Jump to content

i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop


scottie

Recommended Posts

Bored isn't the problem. I love the timeframe. I love being able to play with the things I played with when I was in the army. I love the way the game looks and feels. I hate the way it works, or more correctly, doesn't.

I have lots of games that I love but don't play anymore because they are just poorly done. Lord of the Realm (2 or 3 I don't remember) is a game that I waited years for and bought imediately. I love what the game is about. I threw it away because it was so badly done. I love the Master of Orion series and owned all three. I tossed the third one, again because it was poorly done, but if they make a new one I will probably buy it as well because I love the idea and the world.

It is easy to say, "if you don't like it don't play it," but that degrades BFC more than any of the players by implying that they could care less once they have your money. I don't believe that.

What I do believe is that there are things in this game that are fundamentally broken. Not little graphical glitches or data errors or misplaced minus signs. These I expect and I know can and will be fixed. Instead I see errors that seem to be part of the system and so beyond change. Hopefully BFC will prove me wrong so I don't have to toss another $70 out with the trash. As it stands I have seen little to show me that that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Bored isn't the problem. I love the timeframe. I love being able to play with the things I played with when I was in the army. I love the way the game looks and feels. I hate the way it works, or more correctly, doesn't.

I have lots of games that I love but don't play anymore because they are just poorly done. Lord of the Realm (2 or 3 I don't remember) is a game that I waited years for and bought imediately. I love what the game is about. I threw it away because it was so badly done. I love the Master of Orion series and owned all three. I tossed the third one, again because it was poorly done, but if they make a new one I will probably buy it as well because I love the idea and the world.

It is easy to say, "if you don't like it don't play it," but that degrades BFC more than any of the players by implying that they could care less once they have your money. I don't believe that.

What I do believe is that there are things in this game that are fundamentally broken. Not little graphical glitches or data errors or misplaced minus signs. These I expect and I know can and will be fixed. Instead I see errors that seem to be part of the system and so beyond change. Hopefully BFC will prove me wrong so I don't have to toss another $70 out with the trash. As it stands I have seen little to show me that that is the case.

I'm a little concerned about this too. Some of the games current issues are far from being easy fixes and would require major design changes to implement, even if BFC were to agree to doing something about them.

See my thread "Laying down fire and squad formations" in the tactics forum for one such issue that's a real game breaker for me at the moment, and i don't suppose would be an easy fix to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are being too catastrophic about the state of the game. IMO there is nothing which can't be improved, I mean there are no real game breakers in the core game design and concept.

But hiring an other programmer would help, this all it's just too much for a single programmer. Don¡'t be greedy BF crew :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this "early" stage in the games development, I still don't think anybody knows exactly what are bugs and what are fundamental design flaws.

Yes Steve has stated that there are some issues that probably won't be fully eliminated, but that these are subject to improvements and tweaks as time goes on.

One thing that some people don't seem to grasp is that the TacAI requires a lot of programming time and testing. It is not fundamentally broken, nor is it limited by the RT engine. It is just not sophisticated at the moment because not enough time has been spent on teaching it "real" behaviour. So the fundamentals are there, but the subtle details are not.

Probably by the end of the year the game will be as fixed as it's gonna get, with a mature community of maps and missions and modders, and then we can judge how flawed the game is. Maybe at that stage BFC could rename it "CMSF gold special edition" and have a relaunch to signify the game actually being done how they like it, and maybe get it re-reviewed by a few places.

Either way there will be people who won't come back to the game which is a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is easy to say, "if you don't like it don't play it," but that degrades BFC more than any of the players by implying that they could care less once they have your money. I don't believe that.

[/QB]

Believe it. BFC's stance from Day One of release was "Don't let the door hit you on your posterior on the way out." They wrote the game they want, which is fine. They don't much care if you (or I) want it or not.

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoolaman,

One thing that some people don't seem to grasp is that the TacAI requires a lot of programming time and testing. It is not fundamentally broken, nor is it limited by the RT engine. It is just not sophisticated at the moment because not enough time has been spent on teaching it "real" behaviour. So the fundamentals are there, but the subtle details are not.
I can't hear this anymore.

4 years of development! With CMx1 they had TacAI wise already everything that was needed. A new engine with modern graphics, cool animations, that would have been everything needed to make CMx2 a hit, where the community would have stormed the shops to get all modules and releases.

But they decided to change the representation of soldiers with a 1:1 representation. That was the worst design decision, because it only works, if the result is equally good, as what CMx1 already achieved with the restriction, there is no place for imagination player wise anymore. Everything portraied in the game has to be realistically. Obviously a much to difficult and time consuming task for such a small company. It is good, what they achieved, compared to others, but hell, i'm not satisfied with "good enough", i want CombatMission level!

If i imagine what could have been achieved, if they would have kept the three soldier representation, i'm becoming really fed up. I'm so fed up, i can't stand to watch the single soldiers in CMSF running around like headless chicken anymore! And that says a lot, about the difference between CMSF and CMx1. I agree, CMSF is not CM anymore.

I have no hope, that they get the 1:1 rep. right - and with right i mean to the level CMx1 set and not "right" enough, to keep playing for a few weeks.

The only hope that is left for me, is that the engine allows them to leave the 1:1 rep. and to concentrate on the important things again. If not now, then maybe the dropping sales with the upcoming modules or maybe even the WWII-release will force them to, if they do not want to go out of business.

IMO the forum already shows, that there are not really much new players. Tactical discussions are very rare and can't be compared to the quality discussion of earlier titles.

BFC can only pray, that no other company will close the gap they freely opened. Or they recognize the mistake and solve it, before someone else will do it. Because if that happens, they will be out of business very soon.

[ September 23, 2007, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steiner14:

I can't hear this anymore.

4 years of development! With CMx1 they had TacAI wise already everything that was needed. A new engine with modern graphics, cool animations, that would have been everything needed to make CMx2 a hit, where the community would have stormed the shops to get all modules and releases.

I think that this may be pertinent.

The community, no doubt, would have.

The community isn't that big.

Where BFC have gone to is a much better place to carry on from, without heaps of restrictions from the way CMX1 was done. There are problems all over the shop with a completely new build, but no doubt you could make all kinds of analogies using cars, aircraft or weaponry that show that there is more scope and more opportunity with the ground-up redesign.

CM, to me, isn't defined as a particular set of abstractions. It's a tactical, squad-level, simulation of company sized combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Hoolaman,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One thing that some people don't seem to grasp is that the TacAI requires a lot of programming time and testing. It is not fundamentally broken, nor is it limited by the RT engine. It is just not sophisticated at the moment because not enough time has been spent on teaching it "real" behaviour. So the fundamentals are there, but the subtle details are not.

I can't hear this anymore.

4 years of development! With CMx1 they had TacAI wise already everything that was needed. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that there wasn't enough programming time is starting to get my goat as well. The TacAI would have been finished in the given timeframe if they had hired another programmer who could have allowed one or the other to work on the TacAI. This much I surmise from BFC's pronouncements regarding the TacAI-completion timeframe -- an extra dev for 2 years would have done more than the trick.

Argue about "not enough time" all you want -- BFC (or Charles at least) knew at some point in the past three years that they wouldn't have enough time prior to release. BFC chose not to take on the talent to get the game done in time. An extra month or two of Charles' time would not have cut it, so even the "Paradox made them do it!" argument goes out the window.

Instead the people who ponied up for the game go without for a year while the one programmer they have on staff works overtime to fix complex issues. "Not enough programmer time" == a deliberate decision by BFC.

This reflects BFC's release strategy, and there's nothing "hard" about it. TacAI is fundamental enough to get done well if you dedicate enough development time to it. And BFC did not. They planned for their decision and probably even post-release scheduled for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Bulldog, that's pretty much what we are -- play testers. The people who paid money have the ability to talk about the testing while the NDA'd testers don't, is all. Oh, and they get more information and feedback, which is to be expected.

But yes, we're really just paying play-testers. I for one prefer that to never getting the game, but that's like saying I prefer to be killed prematurely by a bullet rather than by a pack of ravening badgers while I'm unable to move and covered in animal blood and honey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

The argument that there wasn't enough programming time is starting to get my goat as well. The TacAI would have been finished in the given timeframe if they had hired another programmer who could have allowed one or the other to work on the TacAI. This much I surmise from BFC's pronouncements regarding the TacAI-completion timeframe -- an extra dev for 2 years would have done more than the trick.

Argue about "not enough time" all you want -- BFC (or Charles at least) knew at some point in the past three years that they wouldn't have enough time prior to release. BFC chose not to take on the talent to get the game done in time. An extra month or two of Charles' time would not have cut it, so even the "Paradox made them do it!" argument goes out the window.

Instead the people who ponied up for the game go without for a year while the one programmer they have on staff works overtime to fix complex issues. "Not enough programmer time" == a deliberate decision by BFC.

This reflects BFC's release strategy, and there's nothing "hard" about it. TacAI is fundamental enough to get done well if you dedicate enough development time to it. And BFC did not. They planned for their decision and probably even post-release scheduled for it.

This is unfair. First, they are developing the game from their own budget, 4 years w/o an income is hard. While I agree they should add an other programmer to the team, hiring one cost money, the better the more money it cost. So we don't know the financial state of the company for them to be able to do this. While initially, in the long run that would be the best, maybe at the moment wasn't a possivle option.

Second, programmers need time to learn the code, and for them to be effective. Also when you do stuff yourself you don't have to invest any time organizing with others to work out stuff. That detracts a lot of time, so while adding an other single programmer to the team would help, again in the long haul, that wouldn't be inmediate and would take time. You have to organize, distribute work and be constantly informed about what the other programmer is doing and what. A change in one piece of the code could make an other piece totally worthless. SO is not magic, it needs time and has it's pros and cons. Not to say, finding the correct programmer which would be helpfull may not be as easy as we could think.

I doubt BF is in a position that could hire more than 1 programmer, there is were things would be interesting, but hiring a single programmer would be more troublesome than helpfull maybe, at least initially. With some luck, now that they have more income with the game eventually they will be able to increase the development team, but maybe they just don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFC would have to hire a programmer on the basis of "you only get payed if the game takes off and even if it does there is barely enough money for the existing team as it is".

After opening the job interview with the above you go on to tell the candidate that he/she needs to be very strong in AI and pathfinding and when done with that also have to be so good at 3D graphics programming to be able to debug bugs in ATI's and NVidia's API implementations.

Then, since you put all your eggs into one basket, that programmer candidate has to appear realiable. So the young hot kids are out. In the end you make the above requirements for new learning and overtime in combination with prospect for either low or no money to people who have a family and a spouse who'll look over the offer you make. Good luck with that.

After CMx1 went out of fashion the CMx2 express was a runaway train that nobody would hop onto.

As always, just my outsider impression. But it's really not as easy as putting up a Monster.com ad, even if you would be willing to risk your own house for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

The argument that there wasn't enough programming time is starting to get my goat as well. The TacAI would have been finished in the given timeframe if they had hired another programmer who could have allowed one or the other to work on the TacAI. This much I surmise from BFC's pronouncements regarding the TacAI-completion timeframe -- an extra dev for 2 years would have done more than the trick.

I am not trying to justify anything. The argument has been thrown around that the TacAI is fundamentally broken. I disagree with that. The TacAI is a work in progress, and the game system is surely capable of better. I totally agree that it should have been finished before release, like a great many other things.

Originally posted by Bulldog:

Hoolaman, what do you mean at this games early stage of development. The game is released and lots of people have spent money for it. You're arguing and posting like this is the play testers forum!!!

You are correct, and I actually said " "early" " with the ironic quotation marks. The game is in stores, but it is still in development. Go figure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lurker don't worry, the game will be improved farther. With tat comment I think they mean the game now is bug-free enough, but that does not mean a lot of features will be improved over time. Compare CMBO 1.0 to CMAK last version.

This is a work in progress, which will never be finished, but at soem point it will be excelllent nevertheless, not perfect, but good enough smile.gif

Think that CMSF will be improved until a new game is launched, that means that it will be improved while we get addons/expansion packs, aas is the core game.

1.05 may be what 1.0 should have been, bug wise and with features working more or less as them should. But beyond that issues like TacAI, infantry combat model and pathfinding will be improved anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the arguments that programming time were too precious for a little but sucessful(!) company like Battlefront, one point becomes even more valid: then it was not an optimum decision to change everything in one huge step, instead to break it up into smaller ones and sell each smaller step seperately, probably equally sucessful like the huge step, because of the steadily growing community without losing old players.

IMO a new graphics and physics engine with even better pathfinding than in CMx1, and some of the other improvements like the arty-system, would have been way than enough for a new release.

But making everything new AND 1:1 representation and completely new AIs, is a bit much even for big companys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lurker765:

Based on the comments by Steve in another thread the game is almost complete enough for them to move on to the next module. That implies that they believe the game is not in an early stage of development anymore.

..And from another thread, Steve said they are to release a dozen patches.

Given the release rate and the large negative opinion from the initial release, we can wait the next module for a while. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darkmath,

I was referring to Steve's recent comments:

We're just about "done" with patching CM:SF. What I mean by that is our focus will shift to making the Marines Module and the WWII version (we are doing both concurrently, which is also part of the CMx2 plan). Now, that doesn't mean that we won't be releasing any patches after v1.04, it just means that we'll start focusing our attention on things other than the patch. v1.04 should pretty much do the trick, however we think a v1.05 in the near future is likely.
I read that as meaning the next module will receive the vast majority of their time and patching CMSF gets a patch every once in a while. That means that we have to live with any problems we see in the game since their motivation will be mostly on getting another module out to make some cash on it. A dozen patches seems unlikely since from Steve's most recent comment a v1.05 is not even guaranteed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, neat to see all the replies.

I am a software developer and manager. I have headed and run in-house development for decent-sized companies (400+ employees). I know every caveat to what I've said, from experience.

I'm not being unfair; I'm being realistic. If your scope exceeds your timeframe, you a) cut scope (as Steiner14 suggested) or B) add developers. I know every difficulty inherent therein, but if you need to do it, you do it -- *unless* you're choosing the release strategy that BFC did.

As for the specific difficulties of hiring a willing and able programmer -- absolutely. That doesn't change the fact that, given the scope of their attempt, they should have done so.

I should say that I'm not out to dog BFC; they made a business decision that as a dev and manager I can completely understand. It just wasn't a decision that was good for the customer in the short term (in my opinion of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...