Could this game be Crap?

[aka_tom_w]

Hoolaman!

You should know better! :eek: ...shocked that you could post a thread with a title such as this.

[allenj7]

Another thing I just found out is that you can change the texture of the buildings by clicking on them in the 3D preview. Not quite sure what the options are yet, though (since I just found this out), or if custom textures are possible.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

-multiple skins per vehicle(?)

It's impossible to do due to video memory consumption, according to what's been said in another thread.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by allenj7:

Another thing I just found out is that you can change the texture of the buildings by clicking on them in the 3D preview. Not quite sure what the options are yet, though (since I just found this out), or if custom textures are possible.

How did you get a copy of the unreleased game?

[flamingknives]

There is a limited Beta release going on.

I curse my-not-good-enough computer.

[JaguarUSF]

allenj7=JaguarUSF=Out of Eight preview guy.

[mazex]

Well, I forgive all the graphic stuff mentioned above that make this look somewhat like CMBB++ (accept the magnificent vehicles and soldiers) if BFC removes the CMx1 skybox... Make default rolling terrain for a while and then some haze to finish it off or sumfink!

If that's impossible, at least use a skybox made from a FAR bigger texture! I place great hope in the comments that all the textures etc are placeholders...

EDIT: At least make "high res" skybox an option, even if you leave empty placeholder textures in place for them!

EDIT AGAIN: Those diagnoal "shadow stripes" in the latest images are not going to be in the final product I hope?

/Mazex

[ May 29, 2007, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: mazex ]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

allenj7=JaguarUSF=Out of Eight preview guy.

Gotcha, thanks.

Have that site bookmarked now for a read after work.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

I suspect BTS / BFC didn't have complete control over T-72 or ToW (they are basically other people's products being bought up to BTS/BFC standard).

I'm pretty sure that CM:SF being a 100% BTS/BFC creation will fit the bill.

They did have a lot of control during the localisation and requested several changes to get them to a state fit to put their name on.

They were then extensively tested by BFC and still had some show-stopping bugs for a minority of people. There are/were also serious gameplay issues that may or may not have been able to be fixed.

Having said that, I know its not the same thing as having BFC code from the ground up.

I know a lot of what I posted is graphical, and theoretically won't effect gameplay, but I also worry about some show-stopping bugs showing up in %50 of all PCs due to some hardware combo that went untested.

And of course it should be noted at all times reading this thread that my opinions are based on pure speculation!

[Becket]

There's really nothing to say about this thread other than:

Im in ur base, killin ur dudes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Kind of just playing Devils advocate here,

It was wise to state this up front. Hopefully that point isn't lost by those reading the rest of your post.

My impressions, based on all of the small snippets released so far:

* The maps seem very very small

Focus is firmly on company-sized actions, as Steve pointed out on the forum from the outset of the project. Given the 1:1 modelling, that only makes sense.

* The way the buildings are oriented and the flat terrain makes the city maps look as primitive as CMX1.

Comments on the flexibility of the mission builder suggest this will be up to individual map designers; screenshots I've seen suggest maps much more rich and complex than CM (read: immersive). See the catalogue of "flavor objects" that was recently posted here, for example. Building design (balconies, layout, colours - see Allen's comments on click functionality) is much more complex than CMX1.

The "Sky Box" horizon looks just as bad as in CMX1. How about some textures on the ground outside the map area.

I haven't seen any game really get this right, to be fair. Have you? I'm usually more worried about what is going on on the map as opposed to off of it.

There will seemingly not be that many vehicles modelled.

Compared to the CM:BB parking lot of Schleppenpanzerfunkwagen ausf A through GG, probably not. Anyone who ever used more than one or two types of Romanian tanks in a single scenario, raise your hand.

Umm...yeh, I thought so. Again, at the company level, vehicle types are rather homogenous.

Let me put it this way - how many do you think you would need to adequately cover a US-Syria fictional Middle East setting? And why the concern that they are somehow not included?

* No parked cars?

Good question. I'd love to see those too, if it doesn't kill framerate. Telephone poles are one thing, 3d models - even Operation Flashpoint didn't have abandoned cars - did it?

* If there is only arid terrain (which is literally all we have been shown) it will be very boring, and not even capable of modelling the terrain in half of Syria.

Correct, but this was addressed already.

I am also concerned that BFC's last several releases did not go off without a hitch. Critical issues such as crashing and poor performance were not caught before release, as well as some serious game balance issues. (T72, ToW)

mgibson has addressed this.

Is the Beta testing regime at BFC extensive enough to test the right number of hardware combinations?

Is any Beta testing regime every extensive enough? It's a good question again. I think they should get Schrullenhaft on the payroll, clone him, and be done with it. Until then, they can do what every other company does - release it and use the paying customers on this forum as a form of quality control. Unlike some other companies, though, BF.C has a track record for timely patches making major changes. I trust them at this point. I think with something as complex as this game has to be, you could have 100 beta testers (most of whom are unpaid volunteers) and never have enough.

Are the Beta testers taking a critical enough look at gameplay?

Do you have any reason to cast aspersions on them? Were you dissatisfied with their performance on past CM products, for example? Are you one of them yourself?

ToW seems to have some really glaring gameplay and hardware issues that have to be fixed before the game goes from OK to Great.

Perhaps some of the Beta testers from ToW who are also testing CM:SF can speak up and let us know if this isn't a case of apples to oranges? Anything else is just speculation, and in the end, what difference does it make, really. July 27th will be here soon, and only you can decide for yourself if the product will be what you want it to be. BF.C's policy of releasing demos should guide you, and from what I hear, there are some pretty excited previewers and testers just waiting to spill their guts about the new product to help us all decide whether or not we want to buy.

I think you started a thread that had the potential to go south quickly, but you worded the initial post very well and I think it has been constructive. In the end, maybe a bit pointless for the reasons I expressed in the last para. No one can tell you for sure whether you will like or value something - only you can decide that. Guess what BF.C will want you to think?

If the company level focus, or inability to see perfectly blended terrain down to the last blade of grass, or parking lots full of cars will severely inhibit your ability to enjoy the tactical nuances, flexible mission editor, extended campaign, unique turn based WEGO/RTS optional interface and other goodies, then that would be unfortunate. But my opinion is that even if all the concerns you just expressed were legitimate ones - I'd still say a vast majority would snatch it up anyway. Won't you?

Anyway, I realize the game is not out and that CMX2 engine is something of a work in progress, but I just wanted to provoke some discussion because I want this game to be a success.

Laudable goal; hopefully the game also gets picked up by one or two people who don't get the chance to read this thread.

In short

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eylyiqO5-z8

Courtesy Mr. Bean. Tell me ya aren't immersed.

[ May 29, 2007, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JaguarUSF]

You can have very large battles if you want...the game supports several battalions going at it. The largest map possible is 2.144 km by 2.144 km.

Theatre of War is probably the best game I've seen that's melded (I think that's a word) the background and foreground. Of course, the lack of a map editor so far shows the tradeoff there.

Parked cars are in there. And you can put any vehicle on the map on fire at the beginning of the level for flavor.

[gibsonm]

You'd be hard pressed to fit a Bn into that frontage properly, let alone "several".

[Moon]

What should be noted is that the max map size is limited to square kilometers, and not to a max length per side. You can have a 4 km long map that's only a few hundred meters wide for example, if you want.

Martin

[RMC]

Originally posted by Moon:

What should be noted is that the max map size is limited to square kilometers, and not to a max length per side. You can have a 4 km long map that's only a few hundred meters wide for example, if you want.

Dude, Road to Wiltz in the ETO version is so gonna rock! Huzzah.

[Darkmath]

Originally posted by Moon:

What should be noted is that the max map size is limited to square kilometers, and not to a max length per side. You can have a 4 km long map that's only a few hundred meters wide for example, if you want.

Martin

So, is the 16 square kilometres max map (4km*4km)size confirmed?

[Thomm]

Yes, I read we will get 16 x 16 square km maps!

Quite an accomplishment, actually!

Best regards,

Thomm

[gunnergoz]

"Could this game be crap?"

Wait until its released and you've played it, then decide. I'll come back and see what you say then.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I have given this some thought.

There will be some people don't like this game, but they are the same folks who were not interested in CMBO CMBB or CMAK because that kind of game doesn't not do it for them.

If you liked CMx1 style games (the 3 mentioned above) my guess is you will find CM:SF to your liking.

But that's just me, and I am just guessing.

-tom w

[panzermartin]

2x2km = 4 square km not 16, as listed in the feature list of the CMSF site.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Yes, I read we will get 16 x 16 square km maps!

Wow! 256 square km maps! Awesome! :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Sergei]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

You'd be hard pressed to fit a Bn into that frontage properly, let alone "several".

Dude, in Stalingrad they regularly had several Corps on both sides within that space. Just ask JasonC.

And with 256x256 maps "To the Volga" will look like a miniature model!

[panzermartin]

that would be CMC and CMSF all in one

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Yes, I read we will get 16 x 16 square km maps!

Wow! 256 square km maps! Awesome! :cool: :cool: :cool: </font>

[panzermartin]

Now, the 350GB free HD space makes sense..