The_Enigma Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 you reckon the staff who have sat and made/making the game possbily looking over the forums now are thinking to themselves 'you bunch of ungrateful b@st@rd$' [ October 08, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: the_enigma ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Well I've been on a good couple of hours now and i've seen as much positive comment as negative, and as much again in between. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted October 8, 2005 Author Share Posted October 8, 2005 was really only joking after seeing the few topics around near the top 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 'you bunch of ungrateful b@st@rd$'Actually, less than expected I've been in the games business for something like 13 years now. I know that most customers are "fair weather friends". They'll talk and talk about how loyal they are and what not... but as soon as one ripple hits them they bust out the brass knuckles and start swinging. Very much of a "what will you do for me tomorrow" mindset. The thing is we aren't bothered by this. We know that interest in games is based on the content. If you don't like the content, then we wouldn't expect you to buy the game. Doesn't matter that we think the person is being narrow minded or what not, for it is not for us to decide that. I don't buy RTS games... so does that make me a bad person? No, I just don't care for them. If a guy who has bought CMBO doesn't buy CMBB, no problem. If someone who has bought all three CM games and doesn't buy CM:SF, no problem there. See, the thing is the 'loyal' customers seem to think that we EXPECT them to buy whatever we produce. Hardly. We know that we won't sell a single game to someone who really doesn't want to buy it. Therefore, when we make a decision about what game to do next, be it CMBB, CMAK, or now CM:SF, we take into consideration who our audience will be. If the decision leaves someone out in the cold, we had better make sure the game brings in someone who is already out in the cold. Otherwise, why bother? As I've said in other threads, we made the decision to do modern combat back in 2003. We've only seen the demand and interest in such games INCREASE since that time, yet we didn't even think about that. This is a game we want to make and we know there are a lot of people out there who want to buy it. Not everybody, but enough to justify the effort. That's all we expect, so customers should not think we expect differently. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I am kind of disappointed that some of the forum regulars would be so quick to cry that they won't buy it. It seems that most of those who are making positive comments have high member numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(FGM) Bootie Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Juan_Gigante - I am kind of disappointed that some of the forum regulars would be so quick to cry that they won't buy it. Why... if they are not interested in the content then why should they buy it? Doesnt matter how good the graphics are... if they think Syria v USA sucks then so be it. Bootie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 What gets me is the the indignation, as if by going down this route BF has deliberately set out to offend them. It reminds me of football crowds here in Scotland, 40,000 fans scream abuse at a player for an hour, and when he gets annoyed and makes a gesture to the crowd, they are suddenly outraged and flood call ins, demanding to know why he wasn't sent off for his behaviour. I can understand people being disappointed that it's not what they wanted, but as to taking it personnally that's just daft. It's like wanting a Bike for christmas and getting a Gameboy, you either say thanks and play the Gameboy, or you jump up and down on the Gameboy screaming " I WANTED A BIKE". Me I am going to make do with the game boy and have fun as steve has told me my bike will be along for my birthday. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Peter Cairns put it well. And besides (to continue his metaphor), maybe you'll really enjoy your Gameboy. You don't really know until you play it. So I understand feeling a little disappointed, but those who are fortelling doom for BFC because of the setting are a little out of hand. And even saying flat-out "I won't buy it" is a little harsh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrold Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I am definitely not in the "I won't buy it" category despite my reservations. One of which is the fact that hearing about the casualties from IED in the area causes an emotional response and its representation in a game doesn't have the buffer of a distance of history. Nevertheless if the game is a compelling experience that garners excellent response, it would not right to skip the game solely on my initial reaction to hearing the setting. Especially if the volume of content and replayability makes it clear that its a real value. I'm open to being sold on the concept and the release of the CGW article and those details will likely go some ways. Let the selling process begin! BDH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noiseman Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Most peoples' first reaction on discussion boards isn't to think, "How can I say something constructive," it's, "How can I get what I want." Personally, I would have prefered a WWII setting, but I'm not going to strap Steve to a chair and force him to listen to my William Shatner Sings Motown CD (I've got SUNshine on a CLOUDY day) because of it. Heck, I bought and enjoyed Full Spectrum Warrior, and CM:SF looks to be far superior to that game. I am worried that it will be hard to make balanced QBs in CM:SF, and to me, the QBs were heart of CMx1. On the other hand, the CM:SF campaign scenarios should be more compelling than the unrelated scenarios of CMx1. By the way, I can't wait for the first 13 year old to boast how he's 'beaten' the game (and it's too short ) Difficult to balance QBs could also make multiplayer less appealing, though this is not a big issue to me as the vast majority of my games are against the AI. I can see the logic writing the new engine to the most complicated setting, and I can take heart that the WWII setting should be releasable only several months after CM:SF. Now if I were to find out that it will take over a year or two to create the WWII setting, I would be forced to subject Steve to something so horrible that even the Bush Administration has strictly forbidden its use in interogations as a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions: William Shatner & Suzy Kolber: Duets* *By the way, is it just me, or does it always sound like Suzy Kolber has the dry heaves when she talks? [ October 08, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 one thing that will alow balanced qb's is a blue on blue option 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by jeffsmith: one thing that will alow balanced qb's is a blue on blue option . ...and red on red. I think we might be going to see a bit of flexibility. We the user may be able to develop scenarios for Afghanistan and Iraq. It will be interesting to see exactly what CMSF will be capable of doing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by Abbott: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jeffsmith: one thing that will alow balanced qb's is a blue on blue option . ...and red on red. I think we might be going to see a bit of flexibility. We the user may be able to develop scenarios for Afghanistan and Iraq. It will be interesting to see exactly what CMSF will be capable of doing. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noiseman Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 A red on red QB option is something I would very much like to see in SF. A military coup/civil war scenario against the Assad government with some forces remaining loyal is a plausible scenario to me. This would also allow for easily balanced and entertaining QBs. The nice thing about a WWII setting is that while there are differences in the tactical makeup of the forces, they are more or less fairly equal in terms of ability, and thus are well disposed for QBs. The story driven aspect of SF will probably mean that QBs will not be quite as important in SF as in CMx1, but I still feel that the QB function will be a key component for the long term success of the Cmx2 engine. When I first heard about CMBO on gaming newsgroups, the big theme besides the realistic tactics was all the cool things you could do with it because of the open ended nature of scenario building. It really fired the imagination, and this is the key thing in generating sales IMO. The biggest shortcoming of CMx1 was the lack of consequences for casualties, and I think that the story driven campaign is the proper solution for this. But I do think that it is important for BFC to emphasize the potential for user made scenarios via a very open ended scenario editor (i.e. red on red, blue on blue etc.). Especially as SF is a fictional scenario. This could allow for a bit more freedom of action for scenario building than a strict historical setting. Hey, the glass is half full... SF is definately 'not your father's CM' and I'd be a liar if I said that this wasn't unsettling at first. But I'm not going to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and sing kum-by-ah. This old dog has still got a few new tricks in him... At least I hope so 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by FAI: Err.., isn't there some reservations about making Afghan or Iraq scenarios? Imagine a US supply convoy navigating an IED invested neighborhood, realistically simulated by CMSF... Fascinating for a game, but wouldn't that be too sensitive of an idea for some? What if your grandfather was killed at Kursk? Do you think that CMBB should not have simulated Kursk? All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI: Err.., isn't there some reservations about making Afghan or Iraq scenarios? Imagine a US supply convoy navigating an IED invested neighborhood, realistically simulated by CMSF... Fascinating for a game, but wouldn't that be too sensitive of an idea for some? What if your grandfather was killed at Kursk? Do you think that CMBB should not have simulated Kursk? All the best Andreas </font> 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.