.

At one point, I'd posted an idea; years ago. It died the death of an unloved thread.

Then, recently, Steve commented on that idea when it was brought forth by someone else; he said he wished he'd heard of it sooner. It was too late to be implemented.

That was a failure. (Or it was Steve being politic to someone about an idea which had no chance in hell of ever being implemented.)

Since then, I've posted every issue I've found. I try to post solutions where I have the wherewithal to think of one, knowing that I am not a programmer and that I have no idea how much work the proposed solution would entail.

When someone else posts an issue which I share, I try to bump their thread. Again, this is an attempt to gain BF.C's attention for areas to be improved.

Let's take the list you made:

</font>

• Trees flash when plotting moves
  True: and the ground gets clipped showing the underlaying terrain. Others have this. BF.C has postulated GPU memory shortage as a possible issue. I, and the OP, have 8800GTX's with 768 Mb of video ram, the highest amount available on a single card. It may be a driver. If it's software, it's a matter of troubleshooting. If the game works on your machine, do you care if it doesn't on someone else's?</font>
• Immersion and gaming
  A thread I started when in a moment of gestalt I realized exactly why and when I would quit playing CMSF.</font>
• LOS errors
  A thread regarding men in craters unable to shoot at same level targets. Perhaps I've found an outlier condition in the coding. Perhaps I'm a total idiot. The men LOOK like their heads and weapons are up, but they can't get a clear LOF.</font>
• Arrghh. Gameplay frustrations
  A squad did not enter a building. It self split. A BMP wiped out 5 of the 6 who split. Thats a pathfinding and TacAI error. I sent a savegame to an individual interested in it.</font>
• WIA in vehicles are the wrong color
  A minor tweak to the Interface. I have lots more in this vein, mostly under the guise of standardizing the scheme BF.C has designed.</font>
• Postgame request
  Again, a thread for that after action immersive feel.</font>
• Bradley bugs, v1.07
  Yes, "bugs": I felt dirty when I used that word! Yet, it brings up issues of targeting and standardization of the interface.</font>
• Red Target Lines and Yellow Target Lines need fixing
  A thread very related to the "Bradley bugs" thread as gibsonm rightly pointed out. I can have two Bradleys, one with "Target" one with "Target Light" and both firing the same weapons for the same effects. An interface standardization theme.</font>
• Hunt and Covered Arc is broken...
  Again, highlighting a TacAI item. My men would stop an assault (using hunt and covered arc) on a building when an enemy infantry unit appeared hundreds of meters away. Not the best thing. Immersion, et al.</font>
• What just happened?
  A request for a cue when a casualty occurs. BF.C released a radio squawk audible and a written notification of reinforcements as a patch upgrade. I would love to know when I took casualties, even if it's just a flashing red-cross at the end of the turn, up in the corner or down on the interface bar. Then I can find the unit getting hit.</font>
• Recce Humvee's: Huh?
  An interface issue. What do these units do? How many units have weapons which need player intervention to use? Which mounted weapons are remote controlled? An interface issue.</font>
• etc.
  Yes, there will be more....</font>

The areas can be broken into Pathfinding, TacAI, and Interface. I maintain that is the order in which they should be solved.

In summation, all the areas I've posted about have received support from others. I'm not hurling feces about. I am posting issues which I have not seen addressed by BF.C. I am hoping, hoping, that they do get addressed. Some are minor. Some ruin the immersion - for me.

When CMSF's disparate parts work well, the game is great. Really. But when something goes wrong - and I'm obviously not talking about men acting like robots, or my tactical ineptness causing casualties - but when things go wrong, there's a reason. Finding the reason and seeing if there's a pattern is part of improving the game. I wouldn't be posting here if I did not feel I had a vested interest in BF.C's success in improving this game.

I'm glad you're able to keep your eyes above the items which snap the immersion for me. However, based on this thread, there are others who lose the immersion when playing CMSF. This is an attempt to find out why and to get it working 100%.

Thanks,

Ken

[meade95]

Originally posted by Webwing:

C3k,

</font>

• Trees flash when plotting moves</font>
• Immersion and gaming</font>
• LOS errors</font>
• Arrghh. Gameplay frustrations</font>
• WIA in vehicles are the wrong color</font>
• Postgame request</font>
• Bradley bugs, v1.07</font>
• Red Target Lines and Yellow Target Lines need fixing</font>
• Hunt and Covered Arc is broken...</font>
• What just happened?</font>
• Recce Humvee's: Huh?</font>
• etc.</font>

Those are your most recent threads.

In your opening post you say you are trying to enjoy this game. If that is so you are looking in the wrong direction. You are probably looking only at the half empty part of the glass.

If all those issues you are talking about really break the magic, then I think the game might never be immersive for you. Yesterday I was half an hour late for lunch because I couldn’t stop playing!

It’s a personal thing that has to do with our imagination. So games trigger that, others don’t.

Obviously some bugs can bring you back to reality all of a sudden and that can be quite frustrating. But I never feel like that with the game now. Personal thing I guess.

Imagination is a topic that always interested me. Immersion in a game has a lot to do with that. The fact that the game uses an 8m x 8m action spot has nothing to do with it. Reason has not much to do with it, imagination does. Some games capture our imagination, others don’t.

Take a 5 year old playing with a ball pen. It’s an F-16, he will tell you. And he will be flying around making a sound with his mouth. For him that is not a pen, it is an airplane. A ball pen is very immersive for him. His imagination fills in the huge gap between the ball pen and an airplane.

With age we unfortunately lose that ability. We seem to need more sophisticated things to trigger that mechanism.

There is also a matter of time I guess. A game that is very immersive today, played again some years from now might seem quite boring.

I understand you want to discuss some things you feel need improvement in the game and that’s fine. But I’m afraid even if they are implemented they might not be the thing that will trigger the immersion for you.

I hope you find something in the game that triggers the fun and immersive factor and that you can enjoy the game as much as I do.

-

Don't have time for a more verbose answer back - But I think you are off in terms of C3K and his comments / posts -

All of his posts have been polite, descriptive, informative and not "attacking" the game / CMSF.....but it asking or suggesting how to make it better.

There are definitely issues with the TacAI. There are definitely issues with LOS along with SA of certain soliders at odd times.....

I see C3K posts as forward looking and saying if these TacAI and Infantry problems could be addressed (tweaked) CMSF could be a game for the ages.....

Simple as that. Nothing about looking at the game half-empty at all....

[Webwing]

C3k,

I think it was clear in my post that I have nothing against your posts or the way you talked about the problems you found and that you think kill the immersion for you.

Actually your posts might be more helpful to BF than mine!

I just listed them to make a point.

The point I was trying to make is that if you are looking for enjoyment you might be looking in the wrong direction that's all.

In your first post you said you wanted to know what others thought. So in my post I told you what I think.

The topic was Immersion and gaming. That's what my post is about.

You also want to talk about all the problems you see in the game and I think that is fine too. I never said otherwise.

I just don't think a perfect game equals immersion. Simply because a perfect game for you might not be a perfect game for me or others.

I sure like to see a lot of things in CMSF but my list is different from yours. And I suspect everyone has his own list too.

I just enjoy the game as it is now and as things are introduced will enjoy this new things as well.

I hope the things that "kill" the immersion for you are addressed in the future and that you start to fully enjoy the game. That's why we play it anyway, isn't it!?

-

[ March 31, 2008, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[Webwing]

Originally posted by meade95:

Don't have time for a more verbose answer back - But I think you are off in terms of C3K and his comments / posts -

All of his posts have been polite, descriptive, informative and not "attacking" the game / CMSF.....but it asking or suggesting how to make it better.

There are definitely issues with the TacAI. There are definitely issues with LOS along with SA of certain soliders at odd times.....

I see C3K posts as forward looking and saying if these TacAI and Infantry problems could be addressed (tweaked) CMSF could be a game for the ages.....

I totally agree with you about C3k.

Did you read all my post?

Where in it do I say otherwise?

The topic of the thread was Immersion and gaming. I tried to address that.

--

[76mm]

I took my eyes off this thread for a few days and look where it goes. Wanted to respond to a couple of Steve's points:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Some feel that CMBO hit some magical perfect balance of gameplay and realism, thus making any departure from it suboptimal.

I think you're overstating this considerably. Most people aren't saying that no departures were warranted, they just aren't necessarily happy with the direction CMSF went.

Can't speak for others, but I can put the departures from CMx1 that I dislike into four categories:

1) The more detailed 1:1 represention is fine in theory, but I don't think the TacAI is up to the task yet. It's certainly improved, and will further improve, but frankly I'm only hopeful (not certain) that all of the "immersion-killing" issues will get ironed out. That's where this discussion devolves into a debate about game design.

2) Game features, such as detailed post-battle unit reporting, full-featured quick battles, many terrain/unit/fortification types, etc. have been left out of CMSF. Much of this is understandable in the first iteration of the new engine, but I think BFC tries too hard to justify many of these exclusions because they are not "relevant" to CMSF or to games in general, and that they are simply archaic holdovers from CMx1 that BFC sees no need to address. Maybe I'm the only person to miss these features, and maybe I don't have any good reason to miss them, but miss them I do, to the extent that they are a significant reason why I don't play CMSF anymore.

3) Still haven't clicked with the interface, but maybe this is a personal thing and I'll probably get used to it at some point.

4) I'm not interested in modern warfare, but understand why BFC went in that direction for this game and am certainly not bitter about it or anything.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What I do feel justified in doing, however, is pointing out the hypocritical nature of the argument that CMx2 is somehow flawed because it isn't a perfect representation of the real world. That's just an intellectually pathetic excuse to justify not liking something, rather than being a valid line of reasoning.

Huh? I don't think anyone's looking for a "perfect representation of the real world", just something "good enough". What constitutes "good enough" is obviously a matter of personal opinion, and while CMSF has achieved this goal for many, for many others it has not. What "valid line of reasoning" do I need to say that I don't like playing CMSF (or anyone number of other computer games out there)?

And I continue to struggle to understand Steve's continued threats to ban Dorosh. I think his comments about the game are thoughtful and well-reasoned, even if you don't agree with them. While Dorosh occasionally throws the personal barb, Steve responds in kind, which I believe costs him the "moral high ground".

[ March 31, 2008, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[Battlefront.com]

Just to button this aspect up...

thewood wrote:

Unless I missed a post somewhere, I haven't seen Dorosh post anything I would call "bannable". I have seen some of BFC's testers post more confrontational stuff than Dorosh, and I don't even think that was bannable.

It isn't so much the digs at me (please reread his posts more carefully), rather it is his dodging responsibility for his posts. He puts out a rather strong bunch of opinions, complete with erroneous factoids and VERY direct shots at me, and then abandons them when challenged. Doesn't matter how politely I respond to his posts, he won't engage in an honest debate. That's borderline trolling and it is not allowed here. Look back in this thread if you've somehow missed his lack of desire to engage in discourse (there are other threads like this too).

So I have given Dorosh a simple choice... either dial down the rhetoric or engage in a dialog about it... I don't see why I should put up with anything less.

Or do you think it is polite to come into your house, poop on the rug, and then run out the back door when you come into the room? I hope not

76mm... hopefully the above will help you understand the issue here. I'm not looking for the high ground, BTW, I am looking to debate someone who himself claims the moral high ground. If he isn't willing to do that, then I don't see what purpose he can possibly have here.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and to answer BigAlMoho's question about where this "other place" is, here's a link:

http://dosomefink.com/phpbb2/index.php?topic=2851.0

It's 45 pages of mostly bitching between people who are all of a like mind. There are some fair posts mixed in with the calls for me to suck dick and questioning my sanity, but I'd say the mix is decidedly not favorable to me Mostly it is a few people reinforcing their own convictions and expressing hostility to anybody who doesn't think exactly like them. Warning to you people that actually like CM:SF... you're generally thought of as empty headed fanboys.

The funniest thing about this thread is there were IDENTICAL threads on the Steel Panthers and CC3 forums when CMBO was fresh. The only difference is that the ones who used to be labeled fanboys are labeling others instead.

As the old saying goes, same stuff, different day

Steve

[ March 31, 2008, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]