PC Gamer review

[The_Capt]

Still don't want to call you fanMAN...unless of course you want to wear some silly tights and talk funny.

You sir, have clearly never seen me on a Friday Night!! We love tights a la Dutch rock video. I am from Canada so from a lot of perspectives I have the "talk funny" criteria covered.

[Ranger33]

I will put up with the UI and less than stellar graphics. That is really a give-in in most hardcore wargames. But I find the scenario editor to be a thing of beauty. In fact, I can't think of a slicker one. Can you?

Not a wargame but it's in the ballpark: Operation Flashpoint. Well, you couldn't change the map easily, but you could create pretty much any mission imaginable. Mix in virtually unlimited mods and a few scripts and the sky was the limit. It was also really easy to use.

Intentional attempt to derail the thread from it's current silliness

[sburke]

You sir, have clearly never seen me on a Friday Night!! We love tights a la Dutch rock video. I am from Canada so from a lot of perspectives I have the "talk funny" criteria covered.

Okay Fan Man it is. We'll have to talk to DC comics about a series and then an eventual movie deal.

Would ask one thing though, please no more links to game squad. A few minutes over there and I understood your reaction better. I was also pissed at you for including it and luring me into that pile of sh*t. My suggestion, don't go there no good can come of it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have to respond to this one. "Representing the company". Am I some clerk at the front of the store, the one with the fake plastic smile trying to sell? I am I suppose to swallow my pride for the $50 BFC gets when you, the consumer, lays it down on the table with the creepy smile demading I take the G-string off?

I'll pay you $50 if you promise to never wear a G-string again.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Everyone who is defending the game as it is currently is screaming at the detractors about not having sales figures. "It's all opinion! We don't know if sales are affected!" Frankly, that doesn't matter. Steve has already said point-blank that he (and I believe he speaks for the rest of the company) is very happy with the sales figures for CMBN. So, we KNOW that BFC thinks the sales are just fine. Or, at least, good enough for them.

But here's what else we know: Lots of us really despise the UI and think it needs more than a little polishing. Added to that, we have a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting that other people who aren't on this forum feel the same way. Sales might be better (and those of us who are bitching would be a lot happier) if the UI wasn't so clunky and unrefined.

Case in point: As I said earlier, I personally know exactly two people who purchased CMBN. If I include myself, I know of three copies sold. ALL three of those copies were sold to people who had already played CMBO/CMBB and who pre-ordered CMBN before it even came out (worth noting: none of us played CMSF, though we tried the demo just before CMBN was released, after we had pre-ordered). So, three sales to people I personally know in the real world (including myself). I've introduced the game to multiple other people. Both of the guys I know who play have introduced it to other people. These other people are generally 30+ years old, WWII and/or history aficionados, and people who like strategy games. How many sales has that resulted in? Exactly ZERO. NONE of the people we've tried to get to play have stuck with it past the demo. And what were the complaints given by ALL of the people we've tried to get into the game? UI, camera control, and general "can't figure this out" issues (ie: Not intuitive, no in-game tutorial, no tool tips, etc).

Now, while I don't have sales figures I definitely think that getting the exact same feedback and the exact same complaints from over half a dozen people who are this game's prime target does say something. I think that something is that the UI really, really needs to be addressed if it's going to appeal to most people outside of this forum (even people who realistically should be head over heels about a game like this).

[LJFHutch]

As far as I'm concerned the UI could use improvement but it's not a huge issue, it works. I'd like to see the clunky camera controls fixed though, that can get irritating sometimes.

I think to try to cater to a larger audience might be a mistake though, refine sure, but you would have to make some pretty major changes to make the game appeal to a starcraft player, unless of course they're interested in what CMBN is in the first place, but then the only thing that could be stopping them from playing is not knowing about it or maybe they're put off by the interface.

Then again, I would think that if you're interested in Combat Mission the interface/graphics/sound would be highly unlikely to put you off. That's like saying that getting dirty and doing exercise might put off potential recruits for the army

[user38]

The problem is that a 73 is barely a "C", barely a passing grade no matter what the mag claims. I would expect a game with a score of 73 to be worth a single play if I could get the game for free.

The real question should be how good is the gameplay. 73 says that the gameplay is barely adaquate. At least that is what 73 should mean, what I would expect. Reading the review it looks like flash and dazzle were worth at 15 to 20 points. He said he was on the edge of his seat playing the game. Edge of the seat games I would say would be 90 to 95.

In the end the trouble was the rating number, I rarely even read a review below 80 unless it is a game I am really excited by.

I have been reading this thread and wondering why everyone considers 73% to be such a bad score. Every PC Gamer magazine publishes an explanation of its scoring system. For those who are interested:

Where ever possible we finish each game before finalising the review. We review each game on its own merits and match it to a reviewer who's a passionate expert in the field...

61-75% Fair

A decent effort that, but for a little more polish coulda been a contender.

75-90% Good

Enjoyable, well-made and entertaining - just falling short of true greatness.

I haven't read the review yet (it will be another 6 weeks until the December issue of PC Gamer reaches Australia) but in the context of the PC Gamer scoring system 73% is a pretty good score. It is on the cusp of Fair and Good, and even the rabid CMBfN fanboys would admit the game needs more polish.

As far as criticism of the reviewer not understanding the genre, I refer to an earlier post in this thread:

Seeing the attacks on the reviewer, it's clear some folks don't know Rob Zacny's background.

Rob hosts the "Three Moves Ahead" podcast, a show dedicated specifically to wargaming and strategy. He's one of the more thoughtful and articulate reviewers out there ATM. He's quite familiar with wargaming and strategy of all kinds, and although not necessarily a hardcore wargamer like Bruce Geryk, knows the genre and praises intellectually rich and challenging games. He's far from a "twitch gamer" or a "graphics whore"...

I have listened to Zacny's podcast on Combat Missions: Three Moves Ahead Episode 129 – The Combat Missions. From this podcast alone it is clear Zachny has a wide experience and interest in the wargame genre, which includes extensive experience with the Combat Missions series of games.

Game reviews are opinions, and they are necessarily the opinions of the reviewer. If we assume Zacny followed the PC Gamer review methodology his review represents a fair assessment of his experience with the game. Aparently he didn't consider it was a bad game, just not great.

[Holien]

Now, while I don't have sales figures I definitely think that getting the exact same feedback and the exact same complaints from over half a dozen people who are this game's prime target does say something. I think that something is that the UI really, really needs to be addressed if it's going to appeal to most people outside of this forum (even people who realistically should be head over heels about a game like this).

Not really going to get too involved in the thread other than to add to ClarkWGriswold points.

I was out last night talking with a former CM player who kept playing it beyond me and has not yet been able to get to terms with the new game and has not bought based upon the demo experience. It could be that he has not invested the time in it yet and said he would try again and I will check on his exact feedback later on Saturday when I see him again.

Also I have got 3 hardcore Table Top Gamers introduced to the game from my local TT club (computer savy, and with great computer game interests) and again no buys as of yet that I know about... Again I will check with them on Monday night to find out why.

I have a feeling that it is down to the UI and even one of my current opponents keeps on about lack of feed back and not knowing what is going on. For me I find it strange as I get it and by following the forum here I have learnt more to understand why...

Average players won't follow the forum as closely and will be put off... The UI thread is great and getting the UI right will make a great difference to the whole fan base and hence income to be able to generate new modules and games.

So I think Mr Griswold is right players are being put off and anything that can be done to make the game easier to play (without compromising the real world emphasis / model) would be good. Of course that is far easier said than done.

I think it would help BTS if we could provide constructive examples of what is turning players off and I will seek to get that info from the group I know I have tried to get back into the game....

[Thomm]

Am I blind or does the CM:BN manual not even mention the space bar command menu in the "Keyboard & Mouse Control" section?!?! (it gets mentioned in the tutorial section, page 19)?!?

Best regards,

Thomm

[George MC]

I've found that focusing on the tactical plan and small unit tactics rather than hit or bogging chances plus keeping an eye on my platoons rather than getting involved with individuals means I'm not as concerned about the 'detail' i.e. who is KOd in a section etc.

By 'zooming' out in this way I enjoy the game and find that it is very immersive. In effect I tend to operate as the combat group/kampfgruppe commander only occasionally getting involved in the minutia. My advice would be players adapt their play style and rather than trying to play the game engine play the game. Get it?

[The_Capt]

I have been reading this thread and wondering why everyone considers 73% to be such a bad score. Every PC Gamer magazine publishes an explanation of its scoring system. For those who are interested:

I haven't read the review yet (it will be another 6 weeks until the December issue of PC Gamer reaches Australia) but in the context of the PC Gamer scoring system 73% is a pretty good score. It is on the cusp of Fair and Good, and even the rabid CMBfN fanboys would admit the game needs more polish.

As far as criticism of the reviewer not understanding the genre, I refer to an earlier post in this thread:

I have listened to Zacny's podcast on Combat Missions: Three Moves Ahead Episode 129 – The Combat Missions. From this podcast alone it is clear Zachny has a wide experience and interest in the wargame genre, which includes extensive experience with the Combat Missions series of games.

Game reviews are opinions, and they are necessarily the opinions of the reviewer. If we assume Zacny followed the PC Gamer review methodology his review represents a fair assessment of his experience with the game. Aparently he didn't consider it was a bad game, just not great.

Back to the original discussion...very good idea. I have no doubt the reviewer is a solid guy with a good background and you are correct 73% is not the end of the world and acutally represents a solid "Good" score not a shattered wreck in any one area.

My point is that PC Gamer is aiming at a mainstream audience, who for a large part will have similar (or should if the reviewer knows his audience) viewpoints.

What should be kept in mind however is that that for the core market of the game the viewpoint changes. The UI needs improvement, no argument. Is it totally unworkable, not at all. The rest of the game as a whole would probably score in the 80-90% range with the targeted market as their priorities and context is different. This is the market that BFC is aiming at and if they can widen it all the better.

It amazes me when some people stand back and say "well they obviously should have done this or that." "Why did't they just fix this?" Like there is some sort of conspiracy.

By that logic they are essentially accusing BFC of 1) Being lazy or 2) Being greedy and pushing an inferior product out the door for quick cash or 3) Being poor at their job.

Well Point 1 is simply not true for anyone who has spent anytime working with the company. I have had emails from the crew asking questions time-stamped at 2am. I am not sure they ever actually sleep.

Point 2 also doesn't hold water as they delay releases as many times as they have to in order to get the game as right as they can. If they wanted the quick buck they could do it with a whole lot less work.

Point 3 is also incorrect as they have managed to stay in business (despite the predictions of many) for over a decade and keep putting out solid products. They also have shown no hint of slowing down.

For those with UI gripes, ok we got it...we really do. Believe it or not Beta Testers don't all sit around and go "meh" when someone brings up an issue, usually it means someone running a battery of tests to isolate and repeat the issue. For something like UI, we have all put our issues forward and the guys will get to them in priority as no one wants a better product more than BFC themselves.

For those who simply dislike the company based on something other than the games (and you know who you are) plse go back to whatever dark corner of the internet from whence you came.

[Wodin]

If it's any help to newer members why it's broke out on here between The capt and redwolf...There is a certain forum that I checked out a couple of times and decided to stay well away from, due to the open hostility towards CMBN even before it actually came out. I scaned the threads when I started playing and enoying CMSF and was looking forward to CMBN and after a quick scan of the threads at that forum I could see they seethed with bitterness and hate towards BF.

This is was obvious to me and I,at the time, never knew about the fallout of the community once CMSF was released.

Finally whats so hard to understand about the UI? Apart from the 3D control being abit to fast. I don't start it up and go oh god it's so complicated and the UI makes it even harder then promptly close it down. I really don't get it. The only time I find a UI really difficult is if there are coutnless options and pages and rules etc etc which then all add up if the UI requires you to be jumping all over the place.

[Frankster65]

Finally whats so hard to understand about the UI? I don't start it up and go oh god it's so complicated and the UI makes it even harder then promptly close it down. I really don't get it.

You are not the only one. I have never had a problem with the UI. Is this primarily an issue with those that play real time? Is that what we are talking about here? Because I don't see any problem what-so-ever. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with the UI...according to some.

[Erwin]

The UI is not hard per se, it is inefficient re providing the player with the info (s)he needs (heh) to play well. Because of the increased complexity of CM2 over CM1 I find that it takes significantly longer to play a CM2 turn.

The lengthier time to play a turn is partly because it is harder to get the info one needs from CM2 without many more clicks (unless you have an eidetic memory I suppose). This is especially true of the larger scenarios and campaigns.

Eg: Someone suggested that CM2 needs different icons for engineers etc. That sort of thing would be very helpful as it's easy to lose em amidst the infantry in (say) the LA HAYE scenario of the COURAGE AND FORTITUDE campaign.

[A Canadian Cat]

You are not the only one. I have never had a problem with the UI. Is this primarily an issue with those that play real time?<snip>

I kind of forgot about RT play actually. That might explain a few things since I don't play that way. So, many of us would not be experiencing those problems.

[Thomm]

I kind of forgot about RT play actually.

I play RT exclusively and do have zero problems with the UI.

I would, however, never ever play the game using the default controls, i.e., without my modified (CMx1 compatible) hotkeys.txt file.

That, of course, is a warning sign, and reinforces the criticism that has been brought forward in this thread.

Best regards,

Thomm

[noxnoctum]

Ya I can imagine someone giving up pretty quick if they're using the terrible tab system for their hotkeys. Ugh! I could see that detracting some serious points.

I on the other hand have every single (important) command hotkeyed to a unique key. I just used space bar to issue commands till I had them all memorized.

[BletchleyGeek]

I have no doubt the reviewer is a solid guy with a good background and you are correct 73% is not the end of the world and acutally represents a solid "Good" score not a shattered wreck in any one area.

Cool. The point I made yesterday, before several pages of flames and rage. You could have saved yourself a lot of bile saying this right after my post rather than going postal.

My point is that PC Gamer is aiming at a mainstream audience, who for a large part will have similar (or should if the reviewer knows his audience) viewpoints.

Usually reviews appear under categories, in this case I guess it would be Simulation & Wargames. How many FPSers do usually browse that with the same attention as the FPS section? If you buy the New York Times, how much attention do you pay to the International section compared with the attention you pay to the Arts & Crafts section?

What should be kept in mind however is that that for the core market of the game the viewpoint changes. The UI needs improvement, no argument. Is it totally unworkable, not at all. The rest of the game as a whole would probably score in the 80-90% range with the targeted market as their priorities and context is different. This is the market that BFC is aiming at and if they can widen it all the better.

It amazes me when some people stand back and say "well they obviously should have done this or that." "Why did't they just fix this?" Like there is some sort of conspiracy.

By that logic they are essentially accusing BFC of 1) Being lazy or 2) Being greedy and pushing an inferior product out the door for quick cash or 3) Being poor at their job.

That's because of certain Betas going postal at criticism made at the game unless the guy criticizing makes a extremely polite request while on his knees, starting and ending their posts with an accolade of the game, and ending all his answers with a respectful and most adequate "Sir", or simply with, "Yes Sir".

For those who simply dislike the company based on something other than the games (and you know who you are) plse go back to whatever dark corner of the internet from whence you came.

I don't dislike Steve, Charles nor their work. But I dislike this attitude of some "Beta" people who write and sound like characters from the German movie "The Wave". What's wrong with you guys?

Re CM:BN having been released under a different business model. I'm not criticizing BF's business model. I think it's clever and a sane way of handling their business. For niche things like CM:BN - and they will be "niche" no matter how much watered down is pretended to be the game by glossing over all the grog details which are actually in it - it's this model or a subscription based model.

Now, consider a big wig MMORPG such as Eve On Line. Do you know how were the ratings for it back in 2003? Care to compare with the ratings 5 years later? Here with CM:BN and CM:SF we've a similar situation. The game you buy isn't finished - it's work in progress.

[sburke]

Cool. The point I made yesterday, before several pages of flames and rage. You could have saved yourself a lot of bile saying this right after my post rather than going postal.

Usually reviews appear under categories, in this case I guess it would be Simulation & Wargames. How many FPSers do usually browse that with the same attention as the FPS section? If you buy the New York Times, how much attention do you pay to the International section compared with the attention you pay to the Arts & Crafts section?

That's because of certain Betas going postal at criticism made at the game unless the guy criticizing makes a extremely polite request while on his knees, starting and ending their posts with an accolade of the game, and ending all his answers with a respectful and most adequate "Sir", or simply with, "Yes Sir".

I don't dislike Steve, Charles nor their work. But I dislike this attitude of some "Beta" people who write and sound like characters from the German movie "The Wave". What's wrong with you guys?

or a subscription based model.

Now, consider a big wig MMORPG such as Eve On Line. Do you know how were the ratings for it back in 2003? Care to compare with the ratings 5 years later? Here with CM:BN and CM:SF we've a similar situation. The game you buy isn't finished - it's work in progress.

Maybe the issue isn't that they are beta testers, but rather guys who have worked long and hard on this game listening to the bile being spewed out by folks over 10 years and are just plain sick of it. I took a look at the link the Capt provided and I'll be frank, if I had to deal with that over 10 years, I'd respond the same way he did. The way Phil gets keel hauled over there and the pompous bulls**t nonsense that is excused over there as discussion isn't somehow not part of the public domain that people can't be called on.

I initially criticized the Capt as well for his response, but in retrospect after some of the threads I looked at over there I withdrawal that. These things aren't said in a vacumn, you don't get to sit over at game squad and behave like an asinine jerk and then come over here and act like an asinine jerk and not get called on it. Sometimes the schoolyard bully needs a good a** kicking to learn the rules of getting along with the rest of the kids. In that sense I think the Capt was right on the money and I apologize to him for equating the two several posts ago. I was wrong. Redwolf's ranting behavior and constant sniping at Phil because Phil has not bowed to his august wisdom and knowledge was consistent with his slam at those of us who don't agree with him on the UI. He wants to continue that level of discourse, then that is how it is going to be responded to.

It isn't the content, it is the behavior. GAJ as well raises issues relative to the UI, but seems to have no difficulty doing so in a calm rational manner. While I may not agree with his concerns, I respect him for the passion he brings to the game and the desire to make it as universally user friendly as possible.

[The_Capt]

Cool. The point I made yesterday, before several pages of flames and rage. You could have saved yourself a lot of bile saying this right after my post rather than going postal.

That's because of certain Betas going postal at criticism made at the game unless the guy criticizing makes a extremely polite request while on his knees, starting and ending their posts with an accolade of the game, and ending all his answers with a respectful and most adequate "Sir", or simply with, "Yes Sir".

Huh? Come again?

My first post was a simple opinion on the context of the review in contrast to the developer and its intended market:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100795&page=4

No flames there, nor calls for burning of the reviewer or people who agree with him. Then Mr Griswold jumps in with some stuff on the UI and state of BFC's production values that I personally think is 1) over the top 2) unmerited and 3) argued from a position of ignorance. No problem in telling him so.

Things get heated from there, particularly when certain individuals start jumping in because they smell blood and will take any chance to jump in on a BFC-bashing.

But you do raise a good question; "how to offer up criticism and or suggestions?" Let me see if I can help.

Step #1. If you are jumping into a conversation or thread on an issue read the entire thread. This avoids mis-communication in what is a medium with inherent communication shortcoming.

Step #2. Make sure what you are seeing is really what you are seeing. A lot of times there can be solid reasons why you are seeing a behaviour and anything you can do see if this is the case makes everyones life a lot easier.

Step #3. Give as much detail as you can. For in-game oddities use screenshots etc. For general quality issues or changes try and really narrow it down. "I don't like it" is not very helpful.

Step #4. Avoid if at all possible hyperbole and repetition. I cannot stress this one enough. Your particular observation/issue may very well be valid but couching between "Worst {insert here} ever!!" or any other type of broad statements does little to really motivate the guys in the back or the Betas.

Step #5. Recognize that none of what BFC does is 'simple' and be patient. This game engine has grown a lot over the last few years and has tremendous potential. Give the little guy a chance.

I have said this before. If you walked into a bar that brewed its own beer and told the owner/operator "This stuff taste like camel-piss, why haven't you gotten it right by now..it is so simple!!" See what happens. Somehow because this is the internet some people figure it should work differently.

[BletchleyGeek]

Maybe the issue isn't that they are beta testers, but rather guys who have worked long and hard on this game listening to the bile being spewed out by folks over 10 years and are just plain sick of it. I took a look at the link the Capt provided and I'll be frank, if I had to deal with that over 10 years, I'd respond the same way he did. The way Phil gets keel hauled over there and the pompous bulls**t nonsense that is excused over there as discussion isn't somehow not part of the public domain that people can't be called on.

I said "some" beta testers. Others always keep it polite and request for more data. Obnoxious people are supposed to be dealt with by moderation, not other forum regulars.

If I had to deal with that for 10 years either I would have an ignore list with several thousand entries, developed a skin thick as that of a turtle caparace or just took a long long break from it.

I can understand that. I've seen that on Harpoon forums at Matrix Games (with Darren Buckley, RIP, going ballistic on that obnoxious and pompous Herman guy). But then came moderation to, as the name implies, moderate.

I initially criticized the Capt as well for his response, but in retrospect after some of the threads I looked at over there I withdrawal that. These things aren't said in a vacumn, you don't get to sit over at game squad and behave like an asinine jerk and then come over here and act like an asinine jerk and not get called on it. Sometimes the schoolyard bully needs a good a** kicking to learn the rules of getting along with the rest of the kids. In that sense I think the Capt was right on the money and I apologize to him for equating the two several posts ago. I was wrong.

Capt went precisely postal with Clark, who has perhaps covered all the bases with respect to making a feature request. He also drove the discussion from reviews of videogames and CM:BN in particular to that User Interface issues.

Redwolf's ranting behavior and constant sniping at Phil because Phil has not bowed to his august wisdom and knowledge was consistent with his slam at those of us who don't agree with him on the UI. He wants to continue that level of discourse, then that is how it is going to be responded to.

I can't really comment on that, but I think it was more like Redwolf trying to get an answer from a deaf person, and that deaf person going Full Aggro On because, even not getting what the other guy was saying, guessed he was being insulted. On the comical side, it reminded me of the Toy Doll's short piece "Florence".

Misunderstanding over the Internet is common, but very few people around here come to ever say "Hey, sorry, I got that wrong". And we're all friends.

It isn't the content, it is the behavior. GAJ as well raises issues relative to the UI, but seems to have no difficulty doing so in a calm rational manner. While I may not agree with his concerns, I respect him for the passion he brings to the game and the desire to make it as universally user friendly as possible.

Clark did. And he got attacked. And the thread derailed for four pages.

[BletchleyGeek]

Huh? Come again?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100795&page=4

Good point, it was the second post.

No flames there, nor calls for burning of the reviewer or people who agree with him. Then Mr Griswold jumps in with some stuff on the UI and state of BFC's production values that I personally think is 1) over the top 2) unmerited and 3) argued from a position of ignorance. No problem in telling him so.

Things get heated from there, particularly when certain individuals start jumping in because they smell blood and will take any chance to jump in on a BFC-bashing.

But you do raise a good question; "how to offer up criticism and or suggestions?" Let me see if I can help.

Step #1. If you are jumping into a conversation or thread on an issue read the entire thread. This avoids mis-communication in what is a medium with inherent communication shortcoming.

Step #2. Make sure what you are seeing is really what you are seeing. A lot of times there can be solid reasons why you are seeing a behaviour and anything you can do see if this is the case makes everyones life a lot easier.

Step #3. Give as much detail as you can. For in-game oddities use screenshots etc. For general quality issues or changes try and really narrow it down. "I don't like it" is not very helpful.

Step #4. Avoid if at all possible hyperbole and repetition. I cannot stress this one enough. Your particular observation/issue may very well be valid but couching between "Worst {insert here} ever!!" or any other type of broad statements does little to really motivate the guys in the back or the Betas.

Step #5. Recognize that none of what BFC does is 'simple' and be patient. This game engine has grown a lot over the last few years and has tremendous potential. Give the little guy a chance.

I have said this before. If you walked into a bar that brewed its own beer and told the owner/operator "This stuff taste like camel-piss, why haven't you gotten it right by now..it is so simple!!" See what happens. Somehow because this is the internet some people figure it should work differently.

In what regard did Clark fail with any of those 5 steps in his other thread were he even posted a mock up of his feature request. Because, we all need to read everyone's else posts, every day, don't we?

Wait, don't answer. I don't care. You just got my first entry on my Ignore List.

[The_Capt]

Good point, it was the second post.

In what regard did Clark fail with any of those 5 steps

Wait, don't answer. I don't care. You just got my first entry on my Ignore List.

Well that is too bad but I will answer anyway because this is a 'forum' after all. Clarks sin was on Steps 4 and 5. Statements like "poor craftsmenship" and "Worst UI I have seen in a long time" really don't help and suggest some downright nasty things about BFC even couched by positives. Then outlining how this was all initial design errors that could have easily been avoided just adds to things.

As to 'postal', now that hurts...really. I thought I had some pretty pithy stuff going on there delivered in a slick style. C'mon the "same as a guy building a deck" didn't hit at any level? I think I am losing my touch...damn.

BTW the only person I was really going postal on was on Mr Redwolf who is a known entity from another dimension. I don't hang around the Public forum much anymore but if I do happen see any of that crew swing by for a quick hit based on absolute nonsense...well plug you ears.

Either way it would appear that we are not going to be friends which is unfortunate. Odd thing about the Internet, kind of like driving. I bet if we all met in person we would get along great but put us behind the wheel or a keyboard and we somehow become other people entirely.

[Frankster65]

These things aren't said in a vacumn, you don't get to sit over at game squad and behave like an asinine jerk and then come over here and act like an asinine jerk and not get called on it. Sometimes the schoolyard bully needs a good a** kicking to learn the rules of getting along with the rest of the kids. In that sense I think the Capt was right on the money and I apologize to him for equating the two several posts ago. I was wrong. Redwolf's ranting behavior and constant sniping at Phil because Phil has not bowed to his august wisdom and knowledge was consistent with his slam at those of us who don't agree with him on the UI. He wants to continue that level of discourse, then that is how it is going to be responded to.

It isn't the content, it is the behavior. GAJ as well raises issues relative to the UI, but seems to have no difficulty doing so in a calm rational manner. While I may not agree with his concerns, I respect him for the passion he brings to the game and the desire to make it as universally user friendly as possible.

+1...bravo sburke. Well said. The gamesquad crowd...that says it all.

[stikkypixie]

Just a question, when people talk about a poor UI, do they mean it is hard to get information or giving orders? Or do they feel there is a lack of information?