CaptainBly Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 A wargamer doesn't care about looks, a true blue wargamer that is. A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge. Put in all the fancy smancy pictures and artwork you want. If it doesn't fit into the Elite Four then it's just another game that wanted to be a wargame. CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK will be hard to surpass in the Elite Four catagories. No amount of sugar coating CM:SF will ever implement will put it up on the pedestal and superority of the Elites we already have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 And what are these "Elites" ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krinks Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I must be the odd one out. I am playing CMSF, and probably will play more when 1.03 is out and I have more time (during the winter). I just recently bought BB and AK and currently have a PBEM going in BB, and a scenario saved with AK that I haven't had too much time for at the moment. I'm also still playing CMBO. I seem to be the only one still playing this game. My brother-in-law play it frequently, and I bought it back around 2002. It has been on and off my computer a few times, since I'll put it aside for a while, and come back to it later. Seems no one is playing the original but me these days (or am I wrong?). Personally I'm enjoying all of them so far, and look forward to 1.03 (*Hits refresh...........Hits refresh..........hits refresh........) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by CaptainBly: A wargamer doesn't care about looks, a true blue wargamer that is. A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge. Put in all the fancy smancy pictures and artwork you want. If it doesn't fit into the Elite Four then it's just another game that wanted to be a wargame. CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK will be hard to surpass in the Elite Four catagories. No amount of sugar coating CM:SF will ever implement will put it up on the pedestal and superority of the Elites we already have. Yeah, yeah, yeah...you're more wargamery than everyone else...wow. Lets see, you'd still play CM if it was on a 2d grid with NATO symbols too right? That's usually the line that follows how much of a wargamers wargamer someone is. Nobody, and I repeat nobody has ever said game play should take a back seat to graphics but wanting nice graphics has always seemed to irk the living **** out the Avalon Hill, charts and abstraction crowd. "I don't care if it's blue blocks Vs red triangles as long as the calculations are there!" Bull****. That would suck. Just look at those of us that want great game play as well as great graphics as the New Wave of "wargamers"...the ones without the itchy undies and arrogant, holier than thou attitudes. In truth, a true blue "wargamer" would've never bought CM in the first place...it didn't have hexes and come in 5000 pieces of little cardboard with a rule book equavilent to a 800 character trig equation. Mord. [ August 30, 2007, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Mord ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKELLEN Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Bradley Dick: And what are these "Elites" ? As CaptainBly stated "A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by SKELLEN: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bradley Dick: And what are these "Elites" ? As CaptainBly stated "A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge." </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by SKELLEN: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bradley Dick: And what are these "Elites" ? As CaptainBly stated "A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge." </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Becket: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bradley Dick: And what are these "Elites" ? As CaptainBly stated "A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge." </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 The CM1 series is one of those series that does fit into those four categories. Everyone talks like CMBO was some quality disaster out of the box. It wasn't. There were some niggly bugs and some design tweaks that were patched. That went on for the next year or two, but it was emminently playable as a very good wargame out of the box. The scenario editor and quick battles gave it longevity. It was challenging to master and had good PBEM out of the box. It was also fun to play. It built a large solid community. I think CMSF has play value and is a challenge out of the box. Even with its bugs, it is still fun. Taking a hard look in comparison to CMBO, it, right now, doesn't match up well from a quality and longevity standpoint. I don't need to rehash the quality issues. Steve has been contrite on the release. Longevity is hurt by the somewhat limited QB options. The editor is flexible, but is a little harder to build a quick scenario with. I just don't see the stampede to make scenarios like I did with CMBO. I am really hoping 1.03 gets us at least past the quality issue. There is no turning back the clock on that, but taking some of the frustration factor out should calm people down a little. I am also hoping it gets people making more scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I was pretty sure he had some "Elite" games already in mind, I just wanted to know what they were. I have never been able to get into the "spreadsheet as game" strategy titles. Nor would I claim to be a "hardcore wargamer". I don't even know what that means. I suppose slapping on MILES gear and playing Army is the most hardcore "wargame" I've ever played. I think that the hex and tile scene is great for boardgames. I think computer games allow us to display some visual entertainment as well. Also, we should take advantage of it. But keeping realism in tact is a key factor for my enjoyment for games. Either have it balls-out crazy and action movie-esque or have it try to be realistic. I don't dig the middle ground too much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Bradley, I have the same thoughts on games. My two favorites are WH40K Dawn of War (Fantasy and SciFi) and CM. Some poeple would look at that as complete opposites on the spectrum. I hate the middle ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKELLEN Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Becket: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bradley Dick: And what are these "Elites" ? As CaptainBly stated "A wargamer cares about play value, longevity, quality and challenge." </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 This thread went off the rails quickly, but about the norm for this bunch...is this what a "fatbeard wargamer" looks like? "...just point me out some of them HALO players..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Getting back on topic...I've recently re-installed CMBO and already have three opponents playing PBEM. I haven't played in a while, and all this CMSF hoopla has influenced me into reliving the beauty of the CM series...especially since my PC is not strong enough to play/suffer through (depending who you listen to) CMSF. Will be buying CMBB AGAIN since my original disk is too badly scratched to work! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I think the whole thing about graphics is really funny. Mord made a good post about that already, but I'll go further. We had TONS of opposition to going 3D (1997-1999) because people said it wouldn't do anything to advance the underlying wargame aspect. I had more than one heated debate with Steel Panthers and Close Combat guys about how you can not simulate a 3D environment adequately in 2D. So the debates raged on and on and on. If we had listened to the "true wargamers" we'd have released a 2D top down game that sold a couple thousand copies just before we closed up shop and got different jobs. Now we have a completely revamped 3D environment. Almost 3 times less abstract than CMx1, tons of terrain possibilties that were completely unthinkable in the first game, lots more variation in the terrain mesh, etc., etc. etc. And I'm not even talking about the other stuff like 1:1 simulation and greater relaism of the vehicle look and actions. All of this not only adds to the underlying wargame, but it also enhances the game experience. When we made CMBO it looked alive compared to typical wargames, but it still felt abstract. CM:SF feels far more alive than CMBO ever could, and no comparison with 2D games. What I find most funny about claims that CM:SF is all fluff and no substance compared to CMx1... I designed both and I can tell you that feature for feature, abstraction for abstraction, CM:SF is to CMBO as CMBO was to Steel Panthers. It's not an opinion, it is a fact. Whether someone finds CM:SF as fun or engrosing as CMx1, well... that's up to the individual. But questioning its wargame credentials is a lost cause before even starting. As for longevity... we've already said that you guys got WAY too spoiled with CMx1 games. "Longevity" in the computer game market is about 6 months, tops. 6 years is almost unheard of. So yeah... if CM:SF is shelved after a year or so, I'm not going to cry about it. For $45 nobody has grounds to complain, be it us or the customer. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 As for longevity... we've already said that you guys got WAY too spoiled with CMx1 games. "Longevity" in the computer game market is about 6 months, tops. Steve, I'll have to differ with you on that statement. If your talking computer games as a whole then yeah 6 months is about right. But in your little niche of that market (computer wargames / simulations) I think longevity is normally expected to be a lot longer, by about 4X. The reason as I see it is because there is less competition for those players that enjoy these types of games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Rocky, Oh, I agree for wargames it is a LOT longer. But that doesn't mean it is correct to expect 6 years out of a $45 game when most $45 games last maybe a month before declining interest kicks in. And that's for the good ones I think CM:SF will still be played by many people 2 years from now. Partly because we're not done with the game yet (i.e. Modules) and partly because, as you say, there will not be a replacment for it. So people who enjoy contemporary warfare will likely keep plugging away for years to come. The people that bought CM:SF without a true love of the setting will likely shelve it sooner than later. We've seen more than a few CMx1 people say they did the same thing with various CMx1 games, so it's not an unexpected thing. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Oh, and a polite reminder to Mord to watch the foul language Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Depth. Thats the key for me. CMSF is an OK game for me, even with the few glitches. When i tried the demo I hated it, but I admit it has grown on me to the point of getting the game and finishing it. But thats the point, I feel like Ive finished it, completed the campaign and played a few scenarios. SF is better than any modern combat game I have played on a platoon/company level, no doubt. I dont care about the level of improvement while liking the 1-1 representation. I dont care how much of a leap forward it is over the previous. What I do enjoy is the depth of involvement CMBB and CMAK had and still have. Once youve played SF for a few weeks I think theres nothing else to see or do. So while not against SF, I still prefer the others for their depth but can understand why SF doesnt give the same and even after various modules, still wont. Its all about fun and replay ability for me Im afraid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: As for longevity... we've already said that you guys got WAY too spoiled with CMx1 games. "Longevity" in the computer game market is about 6 months, tops. 6 years is almost unheard of. So yeah... if CM:SF is shelved after a year or so, I'm not going to cry about it. For $45 nobody has grounds to complain, be it us or the customer. Steve That longevity is what keeps so many of your customers loyal! If the CM series wasn't as good as it was, I'd never even consider spending another $30 on a game I've already bought, and subsequently used to much that the CD is too badly damaged to re-install. I'd just steal the game from some hacker website, or play something else instead. Thanks goodness for CM! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: As for longevity... we've already said that you guys got WAY too spoiled with CMx1 games. "Longevity" in the computer game market is about 6 months, tops. 6 years is almost unheard of. So yeah... if CM:SF is shelved after a year or so, I'm not going to cry about it. For $45 nobody has grounds to complain, be it us or the customer. Steve I think longevity relies on a couple of things, which is not so much about having 500 units as people seem to think. One would be of personal taste; which theater the particular person prefers. Another, specific to CMSF is if you guys patch it into a state of say, the same as you reached in CMBO. That level of stability I mean. Third, will be how moddable the game will be. Can we still mod every graphic and sound? Along with the editor, well I think it could go on as long as someone likes playing Modern combat...or whatever the subject may be later on. Graphically speaking I am really pleased, more so than I ever was with CMBO right off, or CMX1 in general...those more or less grew on me as time went by and mods came out...but I could live with these graphics for quite a long time without wishing, "if only the guys weren't so cartoonish". Outside of what this kick ass editor can do; with the 1:1 representation there are a lot more types of engagements that could be interesting than in CMX1. I don't know if you guys realized it at the time or not but 1:1 has opened up a whole new level of mini scenarios that can be a blast that weren't so much, back in the old engine. Yeah, there is stuff I hope you implement (Kill List...resetting unit info to normal in WEGO playbacks, to name a few of my personal preferences. LOL you know the others people have asked for.) but other than that I think there are layers just as deep in this new version as ever was in the old. I think people will realize that eventually, once the kinks are worked out. LOL so don't sell it short Steve...there's plenty of replay value even before you guys fix QBs. Mord. [ August 30, 2007, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Mord ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Oh, and a polite reminder to Mord to watch the foul language Steve Roger that! Originally posted by Battlefront.com: I think CM:SF will still be played by many people 2 years from now. Partly because we're not done with the game yet (i.e. Modules) and partly because, as you say, there will not be a replacment for it. So people who enjoy contemporary warfare will likely keep plugging away for years to come. The people that bought CM:SF without a true love of the setting will likely shelve it sooner than later. We've seen more than a few CMx1 people say they did the same thing with various CMx1 games, so it's not an unexpected thing. Steve LOL. I should've waited a few minutes before I typed my other post... Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I think the difference between CMx1's graphics and CMx2's graphics is more in the illusion than the technology. The CMx1 world was well represented. Everything was clear and made sense, to me anyways. But it required a little bit of imagination when viewing it. The CMx2 world is an advance towards recreating the battlefield in a simulation. It's not all the way there, by any stretch of the imagination. But it is FAR more immersive than CMx1 was. It's not just how pretty it looks, but how it plays out. It seems more lifelike and really helps put your head in the game. To me, it feels less like a computerized display of a board game and more like a simulation. And I think that's my point, if I have one. That CMx1 felt like a really deep board game that was displayed on my monitor, whereas CMx2 feels like a simulation being ran on my monitor(for the most part). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Bradley Dick: And I think that's my point, if I have one. That CMx1 felt like a really deep board game that was displayed on my monitor, whereas CMx2 feels like a simulation being ran on my monitor(for the most part). Yeah...I totally agree...the soldiers and environment don't seem like cookie cut, prop pieces being moved across a board. It's all really organic...this patch will hopefully make it even more so!! So, just think what WWII is gonna be like! Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 This games got legs. I know cause I didn't give two hoots in a hollar for "modern" War games...Well man that's changed...and now I'm out buying books and Ram. Will Steve EVER get it right! :0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.