New Screenshot? (I think!)

[noxnoctum]

http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2010/

Pretty sure that hasn't been shown before. (scroll down a little)

EDIT: Hahaha wow, nvm, I just realized this is the same one BFC used a while ago, my bad. Still, nice list of games there .

[gibsonm]

Sorry mate but Battlefront first posted this on the 8th of February 2009 here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1354&Itemid=99999999

and

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=A-Decade-.html&Itemid=213

[souldierz]

I can't say I agree with their comment either.Might have been disappointing to whoever wrote the comment, but for me I was thrilled and amazed when I came across this game.Oh well can't please em all and opinions are like you know what, everyone's got one.

As for the pic, I don't think BFC would be holding back on us.They wouldn't dare give us half a bone and someone else the other half, would they?

[Alan8325]

I can't say I agree with their comment either.Might have been disappointing to whoever wrote the comment, but for me I was thrilled and amazed when I came across this game.Oh well can't please em all and opinions are like you know what, everyone's got one.

As for the pic, I don't think BFC would be holding back on us.They wouldn't dare give us half a bone and someone else the other half, would they?

Most of those reviewers haven't touched the game since version 1.0, I think.

[Destraex]

WOW nice link thanks.... I had not seen the screenshot.

Loads of nice things to look at other than the screeny too.... scourge of war for instance.

[Battlefront.com]

Alan8325,

Most of those reviewers haven't touched the game since version 1.0, I think.

And some would still hate it because it isn't WW2. That guy's comment is very clearly from someone like that. Good thing we didn't make "Combat Mission: Barney Loves You" like we originally intended

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Hate to say it, but I too was a disappointed with CMSF at 1.0. I shelved it until 1.10, now even better at 1.21. But I wasn't worried at all, I knew they would nurture it like a newborn, just give it time.

But think about it, what if CMSF launched at 1.21, how much better would the reviews have been. IMHO they would of been a helluva lot better. To imply the only reason that CMSF got below-average marks was because it wasn't WWII isn't fair.

Look at the first CMx1 series, all three got great reviews. Was it only because it was WWII? I doubt it.

[gibsonm]

But think about it, what if CMSF launched at 1.21, how much better would the reviews have been. IMHO they would of been a helluva lot better.

Except of course they'd all start with "Despite being launched 3 yrs behind schedule ..."

Its the old case of an 80% solution now compared to a 100% solution sometime in the distant future.

[TheVulture]

Except of course they'd all start with "Despite being launched 3 yrs behind schedule ..."

Its the old case of an 80% solution now compared to a 100% solution sometime in the distant future.

The alternative to an 80% solution now is amply illustrated by Duke Nukem Forever - 12 years of development, eventually leading to a cancelled project (in 2009). Repeated shiny and impressive demos, but no actual progress because the entire code base was repeatedly scrapped to move it to new, shinier game engines to make it look even better. That's what striving for perfection gets you. The alternative is accepting that you are releasing a game with some bugs and not all the features that you want.

Having said that, I think everyone would agree that the state of CM:SF v1.0 had far too many problems; more or a 60% now The state of the game at v1.21 is pretty awesome though IMHO.

[Battlefront.com]

MeatEtr,

Hate to say it, but I too was a disappointed with CMSF at 1.0. I shelved it until 1.10, now even better at 1.21. But I wasn't worried at all, I knew they would nurture it like a newborn, just give it time.

As has been covered here about a thousand times, there were definitely different groups who were "disappointed" with CM:SF 1.01. There was a very sizable group that was pissed off at us before we even launched the game. Their discontent started in 2005 when we announced the game wasn't going to be WW2. The Forum Archives are full of evidence that even if CM:SF 1.01 had been equal to v1.21 that we'd have had those guys out with long knives. The fact that the game was released in v1.01 state, with definite problems gave them fuel to pour on the fires they had already set. Those who are simply opposed to us doing anything other than WW2 (which that reviewer appears to be) will likely enjoy Normandy. Unless, of course, they are also belonging to a second group...

There is also a group of people that hate the game engine itself, even in its v1.21 form. They almost certainly hate the content as well, but it's far more deep than that. Such a "reactionary" group is commonplace in any industry that involves creativity, be it music, movie directors, car companies etc. it doesn't matter. Some significant group is going to HATE with a passion whatever is new because it isn't similar enough to what was old. Such people don't like CMx2 itself, and therefore don't care if it is in v1.01, v1.21, or v5.35 state. Since it isn't like CMx1 it isn't appealing, period. This is akin to the Close Combat and Steel Panthers fanatics who ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked CMBO before and after it's release.

Lastly, we come to the people who were more open minded and/or looking forward to modern warfare. They were disappointed not with the content, not with the overall feature set, but with specific shortcomings within it. Bugs, some rough edges, and of course QuickBattles. As the bugs and rough edges have been fixed the enjoyment level has gone up dramatically. The continued strong sales of the base game and Modules proves that the interest is there, for sure. Some of these people will pass on CM: Normandy because they don't have interest in WW2. There are plenty of CMx1 customers who didn't buy all three CMx1 games because of a lack of interest in the topic, so the treatment of CM:SF wasn't a surprise either.

But think about it, what if CMSF launched at 1.21, how much better would the reviews have been. IMHO they would of been a helluva lot better. To imply the only reason that CMSF got below-average marks was because it wasn't WWII isn't fair.

Er, no. I didn't say that. Some definitely did whack us for not being WW2 and the record is very clear about that. The overall reaction was far more complex and nuanced than that, as my above and following comments illustrate.

Look at the first CMx1 series, all three got great reviews. Was it only because it was WWII? I doubt it.

Sure, but CMBO stunned a lot of the critics because it was completely unexpected. Even when a reviewer pointed out its "amateurish" graphics, we usually didn't lose too many points for that. CMBO also didn't have so many rough spots because we were in a sort of public beta mode for several months. Since CMBB was based on CMBO there wasn't that much that could have gone wrong from a technical standpoint. CMAK had very little different code wise and therefore, not surprisingly, few significant bugs. We don't expect technical issues to be a problem with CM: Normandy reviews any more than they were for CMBB reviews.

CM:SF is a completely different ball of wax from a review standpoint. From the start it had heaps of expectations on it that CMBO never had. Some of them, like the flame fests over "blue bar" and the lack of a spacebar Commands Menu, were based DIRECTLY on comparing CM:SF to CMx1. A problem CMBO didn't have sine there was nothing before it. Same thing with Quick Battles. Which means CM:SF was partly punished for simply being different. The bugs, on the other hand, would have dogged us no matter what. HOWEVER, I put it to you that if CMBO had the same sorts of bugs it would have been given a lot better reviews than CM:SF simply because the game itself was so utterly out of left field to wargaming. In short, CM:SF suffered some knocks CMBO never could have, never would have because CMBO was the first and CM:SF was (sorta) the forth. We knew that going into CM:SF, just like we know that CM: Normandy will have to endure the same stuff when it is released. As will every future CMx2 game.

As for CMBB and CMAK reviews, so far there is nothing to compare these games to since we've only released CM:SF. CM: Normandy will be the 2nd release and therefore somewhat comparable to CMBB. Not in a meaningful way, but it is apples to apples when thinking about them both being 2nd releases off of a previous game.

In short... the Forum Archives here prove, without any doubt, that there was a significant group of people "gunning for us" before CM:SF was even launched. Even if CM:SF had been released in its v1.21 state they would have attacked the game with passion. That's because their reasons for disliking CM:SF or us aren't rational, but rather emotional. Anybody that expects fanatics to be reasonable is an idiot. We aren't idiots, so we expected getting crap from them on the very day that Charles and I decided to do Modern for the first CMx2 release (that was sometime in 2003, before CMAK was released). Which is why we really don't give a flying fig about that sort of criticism

Steve

[MattMulder]

The alternative to an 80% solution now is amply illustrated by Duke Nukem Forever - 12 years of development, eventually leading to a cancelled project (in 2009). Repeated shiny and impressive demos, but no actual progress because the entire code base was repeatedly scrapped to move it to new, shinier game engines to make it look even better. That's what striving for perfection gets you. The alternative is accepting that you are releasing a game with some bugs and not all the features that you want.

(...)

If you think seriously about it, can you prevent yourself from laughing out loud ????

[theFightingSeabee]

Well, having a tiny glimpse of 'the inside' allows me to see how the game is being developed. Trust me, they strive for perfection whenever possible. The real speed bumps, I think, are money and having one main programmer. The good news is that each new release since cmsf is building upon the previous one. That means that each release will be better and better. Normandy will be a better game than cmsf.

As far as throwing bones, they like to throw out the tiny metacarpal type bones, leaving the femurs and pelvisis as a surprise .

[MeatEtr]

Steve,

Yeah, as a forum regular, I'm well aware of the small but very loud group of illogical and unfair haters out there. I'm under the impression these loudmouths have no impact at all on the mainstream media outlets(IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, etc.). IMO, just a very loud sideshow here and other *ahem* wargaming forums.

I'm certainly part of the last group you described. I remember thinking, Hey, if anybody can get me into or interested in modern warfare, it's you guys. Afterall, your CMBB is the reason I bought and read dozens of books about the Eastern Front. Which since then is my preferred wargaming front, so thanks again for that!

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the review scores had much more to do with the state(bugs/polish) of the game at launch and much less about the Hey-it's-not-WWII knocks. But you already knew that and have never denied it. So sorry for shoehorning your opinion of that article writers comments into your stance on Why CMSF didn't score high. My mistake there, been a bad day.

Not that you guys hang on every reviewers word/score and nor should you. But as a dev and business, they can be extremely helpful at spreading the word and for your brand growth. Take me as example, if it wasn't for these media outlets I may have never found CM or the battlefront site. Which I'm sure there are many more customers like me.

Also, as I've said before and say it again, in a way, WWII fans(the reasonable ones) should be happy you decided to go Modern for the first CMx2 release. It's only gonna get better with future releases. CMN will be to CMSF what CMBB was to CMBO. Then for us East Front fans, the third CMx2 family release will be utter perfection. It's true, they really are saving the best for last.

How's that for expectations Steve? hehe

[Alan8325]

Hate to say it, but I too was a disappointed with CMSF at 1.0. I shelved it until 1.10, now even better at 1.21. But I wasn't worried at all, I knew they would nurture it like a newborn, just give it time.

But think about it, what if CMSF launched at 1.21, how much better would the reviews have been. IMHO they would of been a helluva lot better. To imply the only reason that CMSF got below-average marks was because it wasn't WWII isn't fair.

Look at the first CMx1 series, all three got great reviews. Was it only because it was WWII? I doubt it.

Same here, except after playing the demo at 1.0 I didn't even buy the game until the Marines module (v1.1?), at which point I tried the demo again and then bought the bundle.

[Paper Tiger]

I have played every incarnation of CMSF from v1.01 to the present day. I won't deny that it wasn't brilliant at v1.01 but I used the time to learn the game mechanics and, most importantly, how to use the editor and make up a stock of QB maps. Meanwhile, the game became comfortably playable very quickly, round about v1.04. That's when I started creating my first scenarios. There was a wee step back with the v1.05 patch which introduced the 'low walls block LoS' bug that prompted BFC to implement the ELoS system that they were intending to introduce in the WW2 title. After v1.06 the game was pretty solid and just got better and better with each build.

V1.10 saw a degradation of the vehicle pathfinding routines but otherwise, it was a huge leap forward and the pathfinding was fixed by the totally uber v1.11 patch which finally gave us back the Blue Bar.

So, while I can understand why some got turned off by the bugs in the earliest builds, it didn't take long to get the game fixed. I stuck with it through the teething problems because I knew BFC would fix it up and fix it up they did. It was sad reading some of the more rabid naysayers who insisted that BFC wouldn't stick by their game and fix it up. How wrong they were. But that's probably something they'd prefer to forget.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, as a forum regular, I'm well aware of the small but very loud group of illogical and unfair haters out there. I'm under the impression these loudmouths have no impact at all on the mainstream media outlets(IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, etc.). IMO, just a very loud sideshow here and other *ahem* wargaming forums.

Yes. However, remember that reviewers aren't unbiased. They have preconceptions just like everybody else, so if a reviewer fit into the "I hate modern warfare, but I'm stuck reviewing this thing" CM:SF would have to be unbelievably perfect to get a good review. Not just good to get a good review, I mean freak'n awesome. Obviously the initial release, bug wise, was not freak'n awesome. Reviewers who liked modern warfare (or at least didn't hate it) gave us better marks than the ones who were not as interested. It's a common trend in game reviews regardless of genre.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the review scores had much more to do with the state(bugs/polish) of the game at launch and much less about the Hey-it's-not-WWII knocks. But you already knew that and have never denied it. So sorry for shoehorning your opinion of that article writers comments into your stance on Why CMSF didn't score high. My mistake there, been a bad day.

No problem The quick comment from the link that started this thread is what I was referring to, and that hardly was a review. It was just some opinion that basically boils down to "now that they have failed miserably making Modern they can stop screwing around and make WW2 since that's really the only thing that matters". This ignores the fact that enough people are interested in modern warfare to make CM:SF a success and to have us already dedicated to making CM:SF 2. And likely CM:SF 3, CM:SF 4, and so on.

Not that you guys hang on every reviewers word/score and nor should you. But as a dev and business, they can be extremely helpful at spreading the word and for your brand growth. Take me as example, if it wasn't for these media outlets I may have never found CM or the battlefront site. Which I'm sure there are many more customers like me.

Likely you would have come here even if you saw a negative review as your first and only impression of Battlefront. Reason? Who else is out there selling wargames like this? Nobody.

Also, as I've said before and say it again, in a way, WWII fans(the reasonable ones) should be happy you decided to go Modern for the first CMx2 release. It's only gonna get better with future releases. CMN will be to CMSF what CMBB was to CMBO. Then for us East Front fans, the third CMx2 family release will be utter perfection. It's true, they really are saving the best for last.

Except it isn't last. As soon as CM:SF NATO is done CM:SF 2 will be under way. I'd guess that CM:SF 2 will beat CM: Bulge to the market. So the modern warfare haters have to just suck it up and deal with the fact that we aren't their bitch

Same here, except after playing the demo at 1.0 I didn't even buy the game until the Marines module (v1.1?), at which point I tried the demo again and then bought the bundle.

The advantage of Battlefront is that our products don't disappear off the shelf in a couple of weeks or months. Our concern is not for initial week sales, like big publishers, but overall sales. If it comes to us over 2 years instead of 2 weeks, it's fine with us because in the end we get the same amount of money.

So, while I can understand why some got turned off by the bugs in the earliest builds, it didn't take long to get the game fixed. I stuck with it through the teething problems because I knew BFC would fix it up and fix it up they did. It was sad reading some of the more rabid naysayers who insisted that BFC wouldn't stick by their game and fix it up. How wrong they were. But that's probably something they'd prefer to forget.

Nah, they are oblivious to reality so there's no reason for them to forget anything

Developers who don't expect bumps are fools. Developers who don't know how to handle the bumps will likely try to take the safe, obvious, and uninteresting paths. Developers who can't keep their eyes firmly fixed on what they can do instead of what they have already done are visionless. All of these types meet with fairly quick ends in the market place for one or more reasons. Knowing this is half the battle to staying in business.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Except it isn't last. As soon as CM:SF NATO is done CM:SF 2 will be under way. I'd guess that CM:SF 2 will beat CM: Bulge to the market. So the modern warfare haters have to just suck it up and deal with the fact that we aren't their bitch

Steve

Wow, I was assuming we probably wouldn't see CMSF 2 until much later, like closer to the first release of the East Front family. You know pre-CMSF launch I would probably roll my eyes and sigh at this news. But now at 1.21 and fully assimilated(Borg) into the modern warfare setting, I dig it. :cool:

[gibsonm]

And here was I thinking I might get some time off as you wandered aimlessly around on the steppe.

[Sgt Joch]

This ignores the fact that enough people are interested in modern warfare to make CM:SF a success and to have us already dedicated to making CM:SF 2. And likely CM:SF 3, CM:SF 4, and so on.

A very important point which is often forgotten by the "WW2-only or die" crowd. Many dedicated, hard core wargamers are more interested in exploring different post-war/cold-war/modern war/future war conflicts than continually revisiting the same 70 year old war.

After working on and playing with state-of-the-art virtual weapons in CMSF for the past few years, going back to the quaint, obsolete weapons of WW2 is interesting, but does not give me the same thrill that working on CMSF 2 will.

p.s.- that does not mean, however, that I am willing to give up my post as CMN tester.

[tyrspawn]

I did not have a chance to experience CMSF 1.0 but I can say that 1.21 is one of the finest strategy games ever made, and is alone in its class (no other realistic modern RTS, the closest is ARMA II + ACE 2 played in a tactical fashion with good teamwork and a commander etc)

I am also very excited about Normandy or alternative game settings!

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt. Joch,

A very important point which is often forgotten by the "WW2-only or die" crowd. Many dedicated, hard core wargamers are more interested in exploring different post-war/cold-war/modern war/future war conflicts than continually revisiting the same 70 year old war.

And of course there are few who are really "WW2-only or die" types. Most have very specific interests within WW2. There are many who refused to purchase CMBB because it didn't have US forces in it. There are lots who didn't buy CMAK because they have no interest in desert warfare. Etc.

Tyrspawn,

I did not have a chance to experience CMSF 1.0 but I can say that 1.21 is one of the finest strategy games ever made, and is alone in its class (no other realistic modern RTS, the closest is ARMA II + ACE 2 played in a tactical fashion with good teamwork and a commander etc)

Thanks! And it is important to note that CM:SF is "alone in its class". It can be argued that CM itself is all on its own, though there are definitely more WW2 games out there that have some overlap with CM. But really, CM has always stood out as different and that continues on. Which is unfortunately, really, since competition is good for everybody.

Steve

[souldierz]

Regardless of your likes and dislikes about what kind of warfare game you want to play,I suspect BFC's fan base will only grow bigger from here and not smaller.Every title they put out now has got my attention no matter what era or forces they choose.I'm very pleased with how the game is and when it comes to dedicating my time to computer games, I'm very fussy on what I play.I'd rather play 1 game I really enjoy, then 5 games I think are so-so.I like my games how I like my Woman,Quality not Quantity.

The only thing i see that comes close to BFCs CMSF(and I'm not a big gamer) is the old close combat series or the World in Conflict game.I liked Close Combat, but found it never really kept my interest and as for World in Conflict, I found it to be very arcadish.If CMSF could look like World in Conflict and maintain its play style while giving the mission makers triggers for the editor(I'm not big in the editing field either), I think BFC would need to upgrade its gold crown it has on this genre and update it to platinum with diamonds all around.This game in my opinion is by far one of the best realistic tactical games out there.It's not realistically perfect and we all know that, but If you know of anything that's similar or tactically better please tell me because I am really getting sucked into these kinds of war games thanks to BFC.:)They are excellent battle puzzles to wrap your head around.

[costard]

I did not have a chance to experience CMSF 1.0 but I can say that 1.21 is one of the finest strategy games ever made, and is alone in its class (no other realistic modern RTS, the closest is ARMA II + ACE 2 played in a tactical fashion with good teamwork and a commander etc)

I am also very excited about Normandy or alternative game settings!

And from Steve

Thanks! And it is important to note that CM:SF is "alone in its class". It can be argued that CM itself is all on its own, though there are definitely more WW2 games out there that have some overlap with CM. But really, CM has always stood out as different and that continues on. Which is unfortunately, really, since competition is good for everybody.

This is the whole of it I think - sure we've played WWII a lot, but CM is the only engine that gives us the complexity of command (modelling of communication theory in "raw" initial state, degradation and reach of C2), ballistics pathing, accurate and scaled representation of many different weapons systems, etc, etc) we want. So revisiting WWII won't be a problem for me.

I think the problem with BF having worthy competition is the fact that they've set the bar so gaddam high.