Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

[bartleby]

Using Iraq as an estimate of Syrian performance is a bad idea. For one thing, there wasn't a single Iraqi use of an ATGM. I don't know if OIF would have gone as smoothly had there been many Kontakt lying around. Israel had some problems in 78 and 82 as well. It's wrong to think that an invasion should be a walk in the park.

[Moon]

Hey guys, I would just like to quickly re-emphasize what Steve said a bit earlier: "... let's go easy on the reviewers."

We haven't seen the reviews yet. Just some blog entries/comments. Some of what we saw in there certainly was uncalled for, no matter which version was handed out, but on the other hand it's not the reviewer's fault that the game code he got is outdating the version available on release day by 5 weeks. The blame for that is entirely on our (the production) side.

Martin

[purpheart23]

Bartleby, I believe, and I may be mistaken here but I'm almost certain i read an article on these very forums about a couple of Iraqi AT teams using the Kornet E to knock out a couple Abrams and a Bradley, let me see if i can find the link. Granted they weren't in mass use, but it is a good representation of the effectiveness of the weapon system.

[purpheart23]

My humblest apologies bartleby, you were spot on. I found the retraction, initially thought to have been knocked out by kornets.

[Spindry69]

Wow, that staff comparison between CM:SF and Company of Heroes really speaks volumes about what Battlefront has achieved.

[imported_Major_Jerkov]

Tom Chick is a n00b.

[imported_Major_Jerkov]

Also, his name is so unmanly I think he could not differentiate between my little ponies and combat mission.

[MHertogh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

How about the headcount? At Battlefront we had the following people working on CM (and at times other projects):

1 Programmer

1 Designer

1 Artist

1 Marketing dude (who does localizations too)

1 Testing and sound guy (who does the web stuff)

about a dozen volunteers and contract guys working part time when they can.

about two dozen volunteer testers

(we couldn't have done it without the volunteers!)

Wow. I thought we had too few with StarFleet Command and we had about 5 programmers and 3 artists. Most were full time on the project (it was one Senior Graphics programmer and four guys for whom it was their first game, but still I am impressed. That is indeed a skeleton crew.

Marc

[Steiner14]

The guy is so talanted and unique there are are very few like him in this day and age in any software development field.

There is only one another i know about: Justin Fraenkel, the maker of Winamp. Sold it for many billion $$$ and is now making an audio-sequencer with another programmer, that plays after a few months already in the league of the big boys. Incredible how fast this man can program and implement things. Major companies need several months for what he does in days.

My 2 cent about the reviews:

Isn't it possible that Paradox gave demos away, without caring? Not at all mentioning what the reviewer should expect, or should not expect and not mentioning that it still is a work in progress? No 1.01-beta-patch?

I mean Paradox was also not capable to hold a shipping date. Why not giving demo copies away without caring?

[ July 26, 2007, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Darkmath]

After reading the review, I should say the reviewers writes some irrelevant commentaries without a precise argumentation which would be needed (like the Iraq/Syria comparison or HEAT use), others are false (the helicopters AH64-D is INCLUDED in CMSF, following the official vehicle list).

The worst part is the paragraph about AI.

He say nothing but devs cannot program a decent AI. And saying C&C3 have a better tacAI and stratAI (any StratAI in CC? wow) than CMSF is a bit... amazing.

Where does it mentionned any precise AI problem? Nowhere.

The most relevant complain I saw about AI is the lack of agressiveness of the AI, like it was in CMX1.

I had no problem to play against AI in CMX1.

Devs have done an excellent job about AI in CMX1, so how could it be screwed up in CMX2?

Maybe some expect the agressive AI from CMX1.

But was it better or more realistic?

Defender AI used to counter attack the same flag sometimes in a suicidal way due to how the objective is defined.

The victory conditions in CMSF are more complex so do not expect the same thing.

However, I can't say whether bad perf. and slow camera handling is due to the engine or to the reviewer.

The pathfinding problem, well, I don't think pathfinding will be fixed in next patches, but I've encountered pathfinding problems in CMX1.

Indeed, the pathfinding in CMSF seem absolutely not as good as in 20 millions$ RTS.

But would it be worse in than in CMX1, which is correctly playable? It is still unlikely.

So, all this makes me think Steve's reply to the article more convincing by far.

[Cpl Steiner]

CMx1 had pathfinding problems in the sense that columns of vehicles on roads would often end up running into each other and clogging up the road. This could be worked around by giving vehicles a manual delay in 5 second increments using the UI. It seems that CMx2 may suffer from similar problems. If so, I fully expect to find similar work arounds to resolve them. I don't think this is a game-breaking issue, just as it wasn't in CMx1.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Tom Chick:

In the end, Shock Force’s presentation of asymmetrical warfare is mostly like a Combat Mission scenario with French partisans against SS troops: just make sure to give the partisans twice as many troops and you’re good to go.

This is what gets me worried.

As for the reviews, out of the 3 Ive seen, 1 has said it was excellent, and that was from a person that was involved in the Beta. Not exactly reassuring.

As a customer, I do not care how many people that are working on a game that I buy, compared to a big budget game. Are you saying that I will have to excpect that games from small companies, like BTS, will be worse than the ones from EA etc? Well then, why even bother buying anything from you? I just dont get why you harp about how little resources you have. It does not matter to the end customer.

Also, I dont think the beta testers do anyone any favours by pissing on the reviewers that does not think this game is as great as they think. If anything, its a mistake. It just makes the impression that we cant really trust what they say about the game, because they are zelouts and nothing is wrong in their eyes.

Now, I will prob download this game the moment its for sale, because of the excellent CM series. But I dont really think all the reponses made here by BTS and their testers reflect on them in a positive manner.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Are you saying that I will have to excpect that games from small companies, like BTS, will be worse than the ones from EA etc?

Define "worse".

Worse graphics? Probably.

Worse gameplay? Not necessarily.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

Are you saying that I will have to excpect that games from small companies, like BTS, will be worse than the ones from EA etc?

Define "worse".

Worse graphics? Probably.

Worse gameplay? Not necessarily. </font>

[rune]

Panzer76

Helps if you know what you are talking about. James Allen did NOT work in the beta. When he got the game to preview, he tested the scenario editor, and liked it so much he created a bunch of scenarios.

I looked at them, rejected some, fixed a bunch of others, and made a lot into quick battles.

I asked James if he minded, and he said I could use them or he could release them after the game was out.

I have always believed in if it is good, then then more scenarios on the cd the better. Since I have done this since CMBB, [Wild Bill was the Lead scenario maker for CMBO, I job I took over with CMBB] I think it has worked pretty good, even though I put in things like To the Volga.

So, bottom line, when he got the full release to review, he finally saw I did pick some. Added AI plans and flavor objects, but he did a good job on the basics.

Rune

[ July 26, 2007, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tom Chick:

In the end, Shock Force’s presentation of asymmetrical warfare is mostly like a Combat Mission scenario with French partisans against SS troops: just make sure to give the partisans twice as many troops and you’re good to go.

This is what gets me worried.

As for the reviews, out of the 3 Ive seen, 1 has said it was excellent, and that was from a person that was involved in the Beta. Not exactly reassuring.

As a customer, I do not care how many people that are working on a game that I buy, compared to a big budget game. Are you saying that I will have to excpect that games from small companies, like BTS, will be worse than the ones from EA etc? Well then, why even bother buying anything from you? I just dont get why you harp about how little resources you have. It does not matter to the end customer.

Also, I dont think the beta testers do anyone any favours by pissing on the reviewers that does not think this game is as great as they think. If anything, its a mistake. It just makes the impression that we cant really trust what they say about the game, because they are zelouts and nothing is wrong in their eyes.

Now, I will prob download this game the moment its for sale, because of the excellent CM series. But I dont really think all the reponses made here by BTS and their testers reflect on them in a positive manner. </font>

[Razer]

The thing I think Steve was gunning at was that they can't go "BOOOM HEADSHOT ULTRA-RTS GRAPHICS" and so on. You can't expect that kind of visual and epic quality from them. But what you CAN expect is a complex and awesome wargame. Damnit, I for one cannot wait. I'm sure this game will be awesome.

Oh, personal story time! When I first tried CM I totally went... Oh lord, the graphics. But MIND YOU, even that first time, watching the infantry engage some others, watching the replay and reactions. I got hooked. On just such a minor thing that wasn't even close to the big tank fest and awesome tactical experience that you could get. Sometimes it is so darned refreshing to have soldiers that act like soldiers and not terminators with fixed amount of HP that will just stand there gunning, hitting every round and eventually fly in the the air and stuff. Meh, I even remember playing the horrible G.I. Combat and enjoying it. Just because they tried to take Close combat into 3D.

To me, CM:SF is shaping up to become one of the best wargames ever. Unique and interesting engagements. Interesting StratAi that is different for each map and objectives that vary between the 2 forces. Man, I don't think people realise how brilliant this game could be. That is if it works.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by rune:

I think it has worked pretty good, even though I put in things like To the Volga.

My computer's processer still curses your name to this very day for that scenario.

Has anyone every actually played it all the way through? I never got past a couple of turns.

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by Razer:

The thing I think Steve was gunning at was that they can't go "BOOOM HEADSHOT ULTRA-RTS GRAPHICS" and so on. You can't expect that kind of visual and epic quality from them. But what you CAN expect is a complex and awesome wargame. Damnit, I for one cannot wait. I'm sure this game will be awesome.

Oh, personal story time! When I first tried CM I totally went... Oh lord, the graphics. But MIND YOU, even that first time, watching the infantry engage some others, watching the replay and reactions. I got hooked. On just such a minor thing that wasn't even close to the big tank fest and awesome tactical experience that you could get. Sometimes it is so darned refreshing to have soldiers that act like soldiers and not terminators with fixed amount of HP that will just stand there gunning, hitting every round and eventually fly in the the air and stuff. Meh, I even remember playing the horrible G.I. Combat and enjoying it. Just because they tried to take Close combat into 3D.

To me, CM:SF is shaping up to become one of the best wargames ever. Unique and interesting engagements. Interesting StratAi that is different for each map and objectives that vary between the 2 forces. Man, I don't think people realise how brilliant this game could be. That is if it works.

Lurker Alert !

4 years, that stands for charisma and self discipline. :cool:

Oh and i totaly agree with him too.

[Bunyip]

No stoopid little green bars.

Just about every other game on the planet is using much the same damage model as dungeons and freakin dragons.

Multi GHz computers and the best they can do is little green bars?

The guys at BF have a clue, the rest of the planet is too busy looking at the pretty lights....bzzzt.

[rune]

Normal Dude,

Yep actually quite a few people played it all the way through.

Another note, if Tom or anyone else who reviewed the game made a great scenario while previewing, and I liked it, I would have done the exact same thing. Asked if they minded, fixed it up, and put it on the CD.

I have already done this multiple times in the past. For the companion book, I went to authors who I liked and thought I can work with, asked them to do scenarios. It is the same way the scenario designers were picked by me for CMSF. I looked at past work, and considered if the y could keep an NDA and work with a team.

So this has been done before, and I will continue to do so. It is why you will see some familiar names under scenario design in less then 24 hours.

Rune

PS No, do NOT bombarb me with scenarios asking to get in. I'll let you know when or if I am looking for designers.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by rune:

Panzer76

Helps if you know what you are talking about. James Allen did NOT work in the beta. When he got the game to preview, he tested the scenario editor, and liked it so much he created a bunch of scenarios.

The fact that the reviwer has ANYTHING to do with the game he reviews, being it his scenarios or what not, does not make him objective in my book.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Razer:

The thing I think Steve was gunning at was that they can't go "BOOOM HEADSHOT ULTRA-RTS GRAPHICS" and so on. You can't expect that kind of visual and epic quality from them. But what you CAN expect is a complex and awesome wargame. Damnit, I for one cannot wait. I'm sure this game will be awesome.

Oh, personal story time! When I first tried CM I totally went... Oh lord, the graphics. But MIND YOU, even that first time, watching the infantry engage some others, watching the replay and reactions. I got hooked. On just such a minor thing that wasn't even close to the big tank fest and awesome tactical experience that you could get. Sometimes it is so darned refreshing to have soldiers that act like soldiers and not terminators with fixed amount of HP that will just stand there gunning, hitting every round and eventually fly in the the air and stuff.

I deleted the CM:BO demo after two minutes and it took a second try before I liked it. I can't remember what hooked me, but I think in addition to what you just mentioned, the camera shake reeled me in. Now we've even got speed of sound. Everyone reacts to their own things.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by rune:

...even though I put in things like To the Volga.

Which I objected to I'd like to add

[rune]

And Panzer misses the point again. He didn't have anything to do with the game, I approached him. There is no conflict of interest. If he didn't like the game, he would have said so.

I won't answer for James. I just find it funny that some people around here are looking for any excuse.

Rune

[ July 26, 2007, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: rune ]