Some more ratings average 69% so far

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by thewood:

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.

That is a bad sign.

Frankly it's my least favorite of the BFC games I've bought, but being I already purchased it I'm trying to make the best of it. Hopefully as the product matures it'll become as good as where they left off with the CMx1 series.

Right now though, if you give the CMx1 series a 9.5 lets say and you think it's only a little beter than half or two-thirds as good you are in the 5.0 to 6.4 range out of possible 10. Sound fair. I'd give it a 7 right now without too much naval gazing.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by thewood:

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.

I think the raving morons make themselves readily identifiable on the other forums though; I've also seen conversations balance out. There are a lot of valid criticisms of CM:SF and when presented constructively, these are easy to bear, on this forum or wherever. Luckily, the rabid haters that I've seen go so far beyond the pale that they simply invalidate their own comments simply by the manner of their own presentation. At best, they even make people want to try the demo in a "Plan 9 From Outer Space" fit of curiousity.

[dalem]

Originally posted by thewood:

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.

And what does that tell you?

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.

And what does that tell you?

-dale </font>

[TheNathan]

Don't know what to make of the most outspoken of the critics on some of these boards, frankly. On one hand, as Dorosh pointed out, there are some valid arguments such as poor LOS/TacAI, broken QB, lackluster WeGo, no clean pause feature, and (My personal complaint) bad setting.

But the sheer aggressiveness and hostility of some of these very same people not to mention the doom and gloom atmosphere of places like the Blitz right now smack of dramatics and a good measure of grog angst. Yeah, the game is extremely rough and has a bad setting, but the core gameplay is great and Battlefront seems fairly determined to fix whatever is truly wrong with the game.

Howwver, and this is quite important, the dedication of a fan-base is not guaranteed by any form of logic and reasoning you can throw at them, nor can their loyalty be assured if you don't provide them with what (roughly) they want. People in the entertainment business are sort of slaves to their product and their market, making it easy for an individual to fail merely by following their own creative wishes.

Is this the case right now? Not sure, as it's too early to tell. While, in my opinion, the game merely needs some work to bring out the great game underneath. However, most fans are far more fickle than I or some of the more level-headed on this forum and this alone will not guarantee that they will be back if their expectations do not match up with the product provided.

If the opinions of the wargaming community are any indication of what the market's opinion is, then Battlefront may be in some stormy seas as far as further sales go. If not, and all the wailing and gnashing are simply the frustrations of a vocal minority, then Battlefront may be right after all.

[ August 15, 2007, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: TheNathan ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

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

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.

And what does that tell you?

-dale </font>

[KNac]

What I don't get is why people must keep repeating things over and over. One of the first things I was educated about when I was a kid it was that saying things one time should be enough for comprenhension.

There radiques the difference between criticism and plain ranting. Is like when kinds scream louder to seek attetion, a rather inmature attitude I would say.

P.S: this statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular, was just thinking loud.

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

What I don't get is why people must keep repeating things over and over. One of the first things I was educated about when I was a kid it was that saying things one time should be enough for comprenhension.

There radiques the difference between criticism and plain ranting. Is like when kinds scream louder to seek attetion, a rather inmature attitude I would say.

P.S: this statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular, was just thinking loud.

I think some of it just comes with the territory of open forums with lots of active threads. To use me as an example, technically I've made the same point 15 times in the last 3 weeks here, but it's been in a handful of threads, and in some of those threads new entrants or questions bring me to the same point of explaining myself again, and so there I go again.

And I'm doing my best to try and be reasonable (because I am very disappointed) and not go all GAAGRGAGRHAHRG waffly on the deal. Imagine if I were all... discombobulatory.

So maybe that's part of it?

-dale

[KNac]

Understood, but at some point it gets tirefully for all. Discombobulatory haha, nice word will have to search translation.

Do you realize that even if you made the same points over and over to the infinite that wouldn't bring you the game you want? I mean, in your case, for example, you disagree with inner game design decissions and the core engine, how things are deal (if I've read right in some of your posts); you don't disagree with bugs or things that are far from polished, but the way the game deals with things.

They are not going to go back 4 years and make a new game that would sweet you, fortunatly or not. Now, if you were disappointed cause of the bugs, that would be an other thing entirely, but in your case I don't see much point on repeating your arguments (I'm not telling you to shut up anyway, if it would look like that, you can do whatever pleases you mroe off course), and more once you know that the developers know them (which I think that from posts since the early stage of development they do).

[TheNathan]

I think dalem, as well as others, are merely venting their frustrations and disappointments regarding a game we all had higher hopes for. I'm also guilty of this myself, though to a much lesser degree than some of the people who have been posting as of late.

But even considering the most sour of these individuals, I think it would be a disservice to all involved if they were to keep their opinions to themselves. This is an open forum after all, and it is here so we can all read each others opinions, as well as tell Steve and the rest of the Battlefront team how we feel about their games. Do I agree that Battlefront is doomed and CMSF is the worst human tragedy since WW2 (Or American Idol), absolutely not. I think it's a great game at it's core, with some rough spots due to being an early version (What game is perfect at first release?) and a bad setting (Syria sucks IMO, but this is easily fixed with user made scenarios and campaigns).

I also think that to some extent people are stating their disapproval as a way to try and sway Battlefront to change some game features in future releases. I'm not sure if this will work entirely, but if the public opinion is any indication of future sales, Battlefront may change some things in future CMx2 titles to avoid future **** storms.

[Abbott]

I still have not purchased the game for two reasons; one is lack of spare time, the other is from reading posts on this Forum. Hopefully another month or two of patches and I will be able to make a decision to purchase based on what I read here.

[Astolene]

It just comes down to the game isn't fun.

I totally welcome new and revolutionary ways of making games.

I welcome new challenges and ways of playing games; however, this game doesn't deliver.

[John Kettler]

Dirtweasle,

By "naval gazing" do you mean, perhaps you were on lookout or attended, say, the Coronation Review at Spithead? Too much fun as an inadvertent pun!

Regards,

John Kettler

[RT North Dakota]

The problem is that CMO?BB/AK raised the bar as concerns expectations. - and CMAK is a very limited game, but great fun and very challenging P v P.

The game is currently not fit for purpose, because of LOS/LOF issues and some of the AI behaviour. Human behaviour is poorly modelled.

However it is my expectation and entirely logical to believe these are being addressed as a matter of urgency.

Complaining about CMSF is like bitching about the performance of the prototype!

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

By "naval gazing" do you mean, perhaps you were on lookout or attended, say, the Coronation Review at Spithead? Too much fun as an inadvertent pun!

ROFL

[Thomm]

As far as 'raving morons' are concerned, I can reproduce their feelings quite well. Some elitists from the CM community spent more than enough energy on bashing other games, and the expectations for CM:SF were raised quite high in the past.

I think it is safe to say that we all expected the "wargame to end all wargames".

And then, after years of waiting, BFC releases a game that is unplayable for many, has bugs (perceived or real) that are blatantly obvious after playing one or two battles, has a weird interface, even looks ugly from certain viewpoints ...

And then, all those people remember how (some of) the CM community came down on other games, critical comments, etc.

The result is the rather emotional reactions you saw. Be honest: 'Shock Force' really got a particular meaning the first time you saw your squad run to the exposed front of a house (or the roof) to die; or your tank crew dismounted because you pressed the right hotkey at the wrong time.

Sure, all those things have already been, or will get ironed out, but "love at first sight", CM:SF was for nobody, I guess.

For me, scores of 50% indicate the correct ratio of what the game achieves already and its full potential! So I think the future is bright!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: For me the case was closed when BFC 'admitted' that they considered the release premature themselves (I knew we were in trouble when they kept telling about features being put in a month prior to the release date). This honest 'confession' won my 'heart and mind' back.

PPS: Having tons of fun with CM:SF!

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

Understood, but at some point it gets tirefully for all. Discombobulatory haha, nice word will have to search translation.

Do you realize that even if you made the same points over and over to the infinite that wouldn't bring you the game you want

Of course I do. That's why you will not find a single instance of me asking Steve to make the game I want, except possibly in jest. The game is the game, and that's that. In other threads I've actually tried to point that out to others in a factual and non-resentful way.

I mean, in your case, for example, you disagree with inner game design decissions and the core engine, how things are deal (if I've read right in some of your posts); you don't disagree with bugs or things that are far from polished, but the way the game deals with things.

They are not going to go back 4 years and make a new game that would sweet you, fortunatly or not. Now, if you were disappointed cause of the bugs, that would be an other thing entirely, but in your case I don't see much point on repeating your arguments (I'm not telling you to shut up anyway, if it would look like that, you can do whatever pleases you mroe off course), and more once you know that the developers know them (which I think that from posts since the early stage of development they do).

Yes. I am merely trying to understand the game and the decisions behind it. I hold out a very small chance that I might like a potential WWII version enough to take a swing at it. More interesting, to me, is the fact that the game designer is willing to discuss his decisions with me and others here, in public, on a forum he provides for free.

That is no small thing in and of itself.

Bottom line is that I have a great attachment to wargames in general and the CM legacy (if you will) in specific, and I'm enjoying the discussion and the education.

-dale

[thelmia]

Fix my multiplayer and it's 8/10. Fix the bugs and it's 9/10. Add lots of content and it's a 10. Right now it's about a 5. I can't play with anyone. It's not as much fun as Steel Panthers 2.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by KNac:

What I don't get is why people must keep repeating things over and over. One of the first things I was educated about when I was a kid it was that saying things one time should be enough for comprenhension.

Maybe one-on-one, maybe.

But, (and in defense of nobody in particular), one of the things I heard a long time ago and I've found it to be pretty accurate is when speaking in public, to an audience let's say making some sort of presentation, you tell them what you want them to know three times. If you don't many are likey to not get it. So first you tell them what the point is, then you make the point clearly, and then in summary you repeat the point.

...but yea what dalem says is correct who can tell if the person you were addressing read and understood you on a forum like this. Most people don't even bother to reply it seems.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Dirtweasle,

By "naval gazing" do you mean, perhaps you were on lookout or attended, say, the Coronation Review at Spithead? Too much fun as an inadvertent pun!

Regards,

John Kettler

Ha! Almost edited it, but let it go.

[Cid250]

Serious Reviews (in-deep), are discarded by Battlefront. They are blind enough already.

In one year from now, they will have the information about his game that can't be ignored: sells.

They will patch a lot... but it will not change the fact that their core design is centered on RealTime, discarding the fantastic WEGO refinement of the earlier versions and the advantages of this gameplay method for TacAI.

Don't expect many players of the real-time "branch" to come here at CMSF... because this game sucks at real time due to the complexity of the game (real-time gamers hate complexity). This game can not appeal to them... there are much better options for Real Time in the market... CMSF will be a looser.

In 2008 they will see how wrong they are about his new design path. Let's the dollars talk. The preorders were a success of the earlier CMBB and CMAK, but we have past that... and the following wear will give a measure to battlefront in "sells", of how good is considered his new game.

[ August 16, 2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Cid250 ]

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Cid250:

Let's the dollars talk.

I am afraid the dollars do not talk your language!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cid250]

Don't be so sure Rollstoy... wait for August 2008.

The famous CMBB and CMAK are responsible of at least half of the preorders.

CMSF will start to make money by himself about September 2007... count a year from now, and come back to check what happened.

[dalem]

Cid250-

How can you know that any of your suppositions about the sales stuff are remotely accurate? As far as I know, and maybe I missed something, BFC has never stated whether any CM game sold 5 copies or 5 million.

And for all you and I know, SF has already sold more copies than all the CMx1 copies combined.

-dale

[KNac]

LOL, you know WeGo is there right? The reason is not running correctly is more due to bugs and other features that are not polished than other thing. And even so, it's not that bad. If you think adding a magic blue bar is gonnma change things, you need serious help. The game Tac-AI is not gonna work better because you don't make the game compute in RT (it has been demonstrated, that if the computer does not have enough proccessing power, RT will slow down, like it does in every game). What is needed is better and more refiend programming which will be done over time.

So guess who is the blind one, at least in this issue.

---

You see, this is a clear example of saying things over and over. And yes, you can argue to them also over and over and it will not make any effect.