Jump to content

"We're tired of WWII..."


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Tripps:

I'm tired of US v (Current Enemy) simulations that continually flood the market.

I agree with Der Kuenstler, BF had a head start with the CM engine and WWII, hope they dont muck it up.

And yet, you aren't tired of the THOUSANDS of WWII games?!

Seems a bit, well, skewed.

Tell you what, you don't buy the new games and those of us that WANT the modern games will, and everything's copacetic.

Anytime you want to truly test your military knowledge and abilities, I'll meet you on the modern battlefield instead of the same old European countryside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

V is correct. Although I don't know how people can perform the same song 1000 times in their lifetime, I doubt they could sing the same song all day long for a few years in a row. That's what it is like to work on an intensely detailed type of game, such as CM. But that isn't the major reason we didn't go with WWII.

The major reason we went with contemporary warfare is because we wanted to. Unlike some people on this Forum, we have other interests in gaming. In fact, so do a lot of people on this Forum (though the complainers seem to always miss that fact). We made the decision to go Modern for other reasons that were explained in the Announcement. Namely, to create the most flexible engine we would have been in trouble if we started with WWII or anything earlier.

See... we've always wanted to do other games other than WWII. The CMx1 engine simply wasn't going to allow that to happen. So the primary reason for the CMx2 rewrite was to allow us the ability to do modern, future, ACW, whatever. By definition that means that some of our titles are not going to be WWII. Just so happens the first one isn't and the second one is. It really is as simple as that.

As for the various mudslinging lines of argument (we switched for the money, we siwtched for military contracts, we switched just to piss people off, etc.) all I have to say is... well, nothing. I'd violate the Forum rules if I did. But they are all bunk. What these weenies don't understand is that we've been in talks with militaries, of various sorts, since 2000. Military contracts are terribly hard to get and even harder to fulfill. They are not seen as being our primary bread and butter, so we'd be fools to pursue them at the expense of commercial releases. Maybe during the Reagan era when the Pentagon was handing out money to whomever showed up with a Purchase Order (real or not, accurate or not, reflecting cost or not, etc.), but in this era of tight budgets the money tap simply isn't that easy to turn on.

Anyhoo... someday these childish slaps in our face will go away. But we expected a lot of them and therefore aren't really bothered by them. Just like the ASLers and CCers gave up after a while when we were making CMBO. Or later when CMBOers whined about us going to the Eastern Front instead of back to the Western Front. Which they whined about again when we released CMAK. You guys can be your own worst enemy sometimes.

Steve

Stick to your guns, BF! I, for one, will be purchasing your effort! I design games myself, and I know what kind of effort and all-consuming world you live in during development of something like this! You guys have a vision, and you should follow it through knowing that you will create the best game possible through a labor of love. If it fits in with a defense contract or two, bonus! If it is expressly FOR a defense contract and you can also deliver the product to the civilian market, double-bonus and good for you!

Curt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Bigduke :D

To address your point about the marketability issue. Yes, of COURSE we thought about what would be a marketable game when we came up with the idea for CM:SF. We always think about that angle because, well, we have to :D We thought about the same angle for all the previous CM games and any developer who comes to us with a game in need of publishing. You guys have no idea how many products, some already complete, that we've turned down over the years because we simply didn't think we could sell them well enough to justify the effort. So you are correct that we did think hard about what the setting for the first CMx1 game should be.

The main difference between the reality of our decision and some of the BS that has been thrown at us is the order in wich we decided things. The order was:

1. Contemporary

2. Rough timeframe (we thought about everything from the 1980s to 2020ish).

3. Plausible settings (we came up with quite a number)

4. Best setting to showcase CMx2

The last one, obviously, was on our minds througout the whole process. But in the end we used that one as the most important check to see if the suggested setting was going to be a good one or not. We basically found ourselves looking at near future Syria or Iran after rulling out all sorts of other settings (like Korea or Taiwan).

From a marketing standpoing we actually think OIF has a lot of negative baggage. So in fact we somewhat think the opposite about it, and that is we want distance from it from a marketing standpoint. I don't know were some of you guys think all the screaming hordes of OIF game fans are because all we see are hords of anti-OIF people. As I said before, even 60% of Americans think it was a mistake. So what is there to capitalize on in terms of marketing?

Having CM:SF be similar to OIF in some ways is good, but it has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with simulation accuracy. We need some sort of historical record to check out or we're really in trouble. That is why people dreaming up 2015 scenarios are off their rockers. 2015 is as much known to us, from a simulation standpoint, as futuristic Space Lobsters. Oh sure, we know lots about what the US Army plans to look like in that timeframe, but they tend to come up with about 1/2 of what they plan and 5-10 years later than expected. So we can't count on that either. Hard enough to figure out what will really be in the field in 2007, not to mention later.

So this long winded response is simply to say that marketing was a consideration in general terms, but we absolutely do not see OIF is being some sort of marketing plus.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have greatly enjoyed the cm series, as have my clan mates (cmbb especially). We have championed the game for years and I myself have put in loads of work designing campaigns and multiplayer games. I have heard designers state that they wanted to do something different than ww2, and that is understandable. I would just like to point out that a large portion of the cm series fans are fans because it is ww2. I enjoy other genres as well, but as this new engine is different from the first one, there may have been an opportunity to show comparisons between Cm 1 and Cm2 while at the same time taking advantage of the good ww2 following that is already established. I personally dont have much interest in the more modern era wars, but I look forward to the western front edition coming later. In the meantime, I will continue to immerse myself in the vast Eastern Front, my favorite game of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Thanks for your patient and detailed response.

The bit I would take issue with is that even though 60 per cent of the U.S. market theoretically might be against an OIF game, the number is very different if you are talking likely buyers of a computer war game.

A game like yours set in Iraq, with a war still going on, certainly carries negative baggage, but it also generates controvery. That it seesm to me would be games sales. Call it the Hot Coffee effect, or maybe the Zappa effect, or even the Tipper effect. Sure you get Moms Against Games marching against BFI, but then there's all the solid citizens who will pay money to see a game about "what the war is really like", even if those citizens will never play a game more complicated than Deer Hunter. Hence my (apparently invalid) point about going beyond wargamers to get sales.

Then there's the training aid effect. A game like yours even as it is becomes a legitimate buy for every national guard and reserve company from coast to coast, meaning not just the unit, but also every computer-familar member of the unit. A smart officer or NCO could use your engine to train regulars. Again, an untapped pool of customers.

When I found out you guys were doing Syria, those two marketing points were so obvious to me, I fear I suspected your motives. Shame on me.

The only thing worse than a grog, is a cynical grog, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well well well. Let's have a look in this thread over the last 24 hours.

The first thing I am struck with is the whining. Yes that is right, whining, from BFC. Then we have the usual clueless retard opinions about USA being 'da best' and then there is the name calling by Steve - FWIW 'childish' really sticks in the throat. You have no idea at all.

ISTM that anyone who thinks that an Iraq simulator is not a good idea is automatically abused by BFC and subsequently the occasional redneck joins in when he feels safe. Off the top of my head I could not think of a more deplorable idea for a computer game except perhaps for a concetration camp simulation. It is wrong on so many levels.

As intelligent guys BFC know that it will offend many. The fact that they haven't got the balls to call it what it is trying to be makes it worse. Oh yeah - it's a vapid fantasy attack on Syria, right. Although this thread was a plea for WW2 I don't care what they go for, anything EXCEPT Iraq, it's disgusting. What kind of person would get any kind of thrill out of mowing down badly equipped, badly organised Arab boys.

Anyway, it's my last post on this awful twist in the history of BFC. What a waste. Good luck with the corporate and redneck dollar.

[ October 10, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Boy you react to stuff.

I LOVE BTS, I LOVE CMx1. I bought all the games (even have CMBO and CMBB twice) because I want to give you my money for a job well done. Does my affection towards BTS not show I am a dedicated fan? Does being a dedicated fan only mean that I cannot disagree on some of the stuff that is written?

I feel you should maybe take a break from this forum as your posts are getting pretty hot.

Sorry I don't like CMSF. I still love CMx1. I still love BTS & crew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Don't visit the forum for a couple of days and the place goes to the dogs. I wonder what would happen if BTS said the next game would be CM:the Sims? Couldn't really get a worse reaction IMHO!

Good thinking as far as I am concerned, Modern gets you to tackle missiles, more varied air support, etc. Entirely logical. And, as they pointed out their choice.

As for the setting - not my personal cup of tea, and I may or may not get it (will depend on how well it's done ;) ). However, those of you out there who resent BTS doing a subject of their choice that will be a commercial success first: happy employees are productive employees (or partners or whatever), & bankrupt companies don't develop software.

I am tempted to say "grow up, and get used to it".

In fact I did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Well well well. Let's have a look in this thread over the last 24 hours.

[snip because it's pointless]

Wow, I don't think I can quite find the words to describe the crap you're spouting so dramatically and, I warrant, with as much righteousness as you can muster.

You can't reason with fanatics, and certainly not with people who believe they are entitled to whatever they want, or think they want. You ever hear someone say something so totally crazy that the best you can do is stare at them while your brain tries to comprehend that, yes, they did just say something so incredibly stupid? It took me a few moments to get past that after reading, well, any of Plucker's comments.

I'm sure there are plenty of disappointed people because their favorite genre isn't being covered right out of the starting blocks. What I don't get is how, for some, that disappointment transforms in their heads into anything other than disappointment. You don't like the setting? Fine, don't buy it. You don't like any potential political aspect? Fine, don't buy it.

Try as I might, I also can't fathom why some find it acceptable to play as, for instance, the Germans in WWII but not as the US (or whatever power) in, say, a Middle East conflict game. I imagine they are the first to pull out the "But we're just playing as the soldiers involved, not as the SS or the troops that were murdering the Jews." Yet they are practically having seizures over small unit combat scenarios because the first game is vs. a country from the Middle East? I can't wrap my head around it, but then again I don't think its supposed to make any sense.

Given their reactions (and by 'their' I refer to the crazed people), you'd think one or more of the following:

A) They personally and specifically financed the CMx2 engine under contract that it would be a WWII setting

B) Someone is holding them hostage to purchasing the first title with the CMx2 engine

C) They believe that, by purchasing something from BFC in the past, they are entitled (nay, called by <deity>!) to attempt to dictate what should be developed in the future

At first I was appalled, but that has worn off into curiosity. Any chance we can study these individuals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We'd never have to sit on Forums and listen to ungreatful, short term thinking, ill mannered, and forgetful gamers who can't do anything but whine and complain when they don't get exactly what they personally want (to HELL with everybody else!), yeah... that is pretty damned attractive.

I'm confused, Steve. What exactly are you trying to say?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Except that is 6-12 months on top of whatever the development time for CM Screw Forigners turns out to be.

"CM Screw Forigners"?

Are you mad?

CMx1 has Canadians AND ANZACs as separate forces. They are not perfect, but they are there.

Almost every ridiculous piece of German kit and junkwagens are in their games.

They already said they might do a module focusing on other forces.

How uncouth to accuse them of being out to screw foreigners.

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Except that is 6-12 months on top of whatever the development time for CM Screw Forigners turns out to be.

"CM Screw Forigners"?

Are you mad?

CMx1 has Canadians AND ANZACs as separate forces. They are not perfect, but they are there.

Almost every ridiculous piece of German kit and junkwagens are in their games.

They already said they might do a module focusing on other forces.

How uncouth to accuse them of being out to screw foreigners.

-dale </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

The first thing I am struck with is the whining. Yes that is right, whining, from BFC.

I think theirs, if any, pales to insignificance when compared to your own level of whinging, Pheasant Plucker.

Would you believe quite a few us actually want to see this game?

The again, I want to see what the CMx2 system offers in it's entirely and look forward to future modules as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Well well well. Let's have a look in this thread over the last 24 hours.

The first thing I am struck with is the whining. Yes that is right, whining, from BFC. Then we have the usual clueless retard opinions about USA being 'da best'

USA! USA!

But seriously, who is waving the flag in this thread?

and then there is the name calling by Steve - FWIW 'childish' really sticks in the throat. You have no idea at all.

Oh dry up. You toss around terms like "redneck dollar" and seem to think that being called "childish" is enough to make your balls pull up into your chest cavity?

Dost thou you need a fainting couch, Milady?

ISTM that anyone who thinks that an Iraq simulator is not a good idea is automatically abused by BFC and subsequently the occasional redneck joins in when he feels safe. Off the top of my head I could not think of a more deplorable idea for a computer game except perhaps for a concetration camp simulation. It is wrong on so many levels.

1) It's not an Iraq simulator. No matter how many times you repeat that it will not become true.

2) BFC is not abusing anyone. Steve is responding to some pretty harsh accusations involving his business acumen and philosophies.

3) You keep using the word "redneck" and I am getting the faintest whiff of a hint that you do not mean it in an entirely complimentary fashion. Perhaps you should refrain?

4) OIF, whatever you opinions of it, compares rather favorably to Operation Drive Into Russia And Enslave All The Peasantry And Burn The Jews In Ovens, or even Operation Drive Into Germany And Berlin And Leave a Path Of Rapine And Destruction And Occupy The Baltics For Fifty Years. And yet we all don't seem to mind playing that game too much.

As intelligent guys BFC know that it will offend many. The fact that they haven't got the balls to call it what it is trying to be makes it worse.

Oh yeah - it's a vapid fantasy attack on Syria, right. Although this thread was a plea for WW2 I don't care what they go for, anything EXCEPT Iraq, it's disgusting.

Well, they did go for someplace else. It's a country called Syria.

What kind of person would get any kind of thrill out of mowing down badly equipped, badly organised Arab boys.

Depends on if those "Arab boys" are returning from a head-chopping party, now doesn't it?

Anyway, it's my last post on this awful twist in the history of BFC. What a waste. Good luck with the corporate and redneck dollar.

Oh no, don't go - it's such a pleasure to have you around!

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

What kind of person would get any kind of thrill out of mowing down badly equipped, badly organised Arab boys.

Oh, so simulating the deaths of German boys, Russian boys, British boys, French boys, ect is A-OK, but when it's Arabs it somehow becomes a moral crime? Really, you should have stuck with your first argument, because this one is pretty pitiful.

Why is this any different from nearly any other modern wargame for the past 10-15 years? They all find a potential hotspot and simulate warfare there. During the Cold War, they simulated wars in Europe, later we got Middle Eastern simulations, Korean simulations, Pakistan/India simulations. Should those all have been pulled just because there might have been fighting in those areas at the time?

If you don't like it, vote with your pocketbook and don't buy it, but don't come onto the board and throw out insults and gross characterizations like you're some kind of morally perfect superbeing, especially you apparently had no qualms about enjoying a game based on the most destructive war in our history. Hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must say Im kinda surprised at your comments Plucker, at least at the tone of them. As someone form a country whom very rarely sees their troops in wargames you’ve truly got to understand that your outburst here with comments like 'screw foreigners' does sound more than a little childish to say the least, particularly when our company has members living in several countries.

Ill just say two things. Firstly, if we had wanted to make a game in Iraq and we felt we could make it an interesting tactical game we would have, and I honestly doubt the response would have been more outrageous than some of your comments above. If you had taken just 5 mins to explore the difference between Syrian and Iraqi terrain and equipment you would know just how different such a conflict would be from the current situation in Iraq, and thus the reasons why we chose it.

Secondly, your summary of modern warfare is seriously out of whack with reality, unless you are basing it on first person shooters that is...I wont got into details as I doubt your open too them, but at least try reading the AAR posted at the top of the forum.

I wont comment further as I really dont think you wish a rational discussion on the topic and as usual when people go into meltdown you’ve apparently left the forums anyway.

Dan

[ October 10, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My computer can barely handle CMBB & CMAK, and since it will take me a couple of years to save up enough for a new computer, and I'm not much interested in modern war anyway, I will probably skip CMSF. But I will get the next game, even if I have to wait a year or so before I'll be able to play it.

Meanwhile I'll avidly follow all info released on both so I can grasp all the new engine is capable of. And should ancient warfare or civil war be released, I'll grab those too! I'm very happy BF is going to tackle different eras. I may not buy every one, but there's bound to be a bunch of 'must haves' in the lot. I have every confidence the battlefront guys will do a wonderful job no matter what they turn to. Their track record speaks for itself.

Meanwhile, arguing choice of game based on morality is pointless. All wars are about killing. All wars are immoral. The nazi regime is indefensible morally. But CMBB, for instance, is not about political advocacy, it's about history. Playing the game allows you to experience, in some small way, the hellish phenomena of the Eastern front. Which makes it easier to understand what it was like, and maybe even, a little bit, what it was all about. In short, educational.

Similarily, a modern Syrian/UN confrontation will make it easier for players to grasp the subtlties and complexities of modern war taking place in the near east today, as opposed to the simplistic nonsense the media hands out. In that sense the game is a completely neutral educational tool (in addition to being an entertaining armchair general challenge which is why we buy it in the first place).

At the very least, the realism of the CM games past, present & future teaches that war is not a sport, not a football game, not a contest, but a slaughterhouse where an individual's fate rests, not on individual strength or courage, but on circumstances brought about by someone elses's decisions.

CMSF may only be a game, but one that is likely to give players a realistic perspective on modern war, a perspective sorely needed in this era of spindoctors and hyperpropaganda.

These games don't encourage war, they encourage people to think about war, to take war seriously. In that sense Battlefront performs a public service.

My two cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If some government would hand us a pile of money and we'd never have to sit on Forums and listen to ungreatful, short term thinking, ill mannered, and forgetful gamers who can't do anything but whine and complain when they don't get exactly what they personally want (to HELL with everybody else!), yeah... that is pretty damned attractive.

How aboutthey give you the money and you stick around and listen to greatful (sic), long term thinking gamers who make wonderful constructive suggestions about everything your really need to know about? ;)

there aren't (m)any good games out covering the Crusades you know.... ;)

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
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...