Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[monkeezgob]

Just my opinion, but If the TACAI is ever going to get sorted in the way it should, I don't see how playing RT could ever become anything other then a click-fext. Multiplayer already is.

I simply prefer a wargame to be more cerebral challenge. The outcome should not depend on who has the best mouse skills or ability to recall their hotkeys.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I use RT, like it, and wouldn't go back to WEGO unless for PBEM. It's certainly not a clickfest; if you feel overwhelmed you're probably trying to micromanage more than is required. Having said that there hasn't been enough of an advance in the AI to make RT as fluid as it should be.

That's what I mean. Damn it, not so hard. And even if you cant deal with it, you have WeGo (I know it could be better yes, and will be with time).

---

So far, there is only one valid "criticism" here, and it is that BFC released an unfinished product, but even if I hate to say this: it's a common practice over the PC gaming industry (sadly), and more if we are talking about indie developers.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

But if the customer can't see it for himself, Steve, what difference does it make?

A fair point. The problem is figuring out why this is so. Is it because they aren't giving it a fair shake because QBs aren't what they want them to be? Is it because they haven't even tried RT and are perceiving the game based on something they haven't even tried? Is it because they don't understand modern warfare? Is it because we no longer have an ugly spreadsheet screen with lots of (fairly) meaningless numbers on it? Or is it a combination of some or all of these things?

It's pretty hard to combat an emotional reaction with a factual response. I can't convince people in my town here that our taxes are higher because we have a higher standard of services than neighboring towns do. To them the taxes are just "too high" and that is the end of the discussion. Ask them what they want to give up in exchange for lower taxes and the answer is usually "nothing", often because the person will refuse to select something to cut. Ironically, the same person that complains about higher taxes is the first person on the phone screaming at the Town Manager when their road wasn't plowed EXACTLY when they wanted it plowed.

The biggest source of complaint is about the lack of CMx1 style QBs, no WeGo TCP/IP, and the inclusion of RealTime as an option. I suspect if we had put those things in the amount of hubris surrounding the game, even if nothing else were different, would be 1/2 as much. But since "pet" features aren't in CM:SF, the net of complaints has been cast a lot wider.

Steve

[Harv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I've said it many, many times over and over again... we were prepared for CMx1 people to "not get it" just as we were prepared for ASL/SL, Steel Panthers, and others to "not get it" when we released CMBO.

Steve

As I've read this many, many, many times over and over and over again, and I finally have to respond.

From my point of view as a casual type of gamer, this "not getting it" comparison simply doesn't apply, as it ain't the same thing as before. Compared to CMx1, in no way do I find CMx2 revolutionary. In fact, compared to anything I don't find CMx2 revolutionary.

CMx1 surprised and won me (and apparently quite a few other people) over because it was totally different than anything else out there, offered a great gaming experience "out of the box" and was fun to boot. In comparison CMx2 doesn't show me anything really new, different and/or exciting gaming wise, and is actually a step backwards from CMx1 in many ways. So I don't know where the whole "not getting it" comparison with the CMx1 release comes from, as I just can't see the same sort of fundamentally new and/or different overall experience with CMx2.

Please note that anything resembling an opinion would most likely be mine (seeing as I wrote it).

[Michael Dorosh]

Those who are not having a problem with RT are probably not facing good human opponents, or using the best tactics possible, or playing well designed scenarios.

In my opinion. By that, I mean

* a well designed scenario gives the attacker more than one way to solve the tactical problem being presented - usually meaning more than one way to maneuver (not necessarily a frontal assault)

* a good human player will be proactive, not reactive, meaning his opponent has to be constantly on the move or at least aware of new threats. Dynamic defences are generally more effective than static ones, depending on terrain, but that takes us back to scenario design

Playing against the AI gives plenty of time to manage a company in RT; the AI doesn't do much, and if the AI plans are poorly done or non-existent, doesn't do anything. So time isn't a factor. But once you start to get into a game where the enemy is moving as much as you are, or you decide to try a flanking move by detaching a platoon, I think you will find that the more sophisticated your own tactics become, the more difficult it will be to manage in RT.

In short, to be blunt, any idiot can yell out "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" and manage a frontal assault against the AI in RT without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't expect critics of the RT system to be players of that stripe.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And again I just have to point out that none of the ASL/SL or Steel Panthers people were already customers of yours. Doesn't invalidate your point, but to be fair, it does complete it.

The issue is that before we started selling CMBO the only customers we had were for Charles' earlier 2D flight games. And yeah, some were quite disappointed with the shift towards 3D ground combat.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Quick show of hands... can anybody see the inherent problem we have in dealing with you customers? I'll illustrate:

monkeezgob wrote:

Just my opinion, but If the TACAI is ever going to get sorted in the way it should, I don't see how playing RT could ever become anything other then a click-fext. Multiplayer already is.

I simply prefer a wargame to be more cerebral challenge. The outcome should not depend on who has the best mouse skills or ability to recall their hotkeys.

Sirocco wrote:

I use RT, like it, and wouldn't go back to WEGO unless for PBEM. It's certainly not a clickfest; if you feel overwhelmed you're probably trying to micromanage more than is required. Having said that there hasn't been enough of an advance in the AI to make RT as fluid as it should be.

We have two opinions, and they are 100% incompatiable with each other. One person says that RealTime is a clickfest and will get worse with improved AI, another guy claims RealTime is great and can't wait to see more improvements in the AI.

Tell me folks... how is it possible for both of these people to be correct? How is it possible for us to base game development decisions on one of these opinions and make the other happy?

Some of you just don't get it. We have to ignore some of you because there is no way to make everybody happy. I'm sorry for those that feel they are getting ignored, but there is no alternative. Someone is not going to be happy with what we do, no matter what it is we do. We understand that and it would be healthy if you all did as well. Doesn't mean you have to like it, of course, just accept it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But if the customer can't see it for himself, Steve, what difference does it make?

A fair point. The problem is figuring out why this is so. Is it because they aren't giving it a fair shake because QBs aren't what they want them to be? Is it because they haven't even tried RT and are perceiving the game based on something they haven't even tried? Is it because they don't understand modern warfare? Is it because we no longer have an ugly spreadsheet screen with lots of (fairly) meaningless numbers on it? Or is it a combination of some or all of these things?

It's pretty hard to combat an emotional reaction with a factual response. I can't convince people in my town here that our taxes are higher because we have a higher standard of services than neighboring towns do. To them the taxes are just "too high" and that is the end of the discussion. Ask them what they want to give up in exchange for lower taxes and the answer is usually "nothing", often because the person will refuse to select something to cut. Ironically, the same person that complains about higher taxes is the first person on the phone screaming at the Town Manager when their road wasn't plowed EXACTLY when they wanted it plowed.

The biggest source of complaint is about the lack of CMx1 style QBs, no WeGo TCP/IP, and the inclusion of RealTime as an option. I suspect if we had put those things in the amount of hubris surrounding the game, even if nothing else were different, would be 1/2 as much. But since "pet" features aren't in CM:SF, the net of complaints has been cast a lot wider.

Steve </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

dalem, so what? if you like Coca-Cola you have to like the original, light, zero or whatever product they release?

I'm sorry, there is no other developer doing games like CM (x1 or x2)

You just answered your first question.

"dalem, so what?" Well, to this point in history, there are exactly two people on this planet who have produced "Dale's Perfect Wargame", and now they are producing something else.

Which of course they are free to do and I wish them gobs and gobs of success.

But that is the "what" for me.

-dale

[Steiner14]

Steve,

Just like we told people looking at CMBO that they were wrong for wanting hexes and 2D, just like for people playing CMBB that they were wrong to oppose the improvements we made.

you always said, realism is one main aspect of Battelfront vision. Great. That made CM CM. Therefore it was a logical development, to get rid of hexes (IF you have a better solution - and you had). It's also a step torwards more realism, to place the action in a 3D-environment (IF you can do it well - and you did!).

Those who were criticizing for getting rid of the old shoes, were doing this because of emotional aspects, not because of logical facts.

But contrary to CMx1, there are now sometimes steps back in realism - in, for me as wargamer, absolutely crucial areas. CMx1 abstracted things where they could be abstracted, but what it showed was congruent with the abstraction. The player imagines the rest easily thanks to this congruency.

IMO in CMSF this congruency between abstraction and the action is lost. Now single bullets are counted, but they can fly through walls. For me this is worse, than shwoing no bullets at all and only a counter and sound indicating shots.

Or the collision detection of vehicles. I don't need the hundreds polygons a Stryker consists of, if it can drive deeply into walls or other vehicles. The CMx1 model with some shadowing would have been sufficient for me - but an improved pathfinding algo, THAT would have been great. But also instead of MORE realism in that regard, we have hundreds of polygons with LESS realism.

You always said, realism comes first. But CMSF isn't a step ahead in realism in general. In certain areas it is much worse, or the changed visual representation destroy the congruency between abstraction and imagination. Complaining about that has nothing to do with whining about lost hexes when CMBO was created.

[monty burns]

The whole "you just don't get it" routine is starting to wear thin in my opinion.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But if the customer can't see it for himself, Steve, what difference does it make?

A fair point. The problem is figuring out why this is so. Is it because they aren't giving it a fair shake because QBs aren't what they want them to be? Is it because they haven't even tried RT and are perceiving the game based on something they haven't even tried? Is it because they don't understand modern warfare? Is it because we no longer have an ugly spreadsheet screen with lots of (fairly) meaningless numbers on it? Or is it a combination of some or all of these things? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Harv,

CMx1 surprised and won me (and apparently quite a few other people) over because it was totally different than anything else out there, offered a great gaming experience "out of the box" and was fun to boot. In comparison CMx2 doesn't show me anything really new, different and/or exciting gaming wise, and is actually a step backwards from CMx1 in many ways. So I don't know where the whole "not getting it" comparison with the CMx1 release comes from, as I just can't see the same sort of fundamentally new and/or different overall experience with CMx2.

That's because you "don't get it". I'd put in a smiley face there, but I'm not making a joke. Because you "don't get it" you don't see any improvements. That's been my entire point all along. If you "did get it" then you'd be one of the posters saying that CM:SF is a leap forward and not to listen to the whiners. And yes... despite the Human ability to selectively read this Forum, there are a lot of people loving CM:SF, early development flaws and all.

But to be fair CM:SF isn't as revolutionary as CMBO was. How could it be? There wasn't anything even remotely like it on the market. CM:SF is a conceptual continuation of CMBO, so obviously it has something like it on the market already. Going RealTime, radical reduction in abstraction, massive increase in unit details, completely redone graphics, an explosion of terrain types, a vastly improved editor, a huge array of scenario design tools, asymmetrical objectives, etc. are major improvements in our eyes. You see them as valueless. I can't make you see the value of what is in front of you if you do not wish to. However, in our eyes a rejection of everything new in the game and a pining for things that we left behind is seen as someone "not getting it".

Plus, don't you see the irony? We're getting slammed by some CMx1 gamers because CM:SF is not similar enough to CMx1, not because we didn't make it different enough. In other words, when I see posts like yours I see someone disappointed that we didn't make the 4th installment of CMx1, not someone who is disappointed because we didn't go far enough to distance CM:SF from its lineage.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Quick show of hands... can anybody see the inherent problem we have in dealing with you customers?

Umm, you're not very good at it?

Well you did ask.

-dale

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Feltan:

One get's the feeling that the Gamespot reviewer would be happier playing with ogres and gremlins than realistic military forces that, on occasion, don't respond in an expected manner.

I have commanded a company in the field. The amount of "control" one has is about 10 times less than in CMSF. You are quite lucky if you simply know where everyone is, let alone what they are doing at any given point in time. That makes some people very uncomfortable. Those people, and the Gamespot reviewer, should stick with a game that suits them: Barbie's Pony Adventure.

Regards,

Feltan

Or they should play wargames (~battle chess) not Company Commander Simulators. I guess such products exist (POA2 ?), not to mention the real stuff used by the military.

[Sirocco]

The only problem I can see with RT in favour of WEGO is the loss of looking at every 60 seconds of action from each and every viewpoint. I will sometimes pause RT to get an appreciation of what's happening and to issue more complex orders - supporting fires or assigning a spread of targets. Now if you could rewind the last minute and view the playback as you might view a WEGO playback that would be ideal. I find myself wishing for that now in RT.

[mazex]

Well, I've been playing computer wargames since 1982 and I've been enjoying BFC:s games since the public beta of CMBO. I'm really sorry to say that I agree with a majority of his comments, even though I would rate it at 6.5 or something. As many others have said this game would have benefited from a public beta around this point of the code state (1.01). It has a strong beta feeling with lacking tool tips etc that really should be there etc (or alpha as a beta should be feature complete). I guess a fairly stable game could have been released in Q1 2008 or something after that. What really annoys me is the babysitting of the units to avoid TacAI messups and the broken pathfinding etc. What he says about this sums up MY THOUGHTS about the game well. There is so much potential but the bugs has made me stop playing the game a long time ago until 1.02 is released. I'm thinking of waiting longer than that (1.04?) to not "waste the campain" on the current code.

I do however have confidence in that we will have a great game in version 1.07 or something. I think he could have lingered more on that track which he didn't. It is however sad that this game was released now and not in 6 months or so... Another setting wouldn't hurt either so the return to WWII with a properly patched base engine is maybe the right time to fill the popcorn bowl for an all night session?

/Mazex

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

The only problem I can see with RT in favour of WEGO is the loss of looking at every 60 seconds of action from each and every viewpoint. I will sometimes pause RT to get an appreciation of what's happening and to issue more complex orders - supporting fires or assigning a spread of targets. Now if you could rewind the last minute and view the playback as you might view a WEGO playback that would be ideal. I find myself wishing for that now in RT.

And to anyone who thinks that playback is unrealistic, just remember that a company commander can get on the radio and ask one of his platoon commanders to tell him what happened in the last 60 seconds - which is functionally the same thing...

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Oh, I don't know that demonizing your customers helps, but you make fair enough points. I sympathize and I am the last person to tell anyone that your job is an easy one. But you do have to understand the resistance to being told something and then told to believe it "because I said so!" Never worked with most people's parents, and you won't have better luck! People are Missourian at heart, as you well know.

The problem is battling emotional responses with logic doesn't work either. Some people hate CM:SF... ticking off the reasons why they should "love it" doesn't do anything.

But you don't really blame people for missing all those really great, innovative features you included in CMX1 do you? I mean, I know you've explained it all to death, but do you blame people for missing them?

Nope, no blame at all. As I've said... we knew we would lose established customers as a result of our design decisions. We are OK with that, as sad as we are to see them go.

Wouldn't you feel worse if no one even missed them at all? And it's not like they've been replaced by anything on orders of magnitude better. I mean, you just haven't. QBs are still QBs, but with far fewer options.

Again, we made design decisions based on a variety of factors. Some technical, such as no longer having randomly generated maps, and some conceptual, such as not having unit cherry picking. It is possible for us to tweak the latter, but the former... not going to happen as far as we can see.

It doesn't excuse anyone's lack of respect, or demanding things from you that you simply can't deliver due to technical reasons, but you can't tell people not to miss the really great stuff you guys invented in the first place! You raised the bar so high - I guess now ya gotta live it, Steve.

That's just the thing... I'm not bothered by this nearly as much as some people want me to be.

Steve

[yapma]

My biggest problem in playing the game is that i don't feel that i have enough information about the capabilities of the units, or what effect moving them farther away or closer to the fight will have.

to me, it would be helpful if i could right click on a weapon icon and find out its name and capabilities. i also liked the "big ugly spreadsheet" and found it added a lot to the game for me. it was educational, and allowed me to plan in advance.

right now, i have so little information about what is going on in the game that i play basically consists of shooting at the enemy with everything and anything, until the suppression red is full, and then moving forward.

granted, this is not so different from CM1, but in CM i at least had the impression that i was thinking while playing the game.

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tell me folks... how is it possible for both of these people to be correct? How is it possible for us to base game development decisions on one of these opinions and make the other happy?

Some of you just don't get it. We have to ignore some of you because there is no way to make everybody happy. I'm sorry for those that feel they are getting ignored, but there is no alternative. Someone is not going to be happy with what we do, no matter what it is we do. We understand that and it would be healthy if you all did as well. Doesn't mean you have to like it, of course, just accept it.

Steve

Please everybody read this again.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Those who are not having a problem with RT are probably not facing good human opponents, or using the best tactics possible, or playing well designed scenarios.

In my opinion. By that, I mean

* a well designed scenario gives the attacker more than one way to solve the tactical problem being presented - usually meaning more than one way to maneuver (not necessarily a frontal assault)

* a good human player will be proactive, not reactive, meaning his opponent has to be constantly on the move or at least aware of new threats. Dynamic defences are generally more effective than static ones, depending on terrain, but that takes us back to scenario design

Playing against the AI gives plenty of time to manage a company in RT; the AI doesn't do much, and if the AI plans are poorly done or non-existent, doesn't do anything. So time isn't a factor. But once you start to get into a game where the enemy is moving as much as you are, or you decide to try a flanking move by detaching a platoon, I think you will find that the more sophisticated your own tactics become, the more difficult it will be to manage in RT.

In short, to be blunt, any idiot can yell out "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" and manage a frontal assault against the AI in RT without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't expect critics of the RT system to be players of that stripe.

Are you calling us idiots?

Heh, I get what you say, and you are right, I haven't played any scenario yet that the AI was "active" as you call it.

Yes, I managed to maneouver my force in different groupos in different parts, but is true often one of these groups would be forgot.

IMO, up to a map size and force strength, RT is about right. if you want larger games (which MAY NOT be the scope CMSF was designed for, which actually I think is around a copmpany or a couple of reinforced platoons), WeGo is mandatory.

[Feltan]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

The only problem I can see with RT in favour of WEGO is the loss of looking at every 60 seconds of action from each and every viewpoint. I will sometimes pause RT to get an appreciation of what's happening and to issue more complex orders - supporting fires or assigning a spread of targets. Now if you could rewind the last minute and view the playback as you might view a WEGO playback that would be ideal. I find myself wishing for that now in RT.

And to anyone who thinks that playback is unrealistic, just remember that a company commander can get on the radio and ask one of his platoon commanders to tell him what happened in the last 60 seconds - which is functionally the same thing... </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Feltan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

The only problem I can see with RT in favour of WEGO is the loss of looking at every 60 seconds of action from each and every viewpoint. I will sometimes pause RT to get an appreciation of what's happening and to issue more complex orders - supporting fires or assigning a spread of targets. Now if you could rewind the last minute and view the playback as you might view a WEGO playback that would be ideal. I find myself wishing for that now in RT.

And to anyone who thinks that playback is unrealistic, just remember that a company commander can get on the radio and ask one of his platoon commanders to tell him what happened in the last 60 seconds - which is functionally the same thing... </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

You always said, realism comes first. But CMSF isn't a step ahead in realism in general. In certain areas it is much worse, or the changed visual representation destroy the congruency between abstraction and imagination. Complaining about that has nothing to do with whining about lost hexes when CMBO was created.

True, but that's a different sort of argument. Your points are rational and they can be addressed as such. The LOS/LOF problems with walls will be fixed. The collision detection stuff will be improved. Hopefully with v1.03. But your overall feeling that the reduction of abstraction is a step backwards in terms of realism... I respectfully disagree. Whatever the problems are with the new implementation, in terms of realism CM:SF is far more realistic than CMx1 games. I say this as someone who understands, very deeply, what each system has for shortcomings.

monty burns,

The whole "you just don't get it" routine is starting to wear thin in my opinion.

When people are hitting me with emotional arguments that are almost 100% personal opinion, I don't have much to counter with that will satisfy them. Well, besides saying "you're right, the other people are wrong and so are we. We beg your forgiveness and will do whatever you ask of us to win you back". That's just about the only thing that will make a certain, specific form of complaining go away. But to do that we would have to think they are right, and we do not.

Dale,

Is it simply because your presentation has failed?

Glass half empty thinking. I look at the people that love CM:SF out of the box and think we've succeeded. Since we knew we couldn't make everybody happy with our design decisions, we don't see our presentation failing when the people we expected to not like it in fact don't. Technical problems and bugs aside, we are quite pleased with the game's reception by those who "get it".

Steve