The funny thing is that just about everything in CMx2 was requested by CMx1 players.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by thelmia:

It's like book reviewers that criticize the author for not writing the book the reviewer wants to read!

Oh, now you've done it. You've used the most worthless analogy I could conceive of.

Because there's been tons of authors that have written the book that neither the reviewers (that, you should note, is not the same thing as readers; your analogy is flawed, and borders on idiocy), nor their readers wanted to read.

And, when their book was poorly received, they threw themselves off a bridge.

Are you trying to get the BFC guys to throw themselves off a bridge, you idjit?!

I think a better analogy would be the Lucas/Star Wars phenomenon. Because a book can be great, and powerful, and maybe only touch a handful of people, and still be a great book.

But my general impression is, we're looking at the reaction to the first Prequel to the Star Wars trilogy, And the first set of movies was flawed, and uneven, but people loved them.

But only the freaking fan boys loved the fourth movie. Because, quite frankly, the fourth movie was a horror.

AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, FROM EVERYTHING I READ HERE, IS A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOUTING AT BFC: DID YOU REALLY THINK JAR-JAR-BINKS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!

I am an optimist. I believe that they will dance upon the wreckage of this game, and get their ****e together. And what we will see in the future is something better.

But, please. Games are popular culture. You're trying to draw an analogy with the concept of 'art'. A book, or a painting, or even a film that no one likes can still be 'art'. But a game that even the fans are unhappy with is just a guy in a funny costume reciting muppet lines in a strange, hybrid rastafarian accent.

I look forward to better things.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Good post Birdstrike

The truth, and it is truth, that every major feature in CM:SF was requested. The ramifications of those requests may not have been. But since when do customers know how to build the products they use?

Oh, those stupid customers, there they go again, huh?

Adding features is important. Adding features that accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish, or that work at all, is also important. Dropping features that are popular and/or just plain useful is important too.

But since when do developers know how to build the products their customers want?

-dale </font>

[thelmia]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Something about Jar- Jar

Lol? Dude, just say I'm an idiot and save the spam.

That was a good laugh. If I had an avatar on this board I'd change it to Jar- Jar right now.

Games should be art. Especially indie games. Otherwise why bother? If it's cheesy pop entertainment like Star Wars, then EA can make it. No point starting a company to do something anyone can make.

Forum- goers are like reviewers. Too often I see them try to make a game into what it's not, and never will be. Some things aren't going to change and you might as well accept them. If game devs simply try to please the maximum number of people you get a shallow, boring game. If they listen to the wrong people and forget what they meant to do, then you get a terrible game.

I do agree that Lucas should have stopped after 1983. Maybe after Empire, now that I think about it. Ewoks are dumb.

[Antman]

"Ewoks are dumb".

He's right, you know...

[dalem]

Originally posted by thelmia:

Games should be art.

Nahh. Games should be games.

-dale

[Panzer76]

Problem is not so much what they added from CMx1, many things they added are great. The problem is what they *left out* from CMx1.

[Paul AU]

There's wisdom here. There *is* a needle.

So wait; the truth hurts. More me, than them.

So thanks for the Bathwater, BFC.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by dalem:

But since when do developers know how to build the products their customers want?

-dale

If they are customers, clearly the product is something that they want, seeing as they have bought it.

[dalem]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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

But since when do developers know how to build the products their customers want?

-dale

If they are customers, clearly the product is something that they want, seeing as they have bought it. </font>

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If they are customers, clearly the product is something that they want, seeing as they have bought it.

Having pre-ordered CMSF I can tell you for myself you are incorrect.

Still trying to "get it" but, not getting it yet. ...if that makes sense?

[thewood]

So you got it, but then didn't get it? My head hurts.

[monkeezgob]

Same here, got it, then found myself trying to 'get it', but no luck so far. Still not altogether sure what the 'it' is I'm trying to get, but I know I've not yet got it.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If they are customers, clearly the product is something that they want, seeing as they have bought it.

Not true. I ordered SF based on past BFC performance. The reality of SF does not live up to my expectations... in fact, I'm surprised at the poor quality. Its buggy enough to be a Microsoft product. To top it off, BFC seems to be telling us where we want to go today, so I'm about ready to just wash my hands of the whole thing and go back to miniatures

[flamingknives]

BFC has always told us where we want to go today, and tomorrow too, if it comes to it. Just because you agreed with them then doesn't change that.

Yes it's buggy, but we know why.

[Exel]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

No, Sandy, he is not wrong. Every single feature or lack thereof in CM:SF was asked for by CMX1 players. Every single one.

Quote me the numerous requests for a clumsier and dumbed-down UI, pathfinding AI that overwrites player waypoints, disabling WeGo for multiplayer and removing the ability to select ones forces for QBs. Or just one of those. Please, I urge you to.

[lucero1148]

Well if and when SF gets ported to the Mac will it be able to run on duo cores instead of having to constantly switch off a core at every startup? Hopefully all the bugs will be worked out by then. When it does I'd buy the Mac version and throw away my windows copy.

As it is now once I got the game up and running (MBP) I was pretty blown away just watching my stykers blow up. I just can't seem to get the hang of RT vs WEGO. Despite the flaws its not a bad game and compared to a lot of games that do come out SF is a whole lot better and we have seen marked improvements with1.03.

all best

Patrick

[flamingknives]

Exel:

Clumsier and dumbed down UI.

That is of course your opinion. Another opinion would be "simplified" Or possible more sensible, considering the number of factors that cannot be covered in a UI in modern combat. What specifically is your issue?

Pathfinding overwriting player waypoints

That would be a known bug, would it not? Nontheless I believe that the TacAI in all CM games has overwritten waypoints for various reasons. The current system doesn't seem to have all the kinks worked out.

Disabling WEGO for multiplayer

Unfortunate side effect of RT (which was asked for) and being addressed?

Force selection

JasonC and Cherry picking. Linky

equivocation

Noun. Use ambiguity to conceal the truth. Everything that the witches tell Macbeth is absolutely true, but it isn't the whole truth.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by thewood:

So you got it, but then didn't get it? My head hurts.

Could be 'cause it's made of wood.

I recieved the product fine. I have it.

I don't savvy the conceptual underpinning, the design or gameplay concept or somefink, (plus my fancy new computer only plays it if I dumb down the graphics I migh as well not have a new game with fancy graphics).

I followed the development of this product as close as I could or likely anyone could that was not part of the play test / beta test "inside" group.

My expectations were not met, and have similar thoughts on it as Berli wrote above, dalem here and eslewhere, yet also I'd like to still find a way to have fun with this game. To "get it".

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

BFC has always told us where we want to go today, and tomorrow too, if it comes to it. Just because you agreed with them then doesn't change that./qb]

I don't recall BFC implying those that didn't agree were idiots before

[qb]Yes it's buggy, but we know why.

We do? Some is from rushing it out the door, but the more important ones look like design flaws

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Another opinion would be "simplified" Or possible more sensible...

You're serious?

[flamingknives]

Which ones are the design flaws?

[Dirtweasle]

I didn't ask about that, tell me how the UI is simplified and more sensible?

[Exel]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Exel:

Clumsier and dumbed down UI.

That is of course your opinion. Another opinion would be "simplified" Or possible more sensible, considering the number of factors that cannot be covered in a UI in modern combat. What specifically is your issue?

Uh. So the solution to "the number of factors that cannot be covered" is to spread them out to different tabs that you can't see at the same time, instead of having them all visible and easily accessible? And because modern combat requires more functions, it is therefore necessary to reduce the functions to less than what a previous WW2 game had?

All of the available commands to any given unit could easily fit in a mouse context menu, or at the very least in the bottom bar, at the same time. There's absolutely no need to keep most of them hidden all the time. This is something that games over 10 years old did right, so it's inexcusable. It's plain bad design, not "more sensible" and certainly not more simplified.

Disabling WEGO for multiplayer

Unfortunate side effect of RT (which was asked for) and being addressed?

How is loss of multiplayer WeGo a side effect of RT when WeGo is still around for singleplayer? Furthermore, both game modes were promised in full in the pre-order marketing; no mention was made of no multiplayer for WeGo. Most certainly dropping WeGo was not asked for by the CMx1 fans.

Force selection

Cherry picking.

There's something between the extremes of cherry picking and no customizability. You can have limits to unit selection without removing it altogether. Realism argument is bogus, because real armies, including the ones depicted in the game, use custom task forces all the time - that is temporary non-standard force mixes to accomplish given missions. More importantly though it's not fun and it's not balanced.

Again, while people may have asked for limits to cherry picking, they most certainly didn't ask for computer-selected standard force mixes either.

[C'Rogers]

I didn't ask about that, tell me how the UI is simplified and more sensible?

He was replying to Berlichtingen.

Edit to add: How is it not btw? I would like to answer this as I don't have any major gripes with the new UI but would like to know what you find to be the biggest problems before I randomly start mentioning things.

[ September 06, 2007, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Which ones are the design flaws?

1:1 infantry representation without 1:1 terrain representation, and a more sophisticated TacAI. We now have smaller tiles but less cover and infantry that won't use the cover that is there.