Runyan99 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Mostly negative. Lots of unhappy WW2 campers, and some skeptical modern observers. For example; My "problem" is I have 15 years (ending in late 2003) of service in the US Marine Corps. I have conducted joint training with with both Arab (Egyptian mainly) and former Soviet military personnel. There is just no real comparison between the two and the modern US military. With a modern hypothetical settings one has the real problem with how does one "model" what are known truths today about balance and realism? In the latest couple of "modern" wars where the US was involved they completely overwelmed and destroyed their opponents MILITARILY. There were battles in the first and second Gulf Wars were entire Iraqi regiments and divisions were annilated in HOURS! Regardless of one's political view, the US modern military today can only be effectively countered in training and equipment by its Western allies or perhaps the Russians states or the Chinese. I would be VERY disappointed if the thesis of the game will be that the modern US military with all of its state of the art military assets (M1A2's, arty, CAS, helos) is fighting on "equal" footing with Syrian forces. It just would not happen at anything larger than small units. If it did happen with large units the battles would be in minutes with the outcome predetermined. The Gulf wars and in the war in Afghanistan showed that small forces (as little at 4 man Spec Ops teams) were able to call in ENORMOUS amounts of firepower (arty, CAS, etc) and wipe out whatever they faced however big it was. My own observation - Releasing a modern game expeses BFC to a MUCH larger voice of criticism from veterans who are, or were, there. There will be lots of people with recent military experience to criticize BFC regarding their newest game, as opposed to few, or almost no real veterans who were interested in commenting on a WW2 game. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing, but I think it represents a new and formidible challenge to BFC during the development process. It will be hard to feel good about the program you produce, if a lot of veterans think it is bunk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Cory, when NHL came out for the Intellivision, the NHL actually put their name on the hockey cartridge. Do you remember that one? That hockey "sim" had three men on the ice per side... Military veterans have endorsed some of the schlockiest Hollywood movies ever made. They've also endorsed some pretty stinky computer games over the years. I for one do not care what some military veteran thinks about this-game or that-game, and frankly, when currently serving service members do endorse a product (remember the game guides that Pete Bonanno wrote for F-19 and F-117 Stealth Fighter by Microprose), the only question I had was "how much are they paying him?" Didn't effect my decision to buy or not buy the game in the least. In fact, I would expect a veteran to voice opposition to trivializing his experiences and sacrifice. Won't stop me from enjoying some multi-media entertainment, be it a rerun of Black Hawk Down or playing CM:SF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by Runyan99: My own observation - Releasing a modern game expeses BFC to a MUCH larger voice of criticism from veterans who are, or were, there. Which is why we clever enough to make sure our beta team and advisors consist of just these types of people, with a vast range military experience and combat service. So no, I don't believe this is a formidable challenge as we have been and will continue to run CMSF past these type of people at every stage of development (with very positive feedback thus far, Ill add, too). Dan [ October 10, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Not surprising that a deadicated hardcore WWII discussion group isn't happen about a switch away from WWII (even if for one game). As for the comments above, they were posted verbatim to another thread and I addressed them head on. Suffice to say, I disagree and so do many others with military backgrounds. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 HA! BFC is hardly the first company to "trivialize" my own tame OIF experience. There was "Kuma War", and that TV puffpiece, "Over There". Really, I don't have a problem with a wargame covering a conflict that I was recently in, as long as there isn't anything too outrageous (say, allowing the US side to get bonus VPs for murdering civvies). In fact, there was a downloadable boardgame covering OIF made available recently, and I was rather pleased to see "my" counter in the game! (first thing I look for in any Bulge game is the 110th infantry regiment counter in honor of dear old dad). I don't have a moral problem with it, but I do see some problems from a design standpoint, but that is for BFC to figure out and for us to carp on. 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.