Jump to content

Immersion and gaming


c3k
 Share

Recommended Posts

I say this because some of our critics think we made this on spec for a military contract and that's just not the case.

Thanks for the clarification Steve, I understood that to be the case, and the quote from the book took me by suprise hence it piqued my interest...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Certainly we here looked at CMAK after it came out and then asked for an Australian module.

Similarly, as far as I‘m aware, there was no contract between the ADF and BFC to create CM:SF (otherwise we’d have Australians in it to start with) but as I said we are likely to be interested in a CM:SF spin off (assuming some requirements can be satisfied - which I must stress don’t relate to “immersion”).

The ADF isn’t big enough (nor is its use of simulation) to justify building something from scratch. Our approach is to look a pre existing “off the shelf” product that is a 90% solution and then pay the amount required to “tweak it” the remaining 10% for our needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ADF isn’t big enough (nor is its use of simulation) to justify building something from scratch. Our approach is to look a pre existing “off the shelf” product that is a 90% solution and then pay the amount required to “tweak it” the remaining 10% for our needs. [/QB]
Sounds like a cost-effective approach...in general, what kind of tweaks were requested for CMAK?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crete backstory (there is an interactive overview of the various battles, the ground, strategic picture, etc.).

A slightly different ORBAT with Australian equipment (including captured German and Italian kit)

A few other things.

Nothing “big” (in terms of a full rewrite - I’m sure the different ORBAT was a fair bit of work though) or relevant to this post (i.e. happy to use 3 man graphic for an Infantry section - didn’t require 1:1, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a great example of immersion as it applies to CMSF. Note the clutter everywhere, the way even a blue sky day is practically wiped away when the shooting starts, the incredible amount of dust thrown up by even simple movement, let alone the smoke and flame of weapon explosions, the value of having vehicles in an urban scenario, the complexity of the buildings, the grime of same, the close range at which some of the combat occurs, etc. The remarkable sniping survival story is just a bonus,

considering the rich content in this vid.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UvPufQqo3yI&feature=related

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Adam1:

As for CMx2, the people who are complaining about the design aren't even playing it at this point. It's kinda silly, really, I think more motivated by a desire to vent than an actual chance of making BFC get a new philosophy.

i thank those people who bother to complain. i am a lazy ass and instead of complaining i do something else with my time (nothing great, more like watch cartoons from tv or read about forest undergrowth foliage of European Russia in 1941 while sitting in toilet).

i am more than willing to admit that i haven't played the game for months and i doubt i will ever play it again in the future. i might try out the WW2 version if it's good, but i'm not holding my breath - i don't play EYSA or TOW either.

what comes to immersion and game design in general, i'm totally with JasonC, Mr. Dorosh & other similar folks. "evolutionary" design decisions are great, but there should be some priorities. dismissing arguments made by the above mentioned people as "grog talk" is, to be blunt, IMHO pretty stupid. the above mentioned people are not complaining about some meaningless technical details or shunning their eyes from the could-bes of future. it's pretty much the reverse. if someone is being a grog, it is not them.

regarding immersion, 1:1 by no means negates it. i recall playing some great 1:1 games back in Commodore 64 times. the names of the games escape me at the moment, but one with a Western setup i recall being particularly fun. graphically individual men must have been nothing but 8x8 pixel sprites and the game was naturally turn based, but immersion was great. there was a definite feeling of a realistic gun fight taking place with sound tactical decisions. tho it's not really comparable to Shock Force since you can't control individual men in SF.

anyway, thank you to all the complainers. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a crazy twisted world we live in, isn't it? :D

URC,

There whole issue about grogs and their complaints is that they complain about everything, no matter what. Even when they are in love with the game they complain. Hundreds of thousands of posts in the CMx1 forums attest to that :D So we have to sort through them all like one would sort through sand looking for gold. I know that the good suggestions are in there, but on some days it's difficult to see how that could be possible!

For me, I look for overlap between grog complaints and "average joe" complaints to set as priorities. This indicates something that needs to be considered more seriously because it means if we do get it in (which may be impossible, of course) we make the majority happier for it. Whereas some of the grog suggestions would make 2% really happy, 10% would notice it and not really care, and the rest probably wouldn't even know it was there or care if they did. Unfortunately, grogs don't tend (note the qualifier there!) to prioritize their gripes very well and therefore tend (qualifier there again!) to make it seem that even the small stuff is of vast importance to them.

The good news for you guys is we have 10 years of experience filtering through this sort of stuff. I think most of you would agree we've done a really good job incorporating feedback in the past, so the confidence should be there for us being able to selectively improve the game in a way that people feel good about. Certainly that is true with the patches we've released thus far.

Having said that... we know that no matter what we do we'll not get some CMx1 customers to return to CMx2, just like we knew that a lot of Steel Panthers and Close Combat guys wouldn't make the switch to CMx1. We can't be all things to all people so, by definition, some won't want to come along for the ride. That should be OK with everybody.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the "average joe" who loves SP/CC, and who constantly makes amazingly cogent suggestions about very narrow areas of functionality, and some grogs think he's an fool (well, Mark G mostly, although I suspect that might be a cultural / language barrier thing) and others think he's right on the money? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

BTW i bet you didn't know that according to finnish national epic, Maria (the mother of Jesus) became pregnant when a lingonberry accidentally entered her vulva in the forest? will CMx2 WW2 have lingonberries and American robins? do horses eat lingonberries? can you make motorcycle fuel from lingonberries and horse feces?

Now, this is exactly why I like you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small two points:

1) i am an ardent fan of the CM games, and count myself a long time vet of the games and these forums (primarily in the lurker capacity)

2) i've given up on CM:SF for reasons listed throughout this thread and also a few more. there is little that could be done to lure me back, short of implementing WEGO exactly as it was in the original engine. Not possible, i know!

3) I bought CMSF despite hating the modern warfare theme. I bought the game as much to support the company as to see if i would enjoy it. I still patch every time one comes out, on the off chance i'll want to play.

4) I **AM** holding out for the next revision, WW2 Westfront. I trust the team to resolve the technical issues as best they can, and i look forward to revisiting all those great scenarios. Hopefully my enjoyment of WW2, will outweigh what i find to be a cumbersome and frustrating UI and a disappointing TB portion.

thanks

In short, i don't like the topic but i trust Steve and Co.

PS i know that's not 2 points...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

What about the "average joe" who loves SP/CC, and who constantly makes amazingly cogent suggestions about very narrow areas of functionality, and some grogs think he's an fool (well, Mark G mostly, although I suspect that might be a cultural / language barrier thing) and others think he's right on the money? ;)

Just to clarify: I don't mean any disrespect to Mark G in this. I know I annoy the crap out of him, but he still takes the time to think about and respond to my posts, and I do appreciate it.

And yeah... I think Steve probably knows that my "cogent" to "idiotic" post ratio is tipped far toward the latter. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

I think the two of you guys just need to step back from one another.

As a longtime lurker with no dog in this fight, I must agree with you. This discussion, if that's what you want to call it, is downright unprofessional and has really taken a lot of the shine of the company's reputation if you ask me. I'm not a fan of CMSF, never have been. However, I haven't really participated in any of the 'wheels-falling-off-BFC' discussions at Dosomefink either. My perspective is as a casual BFC customer, who frankly cannot understand how most people have the time to engage in these long-winded pointless discussions. Threads pertinent to the game I can understand, but post after post engaging in character sniping accomplishes next to nothing.

I'm not defending the others in these exchanges, mind you, but they're just random people on this board. Steve is posting under the Battlefront login, and as such represents the company. As such, one would expect a higher standard of decorum, but that doesn't seem to apply on this board for some reason.

I had to endure some childish exchanges as a GM in a metacampaign a while back, and I found the best policy was to simply ignore most offensive posts. If you had to ban everyone you had a disagreement with you'd have to really thin the ranks. It's much better to just let them have their say and concentrate on more relevant posts IMO. Just my two cents. Back to lurking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bartokomus:

Small two points:

1) i am an ardent fan of the CM games, and count myself a long time vet of the games and these forums (primarily in the lurker capacity)

2) i've given up on CM:SF for reasons listed throughout this thread and also a few more. there is little that could be done to lure me back, short of implementing WEGO exactly as it was in the original engine. Not possible, i know!

3) I bought CMSF despite hating the modern warfare theme. I bought the game as much to support the company as to see if i would enjoy it. I still patch every time one comes out, on the off chance i'll want to play.

4) I **AM** holding out for the next revision, WW2 Westfront. I trust the team to resolve the technical issues as best they can, and i look forward to revisiting all those great scenarios. Hopefully my enjoyment of WW2, will outweigh what i find to be a cumbersome and frustrating UI and a disappointing TB portion.

ditto (if I may plant my flag in your camp)!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

I think the two of you guys just need to step back from one another.

As a longtime lurker with no dog in this fight, I must agree with you. This discussion, if that's what you want to call it, is downright unprofessional and has really taken a lot of the shine of the company's reputation if you ask me. I'm not a fan of CMSF, never have been. However, I haven't really participated in any of the 'wheels-falling-off-BFC' discussions at Dosomefink either. My perspective is as a casual BFC customer, who frankly cannot understand how most people have the time to engage in these long-winded pointless discussions. Threads pertinent to the game I can understand, but post after post engaging in character sniping accomplishes next to nothing.

I'm not defending the others in these exchanges, mind you, but they're just random people on this board. Steve is posting under the Battlefront login, and as such represents the company. As such, one would expect a higher standard of decorum, but that doesn't seem to apply on this board for some reason.

I had to endure some childish exchanges as a GM in a metacampaign a while back, and I found the best policy was to simply ignore most offensive posts. If you had to ban everyone you had a disagreement with you'd have to really thin the ranks. It's much better to just let them have their say and concentrate on more relevant posts IMO. Just my two cents. Back to lurking. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mannheim Tanker,

As such, one would expect a higher standard of decorum, but that doesn't seem to apply on this board for some reason.
Honestly, for all the heaps of crap that I take here, in "my own home", I think you should be instead be amazed that I don't shut the whole place down or ban dozens of people until there are just yesmen around. Really, I think I hold my temper fairly well given the fact there are literally tens of thousands of customers registered here representing the customer base and only me (for the most part) representing Battlefront.

I had to endure some childish exchanges as a GM in a metacampaign a while back, and I found the best policy was to simply ignore most offensive posts.
Doesn't work any better for me as it did for Chamberlain :D When you don't engage they just ratchet up the crap and stir up even more trouble, which presents a problem since banning them without so much as an attempt to address their points at all makes it look like sensorship. And that stirs up even more trouble. That's what 10 years of experience on this Forum has taught me and I am extremely upfront with that. If you have taken different lessons from your own experiences (which I do not feel are comparable to my own position here) then that's great for you.

As I've said many times before... I am not moderating this Forum any differently now than I did when we first started. It is the tool that helped make CMx1 what it was and it will be the tool that will help shape CMx2. Therefore, obviously this is not just a place for long-winded pointless discussions :D With 5000+ posts to your credit I find it odd that you're only now finding this "shine" coming off when things are moderated more calmly now than in the distant past. Partly through experience, partly through Charles not posting any more. If you think I get testy towards obnoxious posters... tongue.gif

If you had to ban everyone you had a disagreement with you'd have to really thin the ranks.
Correct, and 98% of the time that's exactly how it is, therefore 98% of the time the concept of banishment never enters into the discussion. Therefore when it does, a truly neutral observer should (IMHO) first and foremost wonder if there is something different about the exchange that perhaps warrants a different approach by the moderator. Give the moderator some benefit of the doubt and look more closely at his explanations for why this is one of the 2% instances instead of one of the 98%. I always take the time to spell it out very directly and plainly instead of just flipping the switch and banning the person without explanation.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bartokomus,

Thanks for the support even though you don't like what we've currently produced. When customers get to attacking everything and everybody associated with CM:SF, then say they are "loyal customers", I think of people like you and know that their claim falls short. Perspective is a wonderful thing and I'm glad to be reminded that some people have it in droves. Kudos :D

I'd also like to thank you for posting this:

3) I bought CMSF despite hating the modern warfare theme. I bought the game as much to support the company as to see if i would enjoy it. I still patch every time one comes out, on the off chance i'll want to play.

4) I **AM** holding out for the next revision, WW2 Westfront. I trust the team to resolve the technical issues as best they can, and i look forward to revisiting all those great scenarios. Hopefully my enjoyment of WW2, will outweigh what i find to be a cumbersome and frustrating UI and a disappointing TB portion.

I do understand that you have issues with CM:SF that go beyond it's subject matter, however I think you've quite plainly backed up my earlier thoughts that for some the subject matter has put the game on the defensive before it's even been loaded onto your harddrive for the first time. Believe me I'm not faulting you, ridiculing you, or in any way criticizing you for this because we understand it completely and even expected it when we made the decision to move to Modern. Never-the-less, it's made it harder on us to make you happy with this particular game. We'll see how much better you like a change of setting + feature changes! I'm glad you have the perspective and patience to find out :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...