i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Steve,

I didn’t change my forum name to conceal anything about myself (as you are implying), but simply because I was bored with the original name I used and it took a while to settle on something else. So to clear the air to everyone else in here: I was originally Vader’s Jester and now my moniker of choice is BeauCoupDinkyDau. And that is that.

Yes, I am at a loss to play CMSF—and I’m not crying over it either. I’m not going to whine about the details, because I’ve already stated what I dislike, and to do so again is pointless. You guys are either going to listen to your fan base or you are not.

In the end, if you guys stick with the current design, then you are failing on your implicit promise. This is a term writers use to describe the promise a writer is making to a reader when he/she begins a story. The promise implies that certain characters are going on a certain journey and there will be some kind of outcome that the reader can probably count on. Take Saving Private Ryan’s story for example. In the very beginning of the film, you know you will be watching a war film about an attempt to save the life of a loan solider. The writers have made that implicit promise to you. What if half way through the film it turned into a comedy about a pack of college misfits hiking through war-torn Europe? Would that make any sense to you?

With CM, the same thing is taking place.

You’ve developed a game series with a certain set of core design values that tells the player that they can expect a certain kind of game that will play a certain way. Then when you develop the sequel, you decide to evolve the game (change can be good—as long as it doesn’t wreck what made something good to begin with) into something that is straying very wide of the mark of what CM has always promised to be.

Nobody in here was begging for a real-time war simulator. We wanted the next logical evolution of CM (as the wargame hybrid it always promised to be). Sure, most of us weren’t excited about the setting, but almost all of us could put that aside for the next awesome CM experience. We didn’t get that though. We got something that feels like the unwanted stepchild of CM.

In the end, it’s your show, but don’t claim that CMSF is my loss, because it’s not. It’s yours. I don’t even have to explain this. The bottom line is going to do all the talking for me, and we both know it. And in a way, that’s a shame—because you guys are a good group of developers that show a lot of support to your customers—and that can be a hard thing to find in this day and age of recycled game concepts and uncaring mega developers like EA.

If this is the direction CM is going to move in, then cool, no problem. I don’t expect you guys to change things for me (although I’d really like it), and I’ll step off of the train at this stop. But you have failed in your implicit promise if that is the case, and if that is so then shame on you and the rest of the team. You have taken what made this game shine and opted for some the concepts of less interesting genres that have been done to death and back again. You guys said so yourself (as I posted in another thread):

From pg. 8 of the CMBB manual:

“The difference is that action in CMBB is paused to allow for player input. We choose this arrangement because we feel it is conductive to players’ development of thoughtful and realistic strategies, rather than the “click fest” that some fully “real time” games can become. It is our opinion that “continuous time” works (very well) only at a very small scale, where there are just perhaps a few soldiers under a player’s command. It does not work well at the scale of a full company or battalion, which is the level simulated by Combat Mission.”

That is just one of many concepts you guys seem to be turning away from with CMSF.

[Runyan99]

So, did 'Waiting for Godot' break it's implicit promise, because you assume that something is going to happen in the play, and then nothing ever does?

[YankeeDog]

Oooo. . . good one. It's not often the subject in which I hold my higher degree comes up on this forum.

I think Waiting for Godot actually delivers on its implicit promise by containing no real action. Nothing ever happens in Beckett plays.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Oooo. . . good one. It's not often the subject in which I hold my higher degree comes up on this forum.

I think Waiting for Godot actually delivers on its implicit promise by containing no real action. Nothing ever happens in Beckett plays.

The promise is kept in "Godot" as well as In Sienfeld...a show about nothing.

[YankeeDog]

Hmmm. . . now that you mention it, that final scene of Seinfeld, with them all in the jail cell, was rather Beckett-esque.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

So, did 'Waiting for Godot' break it's implicit promise, because you assume that something is going to happen in the play, and then nothing ever does?

Never partook in that one, but if the author set you on one particular course and then took it in an illogical direction from where you started, then yes, the implicit promise was broken.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I thought BFC was started so they could design the games they wanted to play, not the games we want them to make. No one is forced to buy their games and is free to buy games from other companies or design their own.

[KNac]

which CMSF promises has broken is beyond my comprenhension so...

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Agreed Ryan--and that's fine if they do. As I said, I'll get off at this stop. But that does not mean I have to like it, nor does that mean I cannot hope that the designers will come back to the core gameplay that made CM great.

Given their past direction and statements though, I highly doubt this will ever happen.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Hmmm. . . now that you mention it, that final scene of Seinfeld, with them all in the jail cell, was rather Beckett-esque.

Jerry Sienfeld as Thomas Beckett...and Kramer is...?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by BeauCoupDinkyDau:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Runyan99:

So, did 'Waiting for Godot' break it's implicit promise, because you assume that something is going to happen in the play, and then nothing ever does?

Never partook in that one, but if the author set you on one particular course and then took it in an illogical direction from where you started, then yes, the implicit promise was broken. </font>

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Isn't that what this thread was all about in the first place?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Dalem,

Don't be too hard on us QBG people. We are doing our best and giving up a large portion of family time to try and get something out there for people to enjoy.

It's not CMx1, never will be, but we are doing what we can.

I don't mean to challenge you on this but I feel that comment was a bit harsh considering we are doing this for the community.

Things will get better and as it stands some of us even get enjoyment from the game.

Mishga-

My comment is not directed at you or your team at all - I think the user-based community has always been a great resource for CM. My point is strictly concerning my opinion that the game design has gone too far in the direction of "designed obsolescence", if you will.

In shorter words I reiterate: Quick Battles that take a team of other people a week to set up correctly are not "quick".

-dale

[SgtMuhammed]

I am rapidly reaching the point of frustration with this game. I will wait for 1.04 before I decide whether or not to pull this thing off my hard drive.

Watching my guys run around like morons after you give them a detailed route, like the developers told us to, to a door that they can plainly see is really getting old. So is having half your squad get stuck in a building or on their vehicle. So is plotting a course between two vehicles 20 meters apart and having the AI decide that the gap is too small. I could go on as we all know.

I love what the game is trying to do but right now it is a massive cluster.... I paid the extra money for a broken game and a useless mouse pad (I have a track ball but wanted the quick reference guide) and every time I play I regret it more and more. I have been trying to remain upbeat but wasting hours getting pissed off is really starting to wear.

This next patch better be a stunner.

[ September 22, 2007, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

[Sardaukar]

My thoughts exactly, sgtgoody.

What was very good TacAI in CM1 certainly is not enough for real-time game depicting individual soldiers. Since TacAI has not evolved to level needed, what's the point of patches even ? Fundamentally game would need scale better AI than abstracted squads in CM1-series.

I'd have bought Combat Mission Campaigns any time over this. That would have added what is missing and missed by many, campaign play. Pity that seems to be vaporware. With this sort of performance, CMx2-games might become vaporware too...since after CMSF (I would describe it as Beta Demo at best), it just might be very hard to regain customer trust.

Hell, I got lot more enjoyment and play value out of CMBO Gold Demo years ago than I get from CMSF.

[Chelco]

i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop ... my work productivity.

Playing frequent CMSF all-nighters doesn't help my career. BFC please fix.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I thought BFC was started so they could design the games they wanted to play, not the games we want them to make. No one is forced to buy their games and is free to buy games from other companies or design their own.

Isn't the whole point, designing the games the paying customers want to play?

I wonder how well CMSF would be doing, if it was the very first CM game, without the loyal customers buying it, simply because of BFC's reputation with CMx1.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Sanok:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I thought BFC was started so they could design the games they wanted to play, not the games we want them to make. No one is forced to buy their games and is free to buy games from other companies or design their own.

Isn't the whole point, designing the games the paying customers want to play?

I wonder how well CMSF would be doing, if it was the very first CM game, without the loyal customers buying it, simply because of BFC's reputation with CMx1. </font>

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Sanok:

I wonder how well CMSF would be doing, if it was the very first CM game, without the loyal customers buying it, simply because of BFC's reputation with CMx1.

That is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by thewood:

Unfortunately, if we look at ToW, we see the same situation. A good concept, a company with great cred, loyal fans openning wallets, a lot of patience, and finally, waiting for the patch that will fix of do sumfink.

Don't forget that BFC did not design or develop ToW. They published it and helped the game developers improve it. However, I do wish that BFC would focus on their own titles instead of growing the company. I don't know how much work BFC put into ToW, but maybe not having that distraction would have enabled them to get CMSF further along by Paradox's deadline.

[MiB]

Hey guys,

I liked CMx1 better than CMSF.

Its okay, though. I still play CMSF some. I'm just a tad disappointed that I was (apparently) in a minority when it comes to preferences.

Before you say "But you're not, EVERYONE loved CMx1!" consider: money where your mouth is. Steve already mentioned that sales tanked for CMBB and CMAK. If CMSF is what he needs to do to make his bread, well....thats what he needs to do. And I'm not going to begrudge him that. He doesn't owe me jack.

CMSF is, in several regards, an inferior value-proposition TO ME than CMAK - hey Steve, do you remember me, by the way? I mail ordered CMAK and the damn CD came to me bent, I think twice? Or do you not handle that part?

Anyway, that doesn't mean it isn't worth $40 and some play time, though.

[ September 22, 2007, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: MiB ]

[Cpl Steiner]

The game is full of problems everywhere you look but I hope BFC keep supporting it for some time to come as I desperately want to see the British in the game. That will make it worth all the hassle for me, as I can't think of anything similar that features the British. Hell, I'd like to see British regulars, British Paras, British Royal Marines - the whole shebang! The one thing that might lift this game out of the morass is lots of distinctive units (even if the uniforms all look the same and helmets are warn instead of berets).

[Childress]

I don't know how much work BFC put into ToW, but maybe not having that distraction would have enabled them to get CMSF further along by Paradox's deadline.

Or all the extra time devoted to including WEGO *and* RT? Frankly, personally, I would have been happy with either environment. With a few(?) months extra development time we'd have a release version in our hands instead of a .75 beta (IMHO ).

[juhhe]

Hi

This is a bit off topic but does somebody know for sure if Campaigns is still being developed or not?

I know it is off the 'under development' part of BFC home page but I was still hoping that this would finally someday see the light of the day.

If not, then I am going to be SO dissapointed (again).

Thanks

[Darkmath]

I think my tolerance towards complaining is starting to drop.

What's the point of this thread anyway? If you are getting bored with this game ... Well then don't play it! (In the same logic, what's the point reading threads I know to be uninteresting? Well then don't read it moron! )

How devs. could help in anything like that?