Oh no! Sellout! OMG! etc etc

[TheTris]

Right.

I've had enough. Time to make a few points:

1) Surely it is impossible for Battlefront to have sold out to both the military and twitch FPS gamers at the same time. Why are they being accused of both? Surely even they can't come up with a realistic tactical game that is quick easy and reflex based?

"Oh no Tris, don't change the light settings. Oh dear - you're making it too light AND too dark at the same time. I hate you"

2) If Battlefront have developed this game as a realistic military simulator, with national armed forces as their prospective main client, and are still letting me play with the game...that rocks! I can't see why anyone would complain about that (unless perhaps you're worried there won't be any inaccuracies in equipment to grog on about?

"Oh man, I can't believe they are making a game realistic enough that the real army wants to use it to train people. All the weapons systems will be more accurate, and they are still willing to sell me a copy. This sucks. I wanted hit points and levelling up. It could have been called 'World of Combat Mission'"

3) Battlefront are a commercial company. They make their own market decisions, and are almost certainly a damn sight better informed than you or I about what will succeed.

"I can't believe the US military rejected my sketch of a new tank design. The OMGEmperorTiger II Crocodile would have totally rocked!"

4) Battlefront are also people, and on top of that people who have designed games hat pretty much all of us here love. How many bad Combat Mission games have their been? Out of the three? And yet some people still can't trust them at all?

"Sorry Boss, but after 10 years I don't think I'll come in this month. Just don't trust you to actually pay me now I've been promoted."

5) You are not the only kid in the playground. There are many people interested in modern combat, just as there are many interested in WW2. Given that the second release is already slated for WW2, you have even less reason to complain if it seems like everyone is not obeying your each and every whim.

"That's right Granny, I know the family reunion is supposed to be in Washington, but I'd rather it was in Chicago, and I'm not coming unless everyone fits in with what I want

Well, that's my take on things. I'm not sure what characteristic of wargamers caused so many of the above reactions, but I don't like it.

World of Combat Mission, however, would rock. In fact, Battlefront, I can't believe you are being so evil and not developing CMX2 as a MMORPG! You suck! Can't you see where the market is? I hate you for selling out to the hardcore tactical wargame crowd (trails into incoherence.)

[Dillweed]

I'd like to see the OMGEmperorTiger II Crocodile.

[Salkin]

Nice first post The Tris and welcome to the forums.

Don't worry , Steve is thick skinned and knows that he has alot of six year olds on these boards .

//Salkin

[Nerd King]

When I read OMGEmperorTiger II Crocodile I spewed coffee all of the screen. Thanks.

[C'Rogers]

Now you have me thinking, if Battlefront did a MMMORPG, what would it be like?

[Dinger]

And, cleaning up the mess motivated you to register right after the Tris and post to the board?

Bah, I dunno guys. Sounds like straw man to me. Even some of the more vitriolic attacks don't sustain both claims (the closest I've seen is "playing to the FPS crowd and being misled by your military advisors")

I'm a professional historian and armchair simulations freak; I first heard about CM in 97, and played (on and off) from the beta; I never had that much time to invest in CM, but what I have has been rewarding, and helped in any number of (distantly) analogous situations.

still,

1) Again, the same people aren't making those claims. The reasons for the accusations are:

___A) Any sequel needs to broaden its interest base, and attract "fresh blood" to replace the burnouts. Thus, some argue, the "modern conflict" angle is to appeal to persons for whom playing with new toys is much more interesting, than "old stuff". The problem with this argument is that, for a variety of reasons, WW2 was the most "cinematic" conflict on record, and is always one of the big sellers across age groups in a way that no other historical or modern conflict can be.

___ CMx1, for all its faults, presents a darn fine simulation of how troops behave under fire, and emphasizes the necessity of keeping units in command and control. It is an excellent tool for teaching many of the basic cognitive skills needed in combat, as well as some of the finer points (such as how to spot those decisive moments when a quick change of momentum will sustain a solid thrashing of the enemy and avoid a rout). CMx1 can also be extremely entertaining. So no wonder various forward-thinking individuals in military organizations see its value and promote it. But having to say, "of course it's based on WW2" produces a liability. So I certainly imagine -- and Steve's comments do suggest -- that their "professional clients" have made their choice of future theater known. That said, if you go back and look, not a single "Brinks truck" is mentioned as having arrived at BFC's doorstep. So that means:

2) I doubt national militaries are their "prospective main client". Video games are big business; I'll wager far more F-16 combat sorties have been flown by civilians playing Falcon 4.0 than in all the simulations used by the militaries combined. It's still about the individual players.

3) No offense to BFC, but commercial companies are known for making really stupid decisions. Did anyone here get an Iridium phone before the company went bankrupt?

4-5) The hardcore market is going to be alienated. This was the house they built, and right now, it's their only hope for the game they want. So, yes, they'll be apprehensive.

6) (not mentioned) The subject is politically offensive. Not any more than Full Spectrum Warrior, Battlefield 2, the entire Falcon series or a whole slew of other games. Sure, to be fair, the storyline should involve both a Syrian and an American coup, but a little creative interpretation of history can already get us there.

Some of the objections are interesting. While we can argue that balancing will come from different loss threshholds, even so, it's just not as satisfying to score that one kill against the enemy's 100. Anyone here play a game recently with a platoon of Crack soldiers against two companies of conscripts?

But these are game design points, and since this is a hypothetical situation, perhaps things will be more interesting. Also, CMx1's design philosophy was to simulate parts of the conflict that were not routs -- so why should this be any different?

Besides, those yankee swine are gonna fry in their own fat when they shoot the Homs gap!

[RMC]

So then in the recesses of the bunker I found the +5 MG42 of Mowing Down. After leveling up and increasing my radius of command trait, I led my squad back to the Gasthaus zum Eisernen Faust. We bought drinks for the locals hoping to hear rumors of great treasure....

[hellfish]

Great post, Dinger.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Dinger:

Some of the objections are interesting. While we can argue that balancing will come from different loss threshholds, even so, it's just not as satisfying to score that one kill against the enemy's 100.

This is IMHO an important point. Having, for example, a 10% casuality treshold for the US Side in a given mission will make it more challening for the player commanding the US Troops. Okay, so far that's sound game design.

But for the player who plays the Syrian troops? Like I wrote in another post, in theory the syrian commander in a Quickbattle/Scenario could witness all his troops wipped out to the last man, and then towards the end of the mission, suddenly you get the message "US sustains too much losses, Syria wins" :confused: .

[TheTris]

MMORPG:

I think this is such a good idea I'm going to pretend it exists, even though it doesn't

Anyone up for a raid this Friday? I need 40 lvl 50+ soldiers for a raid on Eagle's Nest. Have plenty of Tank Commanders, Fighter Aces, need more PBIs, Medics. Meet at 18:00, nr Carenten. Could get rare "Pershing" drop.

Want to buy Elite level halftrack (with the black paintjob). Bored of travelling at normal speed, need boost from special mount. msg me.

Dinger: I don't think it was a strawman, but I could be wrong:

1) From either side, military or FPS, what position do you think makes such suspicions valid, when so many people are claiming the other case? What do you think it would take to lend weight to these arguments when the nay-sayers are all contradicting each other, as well as Battlefront's stated intentions?

2) I doubt this too. But some people don't My point was that I wouldn't mind if the product was an accurate military simulation.

3) Sure, some commercial companies make some bad decisions. I'm not sure this conflicts with what I said, which was that Battlefront make their own decisions, and are probably a lot better informed than us about what will work.

4-5) It's the house that Battlefront built. There are "hardcore market" people who play modern. They will be very happy. Sure, I understand that people love CM. I can understand apprehensive. Also, BF have scored 3 from 3 so far, AND a WW2 title is already announced. So I can't understand abusive or alienated.

6) The subject is politically offensive to some people . Myself, I have no problem with it. Some people find playing as pixellated Nazis offensive. I don't.

[TheTris]

Oh, and Nerd King - if I had better Paint-Fu I'd draw one of those things just for you. That's guarenteed awesomeness right there. If the 3rd Reich had built those instead of all those useless Pz IVs, the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Scott B]

Aha! I figured it out: it's not a sellout to the U.S. or twitch gamers at all...

BFC is creating a homeland defense simulator for the Syrian defense ministry! It's so obvious! Why hadn't I seen it before?

Scott

[Wicky]

Originally posted by TheTris:

Oh, and Nerd King - if I had better Paint-Fu I'd draw one of those things just for you. That's guarenteed awesomeness right there. If the 3rd Reich had built those instead of all those useless Pz IVs, the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dinger:

3) No offense to BFC, but commercial companies are known for making really stupid decisions. Did anyone here get an Iridium phone before the company went bankrupt?

They're called "risks". RISKS. Businesspeople do that on occasion, right; especially when their crystal balls aren't working....

[Dinger]

My mistake. Businesses are known for taking really stupid RISKS. That doesn't mean CM:SF is a stupid one (I'm looking forward to seeing what they produce), but the argument "they're a business, therefore they're more informed than us" frankly doesn't hold water.

1) From either side, military or FPS, what position do you think makes such suspicions valid, when so many people are claiming the other case? What do you think it would take to lend weight to these arguments when the nay-sayers are all contradicting each other, as well as Battlefront's stated intentions?

Likewise for appeals to the people. "Millions of people can't be wrong" is not a valid argument form.

nay-sayers can contradict each other all they want; that doesn't mean that they contradict themselves; nor that we can lump all their contradictions together (=straw man).

A coherent formulation of the opposing point of view would be something like:

Perhaps BFC has fallen into the trap of listening too closely to a small, specialized audience by aligning their next offering too closely to modern combat. By setting CM:SF in the very near future, BFC appears to be attempting to follow the strategy of Full Spectrum Warrior, and capture a larger share of the crucial 17-25 year-old male demographic, along with their professional audience. Ultimately, I fear they will develop the world's finest, high-fidelity boot-polishing simulator: something that looks great when you show it off to the brass, but will please neither their core user base, nor new adopters.

There, I combined twitch gamers with military applications, and gave you a cool shibboleth to go around yelling: "boot-polishing simulator"

I disagree with such a view, but for aesthetic reasons. I like CM, and I like good simulations, whatever the era. Whining isn't going to change it, so I'm going to look forward to what they can come up with.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Dinger:

3)Did anyone here get an Iridium phone before the company went bankrupt?

I've got 6 Iridiums in my deployable comms package. They work.

[TheTris]

Whoa!

We're throwing fallacy names around like tank shells! I asked you what you thought would give these arguments weight, and that's an "appeal to the people"? AND a Straw man? Note that I never said people disagreeing makes them invalid, but instead asked you what you thought gave them any weight.

It seems to me that throwing "that's XYZ logical fallacy" rarely forms part of a useful discussion. Perhaps it's better to say

"I'm not sure this conflicts with what I said, which was that..."

in an attempt to clarify the argument, rather than just shout Strawman when someone attacks an argument you didn't make.

The coherant version you made of the arguments was good though. Moderate language like "perhaps" was missing from many of the disappointed threads. I would say that the evidence that points away from what you fear is the dedicated audience that TacOps has, even when set in a modern setting, and Battlefield's record at producing games, coupled with their obvious personal enjoyment and investment in said games.

Heck, BF even said that the first game was modern to help them get the engine they wanted to be able to deliver a whole range of settings. Now, either BF are lieing, or the setting choice was informed by their desire to make the game as good as possible.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Wicky:

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

Oh, and Nerd King - if I had better Paint-Fu I'd draw one of those things just for you. That's guarenteed awesomeness right there. If the 3rd Reich had built those instead of all those useless Pz IVs, the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Likewise for appeals to the people. "Millions of people can't be wrong" is not a valid argument form.

Point is that their arguments are based on a valid source... me. Your argument is based on self invented reasons. So who is more likely correct?

The Maus that is superimposed looks to be the a picture from the Kubinka museum in Moscow.

Steve

[The_Enigma]

lol ah right

[Dinger]

... and that's the fallacy of an appeal to authority; the only cases where such an appeal makes sense are:

A) when your competence is called into question. "I don't know if these guys can get the game out on time"

-- "Well, we have a good track record"

when you choose to release some information you're privy to.

In this case, I don't even know what argument you're making. In context, it reads "All the raving fanbois are right, because they're repeating what I say".

There is no necessity for them to be right. You could tell them CM:SF would feature a mission over Saone with WP-spraying Zeppelins attacking a Battalion of Knights of Saint John o' Jerusalem who've attached Multifuzes to RPG-7s, they would repeat that, and it wouldn't be any more true.

Sorry, most people are less pompous and pedantic about it, but if people are going to argue for anything, they better be using valid forms. Otherwise, we get annoying whiners on one side, even more annoying fanatics on the other, and self-important buffoons doing everything they can to turn up the noise.

Speaking of which, why are you even bothering to respond to this, six days after it was posted? What part of my argument is "invented"? In general, I thought my tone was in _favor_ of the premise for CM:SF.

Just because I refute arguments like "Businesses don't make stupid decisions" (and by the way, the reason some folks have six Iridium phones is because the company went bankrupt after blowing $5 Billion dollars on it. The network was then purchased for $25 million) doesn't mean I think this is neessarily a bad decision. Frankly, I couldn't care. CM:SF is the type of game I'd like to play, and would like to spend money on.

Anyway, I've learned a lot from this discussion on how BFC functions as a company, and I look forward to enjoying CM:SF sometime in 2007.

[V]

Originally posted by Nerd King:

When I read OMGEmperorTiger II Crocodile I spewed coffee all of the screen. Thanks.

How does one spew coffee?

Would hate to have that burn...

[juan_gigante]

One thing about the "U.S. 10% casualties, game over" thing is that that is more likely to apply in the campaign or in premade scenarios. Since we know the campaign is A.I. only, I don't think the computer's feelings will be hurt.

[MikeyD]

For a Company level game, I don't think "10% casualties, game" over should apply. During the push to Baghdad more than one company-size unit found itself in deep doo-doo (often the result of friendly fire), but the advance continued.

Now, if you're hoping to see your officers get promotions during a campaign (if BFC adds such a feature), excessive casualties may not be a good thing to have.

And if the game awards medals? Well, the 'right' made a big stink about Kerry not bleeding enough to earn his Purple Heart. The 'left' took note of Ollie North's chest full of medals for doing little more than showing up. So both sides seem to be equally jaded about the need to excell in order to be given a medal.

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Now you have me thinking, if Battlefront did a MMMORPG, what would it be like?

I don't know exactly but it would have "Stripper" as a player class for sure.

Madmatt