Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

[MarkEzra]

Hev: Your on now we just gotta get the game.

Desert Fox and Gibsonm: My personal buying habits generally preclude me pre-ordering or buying the first issue. Normally I wait, read the forums, get player response, and make a decision to purchase. I don't generally get the demo...no real reason actually. But when it comes to BFC and the CM series I pre-order with confidence. This company is the ONLY company I do that with. I know they make the type of games I want and I know they make they kind of games THEY want.

[Wicky]

Have you ever had a prescribed medicine?

You might be unpleasantly surprised to find you're still part of the developmental trials

Originally posted by The DesertFox:

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

Are you willing to wait until 1.01 is ready, how about 1.02 or 1.03?

Call me old fashioned but yes I am. I am no fan to get an unfinished product out of the box where I have to search or wait for fixes which should have caught in Q+A in the first hand and integrated in the release version.

Unfortunately more and more developers/publishers seem to think that it doesn´t matter if they release an unfinished product with obvious problems to the unwashed masses. </font>

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by Wicky:

you might be unpleasantly surprised to find you're still part of the developmental trials

Actually it´s called clinical trials an yes I am part of it in so far that I monitor some of them from the scientific POV.

But that would be comparing apples and oranges and doesn´t apply here.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by The DesertFox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, it would have been equally avoided if Paradox hadn't sent out 1.0 copies for review.

I take it the responsibility to release a game for going to the DVD presses of the publisher is with the developer no ? And if the reviewer gets exactly the same version the customer gets out of his box the reviewer is in the position to write a fair review no ?

cheers [/QB]</font>

[Moon]

Originally posted by The DesertFox:

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

The Desert Fox, that is not quite correct. Battlefront and Paradox/Gamersgate are going to launch v1.01. v1.0 will only be on the shelf in some European countries (with the v1.01 available right away for those customers).

martin

Still you will see a lot of complaints about this 1.0 version. Something that should have been avoided in the first place.

1 month more work into the game and you most likely would have avoided all these negative waves from reviews already out.

cheers </font>

[Noiseman]

I must admit I've been dreading the first bad/lukewarm reviews because I figured many of the villagers (members) here would have pre-ordered their pitchforks and torches for the reviewers well before they pre-ordered the game... Looks like the old crystal ball was spot on again.

With a game as complicated as CM, in a setting many are unfamiliar with, there are bound to be uncomplimentary reviews. Remember the 'broken infantry in CMBB' hysteria from within our own community? Unfamiliar things aren't always accepted right away, and it's a bit unrealistic to expect reviewers new to the series to soak it all in immediately. So let's not get our panties in a bunch, and remember that these reviews aren't personal.

And this too shall pass.

[ July 26, 2007, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

[MrSpkr]

Here's my official take on the whole "Oh My the Reviewers Don't Like It Whatever Shall We Do?" thread of 2007: SirReal (cursed be him and his House) received his copy on July 18. From July 20 til today, he has only posted six times. I interpret that as meaning that he is playing his black Swedish heart out on the game, and that it is, therefore, at least as good as the previous versions.

The bastiche.

Steve

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Here's my official take on the whole "Oh My the Reviewers Don't Like It Whatever Shall We Do?" thread of 2007: SirReal (cursed be him and his House) received his copy on July 18. From July 20 til today, he has only posted six times. I interpret that as meaning that he is playing his black Swedish heart out on the game, and that it is, therefore, at least as good as the previous versions.

The bastiche.

Steve

No, I imagine that he's pining for the fjords ... they tend to that you know. Beautiful plumage though.

Joe

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Here's my official take on the whole "Oh My the Reviewers Don't Like It Whatever Shall We Do?" thread of 2007: SirReal (cursed be him and his House) received his copy on July 18. From July 20 til today, he has only posted six times. I interpret that as meaning that he is playing his black Swedish heart out on the game, and that it is, therefore, at least as good as the previous versions.

The bastiche.

Steve

He's on the beta team now and under NDA, actually, Kreskin. But truth be told, when I told him how much we were looking forward to his opinion on the game, I think he got performance anxiety and claimed to be illiterate.

[dan/california]

He's on the beta team now and under NDA

He did get a new computer the sodding lucky *&&*^$(*&%#@%& and he even got to tease us first. Life is just not fair.

[bartleby]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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.

That's a valid point, but slightly mistaken, I think. If the only difference between a BFC title and an EA title was the quality of presentation, then there probably would be no reason to buy from BFC. But by being smaller and having smaller development costs, BFC can take risks that EA doesn't. Unfortunately, along with that smaller team comes a bit less polish and flash. It can also mean that testing is less accomplished, which means more bugs initially. I'm willing to accept those downsides to get at the great gameplay there. Bugs can be patched and problems fixed, but you can't change the underlying system. I don't want to denigrate the people who like EA games, I'm not a game elitist, but it's a different way of playing and a different mindset.

The large developers seem to be sticking to the formula of evolutionary graphical increases and sequel after sequel in order to ensure a return on their (considerable) investments. One thing that sucks about the overall increase of computer graphics is that it's a lot harder to make assets for games. A new FPS can easily have 9 gigs just of textures and models. That's a lot of stuff for one person to make! I hope this doesn't drive independent developers out of the game business, but something is going to have to change at some point, anyway.

[Primarch]

Here Here bartleby. Very well put/

[Mace]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Are we there yet?

NO!

Now shutup and let daddy concentrate on driving! :mad:

[Timskorn]

I play EA games like Madden just as much as I play hardcore strategy games. Trust me, last years "Madden" was one of the worst yet. Design and technical-wise. EA isn't immune from making bad games, even if the game is basically a $60 graphical upgrade from the previous game.

On the contrary, Indie developers are on the comeback. Devs who create games to sell on Matrix and BFC, Paradox, plus small devs like Introversion (who made the great Darwinia and DEFCOM games) may not be reaping huge profits, but they are a good market now and have a niche audience that will never compete with the likes of EA or Blizzard. I'll buy Madden and I'll also buy CM games.

[Mace]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

they have said they are in the job of continuous improvement and every title they have released has had more than one post publication patch to make things just that bit better

And Battlefront has never let us down in the past with post-release game improvement (and lets face it, the crew has earned a very good reputation in this regard).

You normally don't get that level of after-release commitment from the bigger game publishers.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

He's on the beta team now and under NDA, actually, Kreskin. But truth be told, when I told him how much we were looking forward to his opinion on the game, I think he got performance anxiety and claimed to be illiterate.

No-one ever said BFC were stupid... here they have this cesspooler who somehow got hold of a copy before time? Could things BE worse? Well, he could start talking! Nothing good EVER comes from cesspoolers talking, everybody knows that!

What to do, what to do... oh yes! Have the bugger sign an NDA! How to make him... hmmm... perhaps a new computer? No? Not interested? What's that? You want Grog Dorosh head on a platter, served with sliced Lars? Well... can't do that right now, seeing as how we're all very busy beta-testing CM:SF. Hey, there's an idea...

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Mace:

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

Are we there yet?

NO!

Now shutup and let daddy concentrate on driving! :mad: </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mace:

And Battlefront has never let us down in the past with post-release game improvement (and lets face it, the crew has earned a very good reputation in this regard).

That's very much true. I remember the matter with TCP/IP for CMBO. There was a vote over it in the forum, and the folks decided that it can be added afterwards. Finally implementing it took about 50 years, but it was worth it!!!

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

He's on the beta team now and under NDA, actually

Clever, but i'm a bit sceptic that concept will work with thousands of "beta testers".

Seriously i think the problem with the bad review is, that it didn't mention minor problems, but named problems being complete showstoppers.

1) And on the other hand there is the community with very good trust in BFC.

But if BFC didn't screw it up then comes a second question:

2) Why is a version after four years of development called v1.0 and given to the publisher? This means, decisive people at BFC must have judged the game being more or less in a final state and not in a completely unfished one! And probably the same people are now explaining, the v1.0 is not a final product. IMO this doesn't fit together and is the reason about the irritations.

A logical answer would be, that there were deadline problems, delays, lagging behind the plan. That would explain everything. But until now the community has the impression, things were completely in time - and so these v1.0-reviews and the claims don't fit together.

But tomorrow we will know it anyway.

[JonS]

I can confirm there are no fish in CM:SF.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

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

He's on the beta team now and under NDA, actually

Clever, but i'm a bit sceptic that concept will work with thousands of "beta testers". . </font>

[Steiner14]

Michael, that was a joke!

But it's funny to see how you changed within weeks from a cynical a..hole into a friendly businessman.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by bartleby:

That's a valid point, but slightly mistaken, I think. If the only difference between a BFC title and an EA title was the quality of presentation, then there probably would be no reason to buy from BFC. But by being smaller and having smaller development costs, BFC can take risks that EA doesn't.

Bartleby, I think that this is a good point, and one which some reviews miss in my opinion (not specifically talking about the one in question here, I haven't read it).

Personally I have no problems at all with reviews comparing any of our releases to other *wargames* on the market no matter how many people worked on them, but I do think that its important to compare apples with apples. Our games are aimed at a customer base whom has a primary interest in game play being realistic and accurate, and comparisons really need to be done with that in mind else the review itself is missing its own target audience.

For instance when is the last time a review compared the ballistic modeling of C&C or COH to CMBO? They don't of course, because even though good old CMBO would blow those games away in this field its not relevant to the target audience those games are aimed at. If we pulled out all of CMs ballistics, flight path modeling, armor penetration calculations and behind the scene details from CM we would have a HUGE bunch of spare time to add all of the glitz that RTS based titles have. The result would be just that though, another RTS game with no solid basis in reality which in turn would totally miss our target audience.

Dan

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Michael, that was a joke!

But it's funny to see how you changed within weeks from a cynical a..hole into a friendly businessman.

Steve is still sorting out the profit sharing arrangements. *shrug* Can I get you something to drink while you're waiting for the download link to activate? :cool:

[Dirtweasle]

A cold Beer works for me Michael.

In other news, caught a half dozen nice Trout, Cutbow hybrids I think, and a couple Perch looking things, not sure - never seen one before in Colorado. Tasted good anyways.

Came back to town today to restock on ice and beer and heeading back up hill tomorrow AM. With any luck I can activate my D/L before I take off.