Why ignore your beta testers? (too many problems)

[ridge]

I still have your alpha demo of combat mission, and I appreciate your work on these games.

What I don't understand are the problems with camera, command-menu, and path-finding when the beta testers provide valuable input to these problems?

The real killer for me is to hear the developer say: yah the beta testers complained, and our answer was stfu, this is "new" and better.

[Roter Stern]

I think between having CMSF come out with a few "shortcoming" and it come out in 2009, I'll take the shortcomings anyday!

[Becket]

Could you link the post you are referring to above? Thanks.

[thewood]

I have come around realizing how much like CMBO's relaese this is. Of course without the bitteness and high expectations.

CMBO was playale and fun when it came out, but really hit its stride with CMBB. I think a lot of us expected it to be CMBB/AK + new stuff. Instead, we got a new engine we had relearn and some stuff had come to know and love was missing.

If I clear my mind and look afresh at it, It is a very good release.

[Roter Stern]

I was speaking hypothetically

But that’s the nature of any software development, not just the game industry - even the Devs said it a few times, you need to make a choice of which features “won’t make it for v1.0” or else you will end up with a never ending development cycle.

[Roter Stern]

Besides, from a perspective of a rabid-gamer, I can assure you that CMSF is a fantastic release as far as what the Beta teams could’ve picked up on… you should’ve seen MOO3’s launch… Let’s just say that not having a game CTD every time you accidentally press any two keys at the same time is already a blessing

[Sergei]

Originally posted by ridge:

The real killer for me is to hear the developer say: yah the beta testers complained, and our answer was stfu, this is "new" and better.

Err... what the heck are you talking about? :confused:

[scottie]

i feel there are a few shortcoming too - but not too many and i guess there was pressure to release ... so im happy it out now overall an look forward to V2

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by ridge:

The real killer for me is to hear the developer say: yah the beta testers complained, and our answer was stfu, this is "new" and better.

I'm a beta tester. I was never told to STFU. What are you talking about?

[thewood]

Hi means STFU to you guys in the North

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

The real killer for me is to hear the developer say: yah the beta testers complained, and our answer was stfu, this is "new" and better.

I'm a beta tester. I was never told to STFU. What are you talking about? </font>

[thewood]

Hi means STFU to you guys in the North

[Battlefront.com]

Ridge misunderstood my comments. What I said is that most of the Beta testers, I think it is fair to say, did not like the camera controls and the Commands UI when they first tried it. We told them to try them out for awhile and see if it got better. And that is exactly what happened. The newness and unexpected design was MOST of the reason for their initial mixed/negative reaction, not because there were bad design decisions.

Not saying the system as it is now is perfect, but as testers above have said, nobody was told to stuff it. I can tell you, too, that if after a week or so they were still complaining as loudly as the first day, we would have changed more things than we did (and we did change some things).

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ridge misunderstood my comments. What I said is that most of the Beta testers, I think it is fair to say, did not like the camera controls and the Commands UI when they first tried it.

This is super important, especially considering that it's such a fundamental part of the game. If you can't control your camera, or can't understand the UI, chances are you won't be having much fun, no matter how fantastic the underlying game is.

First impressions are absolutely the most important aspect of any game. You just sent out a demo which was downloaded by thousands of people, and I guarantee you a countless number of them dismissed the game out of hand because they couldn't even explore it's content. Yes, the folks who invested $60 into the game tend to play through those issues, and some of them will end up enjoying the game once they get used to the completely bizarre control scheme. But you have to wonder how many sales are lost because you guys refuse to accept new user input as an important part of your development cycle.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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

Ridge misunderstood my comments. What I said is that most of the Beta testers, I think it is fair to say, did not like the camera controls and the Commands UI when they first tried it.

This is super important, especially considering that it's such a fundamental part of the game. If you can't control your camera, or can't understand the UI, chances are you won't be having much fun, no matter how fantastic the underlying game is.

First impressions are absolutely the most important aspect of any game. You just sent out a demo which was downloaded by thousands of people, and I guarantee you a countless number of them dismissed the game out of hand because they couldn't even explore it's content. Yes, the folks who invested $60 into the game tend to play through those issues, and some of them will end up enjoying the game once they get used to the completely bizarre control scheme. But you have to wonder how many sales are lost because you guys refuse to accept new user input as an important part of your development cycle. </font>With that line of reasoning we'd still be playing boardgames.

PS. Steve think the interface is great. It took about a half hour to get used to.

[gibsonm]

Yes putting that colon in between the "CM" and the "SF" was a huge breakthrough!

Seriously the developers were open to suggestions and by and large change was implemented if needed.

Whilst the core group of developers may have complained internally about the points that we the Beta testers raised no one told anyone to STFU.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

With that line of reasoning we'd still be playing boardgames.

Boardgames are fun. People still play them. You'll notice that the ones selling well have clear, understandable rules. If people are frustrated when playing them, they generally don't recommend them to their friends, and those games don't sell well. The same holds true for games of any medium.

[-E]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

With that line of reasoning we'd still be playing boardgames.

Many of us still do.

[Pinetree]

I don't mind the camera controls at all, in fact I think they're a great improvement over CMx1, but it's the orders UI I'm not too happy with.I'm not saying that they should change it as a lot of people are happy with it, but if BFC can give us more options for giving commands then we can all be happy with our own preferred way of playing.IMHO of course...

[Panzer76]

I recommended CMx1 to anyone that bothered to listen to me. I wont recommend this game to nobody, atleast until its been heavily patched.

[Dirtweasle]

The learning / re-learning curve is pretty damn high, maybe too high, too much to bite off for a lot of people all at one time?

Took me six maybe nearly seven hours to get somewhat comfortable playing. Now just going into hour nine I'm starting to have a little fun, but holy cow BFC that was not my expectation!

And even then I'm still not over-joyed with this new release. Far from it, but right now I'll rest and step back before posting amuch else, give it some time to sink in.

....grumble, grumble.

Yea, that sums it up a little grumble after eight or so hours is not what I was thinking when I started off this morning. No, WOW! factor, or at least not enought and on balance, a grumble.

[ChrisND]

I guess I worded that badly. I meant going beyond boardgames in an inclusive sort of way.

[Battlefront.com]

Game development is always a risky thing. The game companies that take the fewest risks produce the games that are most easily forgotten. The oens that go too far are remembered for that fact, at least. Here's my point...

For the 1996 Christmas release period there were 47 major RTS titles released. Can anybody remember what perhaps one or two of them were? I can only remember C&C Red Alert (I think it was part of that batch). Volume of games that played nearly identically to each other, used similar user interface, had the same range of graphics, and pretty much the same gameplay. I'm sure the learning curve of the demos was extremely small, but probably 42 of them sold less than we've already sold of CM:SF.

My point here is that be careful what you wish for. If you want the same thing that came before, then you miss the opportunity to experience someting newer and hopefully better.

When we made CMBO we could have just coppied Close Combat or Steel Panthers. We didn't, we took a lot of flack it (people HATED CMBO's camera and Orders controls too!), but the game succeeded.

Facts is facts... progress requires change, change requires learning, learning requires an open mind.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasel,

The learning / re-learning curve is pretty damn high, maybe too high, too much to bite off for a lot of people all at one time?

That is the risk we took with CMBO and it paid off for the customers and us. Not every customer, mind you. We had guys that were on the Forum very regullarly until the Beta Demo came out and found they hated it. It happened, really it did. I think you're forgetting what a shock to the system CMBO was.

We don't want to shock people and cause them to pull out their hair. But we can't move forward without people having to relearn stuff. If you aren't learning anything then there is nothing new to learn, which means there is nothing new.

The other problem is the same as CMBO. Some people took to it like a fish to water, other people struggled with it. After playing it for a while we lost some from each group. We expect to lose some of you guys over this too. We were prepared for that the day we started making CMBB. Each title has meant shedding some customers and gaining new ones. It's just the way things go.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Game development is always a risky thing. The game companies that take the fewest risks produce the games that are most easily forgotten. The oens that go too far are remembered for that fact, at least. Here's my point...

For the 1996 Christmas release period there were 47 major RTS titles released. Can anybody remember what perhaps one or two of them were? I can only remember C&C Red Alert (I think it was part of that batch). Volume of games that played nearly identically to each other, used similar user interface, had the same range of graphics, and pretty much the same gameplay. I'm sure the learning curve of the demos was extremely small, but probably 42 of them sold less than we've already sold of CM:SF.

My point here is that be careful what you wish for. If you want the same thing that came before, then you miss the opportunity to experience someting newer and hopefully better.

When we made CMBO we could have just coppied Close Combat or Steel Panthers. We didn't, we took a lot of flack it (people HATED CMBO's camera and Orders controls too!), but the game succeeded.

Facts is facts... progress requires change, change requires learning, learning requires an open mind.

Steve

You're confusing two different things here. We're not talking about the content of the game, or the special features that make Combat Mission unique; we're talking about the user interface and presentation of those assets. Combat Mission: Shock Force is without a doubt a fantastic game under the hood, but so many people will never see that because of the poor controls and UI. That is an absolute fact. I think you guys are unaware of it because you've grown used to the controls and have completely lost touch with a new user experience. It's a mistake a lot of game companies make, and you guys should pursue a solution to it - and yes, you should keep an open mind.

Acknowledge the fact there are other games in the universe aside from your own. Play them, learn from them. Realize that other games have developed controls and user interface to an exact science, and many games share the same controls for a reason - they're intuitive! It's what the human brain expects - people play more than one game at a time, and in doing so, expect a certain logical similarity in control schemes - not game content.

Invite a new user to your company's building and watch him play shock force - watch what he expects left click and right click to do, watch what he expects the arrow keys to do. Observe how many questions he has to ask about the UI to even place his units at the beginning of a scenario, nevermind the actual gameplay. You'll probably find that your game is ass-backwards in just about every conceivable aspect of user interface, and to claim that as "progress" is absolute pig-headed foolishness.

You guys are getting an absolute wealth of feedback from new users who've never tried Combat Mission - and you're completely ignoring it.

If you think the CMAK or CMBO were successful because of their controls and UI, I suspect you may be borderline delusional. They, like many games before them, were successful in spite of their controls.

Anyway, enough bitching. I'm off to play some shock force.

[ July 30, 2007, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]