PC Gamer review

[BletchleyGeek]

So, let's see some solutions.

You just saw two. They're pretty modular, as Alchenar just said. They don't leave out anything that can already be done with the UI (as far as I can see). Since the precise definition of "newb" doesn't seem to be relevant or important, then we can just forget about "newbs", can't we?

Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but it appeared to me you were just handwaving them. If you weren't interested in derailing the discussion, then here you have my apologies.

[c3k]

You just saw two. They're pretty modular, as Alchenar just said. They don't leave out anything that can already be done with the UI (as far as I can see). Since the precise definition of "newb" doesn't seem to be relevant or important, then we can just forget about "newbs", can't we?

Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but it appeared to me you were just handwaving them. If you weren't interested in derailing the discussion, then here you have my apologies.

Apology accepted. What, by the way, is meant by "just handwaving them"? It's a term I'm unfamiliar with.

Regarding the two ideas, one is mostly a command and control tree, the other a tweak of how the UI is presented. ("Tweak" may be an understatement: "revamping" could be more accurate.)

Looking here, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100750 the additional menu on the left side takes up a lot of real estate. In exchange, we see command/control relationships and a clear OOB. This makes it easier to find your units and see what their status is.

It in no way improves the player's interaction with commanding the units.

The UI revamp, here, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98491 cleans up the UI. It drops, perhaps, one button push with the tab clean up. (Those who use hotkeys would see no gain.) It retains the UI, but in an improved format.

The combination of space-bar and assignable hot-keys gives a LOT of flexibility to players. Hot-keys need a proficient player. I am a casual gamer. All the games I have that rely on arcane hot-key combinations soon gather dust. I am unwilling to put the investment into memorizing and staying proficient with hot-keys.

I would like to see a mouse-centric control scheme which spells out your choices so memorization is not needed.

[Alchenar]

It in no way improves the player's interaction with commanding the units.

Well this is completely untrue. The way you interact with your units is entirely dependent upon how and when the game presents information about them, and is a fundamental part of UI design. Right now the game requires you to interact with units in order to receive critical information about them. The proposed change almost completely removes the need to do that in the majority of cases. That's the critical difference and improvement.

The combination of space-bar and assignable hot-keys gives a LOT of flexibility to players. Hot-keys need a proficient player. I am a casual gamer. All the games I have that rely on arcane hot-key combinations soon gather dust. I am unwilling to put the investment into memorizing and staying proficient with hot-keys.

I would like to see a mouse-centric control scheme which spells out your choices so memorization is not needed.

Firstly, I think I need to to at least concede that you're position is probably an outlier and that most people find hotkeys extremely useful. The problem with CM is that a) the hotkeys are not intuitive and so require memorisation (you'll notice in the mockup that as far as possible keys are assigned to the first letter of the order, and where not possible - eg. with 'cover arc' the designer chose 'v' - the key that looks like an arc; and hotkeys change depending on what (terrible) command tab is selected.

The problem here is not with hotkeys per se, but with the fact that hotkeys are implemented in CM:N in a way that completely negates their theoretical advantages.

[BletchleyGeek]

Apology accepted. What, by the way, is meant by "just handwaving them"? It's a term I'm unfamiliar with.

Good question. I'm so used to it that I had to look it up on urbandictionary:

In formal conversation / speech omitting important details about the subject matter either because 1) the audience is perceived to be ignorant 2) the speaker themselves is not well-informed on the subject matter or 3) a little from 1) and a little from 2).

The math professor only gave a partial description of the proof as she used hand waving to get through the most difficult part and told the students to study the remained of the proof at home.

It's most commonly used on academic circles.

[BletchleyGeek]

I would like to see a mouse-centric control scheme which spells out your choices so memorization is not needed.

"Right-click on units = invoking the orders menu you get with the Spacebar" is indeed an step in that direction.

I've seen lot of fancy mouse-centric control schemes. Some of them are neat, other are - literally - a pain. Do you mean the kind of "wheel menu" that seems to be favored in some RPGs? Something like pressing mouse right button, a circular menu appears, you need to keep the right button pressed while you hover through selections?

[Alchenar]

"Right-click on units = invoking the orders menu you get with the Spacebar" is indeed an step in that direction.

I've seen lot of fancy mouse-centric control schemes. Some of them are neat, other are - literally - a pain. Do you mean the kind of "wheel menu" that seems to be favored in some RPGs? Something like pressing mouse right button, a circular menu appears, you need to keep the right button pressed while you hover through selections?

Ever played SWAT 4? Nobody's ever done it better than that.

[BletchleyGeek]

Ever played SWAT 4? Nobody's ever done it better than that.

Nope. It's been on my GOG wishlist for months, so "soon".

[DaveDash]

I don't bother with mainstream game reviews. If I did, there would be tons of great games I would have missed out on.

Meanwhile buggy, unplayable, and/or utterly boring games like Total War (newer titles), Civ5, etc all score in the high 80s, low 90s.

[sburke]

Firstly, I think I need to to at least concede that you're position is probably an outlier and that most people find hotkeys extremely useful. The problem with CM is that a) the hotkeys are not intuitive and so require memorisation (you'll notice in the mockup that as far as possible keys are assigned to the first letter of the order, and where not possible - eg. with 'cover arc' the designer chose 'v' - the key that looks like an arc; and hotkeys change depending on what (terrible) command tab is selected.

The problem here is not with hotkeys per se, but with the fact that hotkeys are implemented in CM:N in a way that completely negates their theoretical advantages.

Define most. I keep seeing these statements that the UI makes the game "unplayable" drives people away, is horrible for newbs etc etc

I was asked earlier if I would have designed the UI this way. Honestly I can't say I would, not because of issues with the UI, but simply I am not a programmer and if left to my own devices, I would (though you might think this is not possible) come up with something far worse.

But in answer to all the broad statements it would be helpful to get some actual data. There are some things that might help here. The only data source I could come up with is the actual repository. I figured hey if we want to know how many people are even interested in changing ANYTHING in the game, that might be a good place to look. The HIGHEST download in there is about 1700. I am pretty certain BFC would have gone under if they only sold 1700 games. So the number of people who have purchased the game and shown any evidence of wanting to alter the game is a hopefully small subset. I have downloaded most everything and only actually used some of it. I have not done any of the icon or UI mods. I deliberately didn't look a GAJ's site (sorry GAJ) as I figured that might skew the perception. Folks unfamiliar with CM wouldn't yet be familiar I would think with alternative sites.

Now don't get me wrong I think some of the suggestions are fairly interesting and may be nice, but I don't by any stretch feel it is horribly mangled or reflecting some disconnect from a new user experience. I for one don't even bother with the hotkeys or space bar and actually do use the tabs. I expect an RTS player would be far more interested in the hot keys, but I could be miles off on that supposition.

[Guest]

In game reviews the potential market is a factor in the score. Good narrow-niche games get lower scores than more populist (or even sequels in proven popular series) games at the same quality level. It's not a knock against the niche games, it's simply saying "Average Reader, you may not enjoy this as much as an aficionado." Unfortunately the Metacritic-centric culture of aggregated scores obfuscates this particular nuance.

WRT the UI discussion - absolutely, CM's UI is something that can and should be improved. I know Steve has spoken to BFC's intentions for the UI previously - we're definitely not sitting back smoking Cuban cigars and laughing about how people hate the UI.

I really liked TOAW's UI. I found it, if not friendly, at least straightforward (apart from the bewilderingly redundant right third of the screen... why the buttons? Why?!). Coming from TANKS! and other 90's wargames, though, that's not surprising, as it built on them.

If SWAT 4 is on GOG I need to resurrect my account.

[BletchleyGeek]

But in answer to all the broad statements it would be helpful to get some actual data. There are some things that might help here. The only data source I could come up with is the actual repository. I figured hey if we want to know how many people are even interested in changing ANYTHING in the game, that might be a good place to look. The HIGHEST download in there is about 1700. I am pretty certain BFC would have gone under if they only sold 1700 games. So the number of people who have purchased the game and shown any evidence of wanting to alter the game is a hopefully small subset. I have downloaded most everything and only actually used some of it. I have not done any of the icon or UI mods. I deliberately didn't look a GAJ's site (sorry GAJ) as I figured that might skew the perception. Folks unfamiliar with CM wouldn't yet be familiar I would think with alternative sites.

Well, that mod is Veins' tracers mod. A mod released 3 days after release, and which has gone through 3 revisions already (so say that actual people downloading it were about 550). And sincerely, I don't think most of the playerbase cares much or at all about the looks of tracers at night scenarios.

That as an statistic indicator of disatisfaction with the user-interface is a non-starter.

A much better indicator would be a forum poll, where people were asked to express their opinion on a certain number of concrete questions. And that would be excluding those not caring about forums or the non-English speaking CM community (which is not small).

[BletchleyGeek]

WRT the UI discussion - absolutely, CM's UI is something that can and should be improved. I know Steve has spoken to BFC's intentions for the UI previously - we're definitely not sitting back smoking Cuban cigars and laughing about how people hate the UI.

I think I'm not alone in considering that it would be greatly appreciated that you kept peeps on the loop (GaJ just suggested a Dev Diary, I understand the reluctance to commit to that on a regular basis, but well, you could take turns guys ).

I really liked TOAW's UI. I found it, if not friendly, at least straightforward (apart from the bewilderingly redundant right third of the screen... why the buttons? Why?!). Coming from TANKS! and other 90's wargames, though, that's not surprising, as it built on them.

I see you're old school Phil Younger people not used to Koger's classic games (or Grigsby's classic games) mileage might vary wildly.

If SWAT 4 is on GOG I need to resurrect my account.

My bad. Just checked my wishlist there and they have SWAT 3, not SWAT 4

[BletchleyGeek]

I have no problems with the UI for TAOW and can quite happily play a multi-division game quickly (playing Kursk at the moment). The trouble I have is with the actual game engine extrapolating individual weapons performances to determine said divisional combat.

One of the inconvenient truths about TOAW is that the engine doesn't work equally well at all the possible combination of unit/time/space scales. Opinions on the "optimal" scale for TOAW are as varied as colors in a 32-bit palette. Mine is that it works best at the company/bn level, on day or half day turns, 2 to 5 km per hex.

A whole Kursk engagement - northern and southern pincers - played at that scale would be a "monster". Actually John Tiller's Panzer Campaigns Kursk'43 has something like that. It took me something like two months to play over half of the 12th July Prokhorovka battle. I had to keep notes and an operational situation map to keep track of who was supposed to get where and why.

EDIT: That playing hotseat. The AI there is a joke, and in places like the blitz there's very little people interested in playing such scenarios anyways.

[sburke]

Well, that mod is Veins' tracers mod. A mod released 3 days after release, and which has gone through 3 revisions already (so say that actual people downloading it were about 550). And sincerely, I don't think most of the playerbase cares much or at all about the looks of tracers at night scenarios.

That as an statistic indicator of disatisfaction with the user-interface is a non-starter.

A much better indicator would be a forum poll, where people were asked to express their opinion on a certain number of concrete questions. And that would be excluding those not caring about forums or the non-English speaking CM community (which is not small).

I would agree it doesn't answer the question about the UI at all, I was simply looking for any sources of factual data as opposed to opinion. And concerning that Mod, that was the highest download, if you assume people don't really care about that, they then care less about anything else as the DL figures go down from there, including the existing UI mods. As a case in point though you immediately dismiss that anyone cares, c'mon man you guys seem to have some ultra sense of what the community does and doesn't care about and throw these statements around to the point that it really starts grating on folks like myself. Who are you to speak for the larger community? I don't mean to offend, but those who don't like the UI have absolutely no more data than I do. All I have is my own opinion flawed as it is. In terms of a poll, I think regardless of the results it will only involve a small percentage of owners. Participation in the forum has always been a small percentage of those who purchase the game. I figured the repository might possibly give a larger perspective being something that doesn't require participation. As BFC has noted, their user base is predominantly folks who only play against the AI apparently and are not well represented on the forum.

I would be happy to see some basis to be able to validate or provide actual statistical data to back up folks arguments one way or the other. I don't care if I am in a minority about the UI, I am happy to concede that if it is true that it is considered unmanageable by most folks who buy it that it then should be priorotized as something that would have immediate benefit to the larger user population as well as to BFCs ability to pull in a wider audience without watering down the game.

What I do not see however is any actual basis for all these statements and frankly as the folks making the claims about how impossibly bad it is, I believe it is on the folks making those statements about it to back them up. If you want to say in your opinion it is bad, fine I can work with that. But the statements are implying they have some data source which they do not have and are making it seem it is more than just their opinion.

Where this becomes important for me is then where does BFC dedicate it's very limited resources? Do they focus on the UI to make the game functionally better for the user base (which no matter what anyone says will undoubtedly take time and effort) or do they spend that effort on adding the ability to ride on tanks, have fire, do bridges/bunkers etc better. Make no mistake about it, there will be a trade off.

As one who wants to see it expand to additonal theaters, I am perfectly happy with the UI staying as is and getting additional theaters and functional additions. IIRC the question of the UI involved some amount of discussion between Charles and Steve about priorities and where/when it would fit in. I do realize it is Steve's opinion that he really wants to work on the UI. This is one time I would differ with him. It may not be the best most optimal UI, but I do not find it particularly difficult to work with. Again I am willing to concede I am in a minority and that therefore BFC's priorities are not necessarily parallel to mine. I would just like to see that somehow validated before it is just assumed that being very vocal about not liking the UI necessarily means those folks reflect a broader community desire and then in turn affect the timeline on seeing other things which other folks in the community might rate as more important.

[Guest]

I think I'm not alone in considering that it would be greatly appreciated that you kept peeps on the loop (GaJ just suggested a Dev Diary, I understand the reluctance to commit to that on a regular basis, but well, you could take turns guys ).

Yep. Like I said I'd really like to do one - I've been thinking about it for some time. I'm just afraid I wouldn't have much to say, since my work, if it's not bug fixing, is development that's often months down the road and certainly isn't going to be talked about for quite some time. I think it's something we all could benefit from, though.

I see you're old school Phil Younger people not used to Koger's classic games (or Grigsby's classic games) mileage might vary wildly.

Agreed. I played wargames in my youth where I was calculating vectors and typing in headings for units, and had a ball. I even liked Crawford's Bulge title (loved it, really), so I'm pretty sure I'm an odd barometer for wargame UIs. Which is partly why I try to limit my contribution to UI discussions to staying current with modern titles, looking at how other games have done things, and understanding from a development standpoint how something similar could work (or not) in CM.

My bad. Just checked my wishlist there and they have SWAT 3, not SWAT 4

I just checked too! No worries, I'll just keep my eyes open for 4 elsewhere. I've been meaning to pick it up for years, literally.

[Alchenar]

*some words*.

Well given the problems of data gathering it would seem useful to look at an aggregate of review scores. Metacritic only has 4 for Normandy, but a few more for Shock Force, which is useful for our purposes because they share identical UIs and not that much has changed between them in terms of accessibility.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/combat-mission-shock-force

62% average from 15 professional reviews. And that's with a 95% outlier balancing the rather critical 45% from Gamespot.

If you look at the summaries, virtually all the the yellow (read:mixed) reviews mention either the lack of a real tutorial and the abysmal interface.

When everyone starts saying the same thing you have to accept that while you might not agree, you may not be right.

@ Phil:

Agreed. I played wargames in my youth where I was calculating vectors and typing in headings for units, and had a ball. I even liked Crawford's Bulge title (loved it, really), so I'm pretty sure I'm an odd barometer for wargame UIs

from the link I posted earlier (and have quoted already)

the games are only tested by people whose entire attitude is “As long as it is easier than pushing 600 cardboard chits around a paper map, it’s a massive improvement!, so the designers never realize the games are unplayable.

This! You are this guy, you see!

I know it's really trendy in grognard circles to sneer a bit at the mainstream as 'kiddies' games (much the way the mainstream PC audience sneers a bit at the console audience), but the main thing to remember about mainstream games is that by their nature they need to be thinking about accessibility all the time, whereas wargames developers already have their audience.

That's why in say, the Command and Conquer series you can see the UI getting more streamlined with every iteration, whereas in wargames we have a UI that's arguably gone backwards while being part of a simulation that accurately models how a shell from a Panther will impact on a particular varient of Stuart tank.

[StellarRat]

Most "real" wargames have a lot stuff the player needs to input/deal with hence UIs are always going to be messier and complex comparatively. Add the need to deal with real time and it gets even worse. Nice layered/organized UIs take more to time drill down into to get to the commands.

[Guest]

Wow, I'd have to say I'm the complete opposite of that guy, actually. My attitude is nothing like that. As I said, I recognize my own bias, which is why I'm not the invent-the-UI-for-CM guy and wouldn't pretend to try. I do try to play as many current games as time allows and learn from them - to quote myself, I try to "[stay] current with modern titles, looking at how other games have done things, and understanding from a development standpoint how something similar could work (or not) in CM." If designs come up I try to bring a gamer's perspective to the discussion.

So... no. I'm not that guy at all.

[BletchleyGeek]

c'mon man you guys seem to have some ultra sense of what the community does and doesn't care about and throw these statements around to the point that it really starts grating on folks like myself. Who are you to speak for the larger community? I don't mean to offend, but those who don't like the UI have absolutely no more data than I do.

I for one, have never felt like speaking for the "community". I don't think I've ever written "we feel that...", or "we think that...". Very much like you, I'm giving my opinion. Which is informed by having played a lot of wargames, which might or not be meaningful to everyone.

UI mods are really minor tweaks, compared to the suggestions made in those threads I linked. You took a really bad example out of the repository to base your argument.

In terms of a poll, I think regardless of the results it will only involve a small percentage of owners. Participation in the forum has always been a small percentage of those who purchase the game. I figured the repository might possibly give a larger perspective being something that doesn't require participation. As BFC has noted, their user base is predominantly folks who only play against the AI apparently and are not well represented on the forum.

That's highly debatable, but well, they could also do some mass mailing asking for feedback and take people to a webpage. Airlines do it, and BFC has more reason for doing it I think.

As one who wants to see it expand to additonal theaters, I am perfectly happy with the UI staying as is and getting additional theaters and functional additions. IIRC the question of the UI involved some amount of discussion between Charles and Steve about priorities and where/when it would fit in. I do realize it is Steve's opinion that he really wants to work on the UI. This is one time I would differ with him. It may not be the best most optimal UI, but I do not find it particularly difficult to work with. Again I am willing to concede I am in a minority and that therefore BFC's priorities are not necessarily parallel to mine. I would just like to see that somehow validated before it is just assumed that being very vocal about not liking the UI necessarily means those folks reflect a broader community desire and then in turn affect the timeline on seeing other things which other folks in the community might rate as more important.

The only ones who can really make the decision to go one way or another are Steve, Charles and Phil (and the rest of the BFC crew whose names I don't know about).

And it's not about being "vocal", but about making a case in a constructive and articulated way. I invite you to make your case as well (you just did).

[BletchleyGeek]

Agreed. I played wargames in my youth where I was calculating vectors and typing in headings for units, and had a ball. I even liked Crawford's Bulge title (loved it, really), so I'm pretty sure I'm an odd barometer for wargame UIs.

That Bulge game was REALLY good, and the weird part is that its "weirdness" got a lot of things just about right. I loved the splash screen where the devs themselves appeared dressed with in German uniforms. For those who don't know the game, it's highly recommended:

Patton Strikes Back! YARRR!

Which is partly why I try to limit my contribution to UI discussions to staying current with modern titles, looking at how other games have done things, and understanding from a development standpoint how something similar could work (or not) in CM.

Well, in the last part I'm really out of your league, since I'm not privy to the actual details.

Would you guys find useful that an effort was made to compile all suggestions regarding the UI? I'm sure that it would be feasible to round up the threads and setup a "directory" of sorts.

[sburke]

Well given the problems of data gathering it would seem useful to look at an aggregate of review scores. Metacritic only has 4 for Normandy, but a few more for Shock Force, which is useful for our purposes because they share identical UIs and not that much has changed between them in terms of accessibility.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/combat-mission-shock-force

62% average from 15 professional reviews. And that's with a 95% outlier balancing the rather critical 45% from Gamespot.

If you look at the summaries, virtually all the the yellow (read:mixed) reviews mention either the lack of a real tutorial and the abysmal interface.

When everyone starts saying the same thing you have to accept that while you might not agree, you may not be right.

"Everyone" is an excessively small pool and honestly, when do most people post? When they are unhappy. That is an unfortunate aspect of any survey process. People who are content generally don't feel the urge to comment, they have other priorities whereas people when upset tend to want to make sure someone knows they are disappointed. It doesn't say you are necessarily wrong, but it does make one want to make sure the data is reflective of what one is arguing it reflects. CMSF was a shock (no pun intended) for a lot of folks coming out and it did have a lot of issues. Given the theater and time frame for the game and the issues is it any wonder the reviews would be bad? On the other hand for BFC despite what you might see in those reviews it did quite well. Again is it simply a very vocal disaffected minority. Honestly I have no idea, but I suspect that to be the case. If it really were as bad as those reviewers say, why does the product in it's continuing additions do better?

In moving a little further and reading the CMBN user reviews we see some of our usual cast of characters trashing BFC and their direction so it is really hard to even include these for me.

However despite all those reservations I do appreciate looking further afield for information. As I said, I am willing to concede I am in the minority, I'd just like to continue this search to make sure the direction and effort we as a community reflects to the extent we can know, the desires of the larger community. I am also willing to concede that barring input from the larger community, those most active in the forum by default are going to have their wishes expressed to BFC and heard. Hey you get what you invest right? Which is why I keep harping that I would rather have the effort spent elsewhere. And in the interests of being totally honest, I have to admit to being the most vocal of the dissenters so if I become the only one objecting or even just a very very small group, then the same valuation holds true as well and that would imply you guys do represent a majority at least of those of us actively discussing.

And yes that would mean that:

This! You are this guy, you see!

LOL probably true. :-P

[Guest]

That Bulge game was REALLY good, and the weird part is that its "weirdness" got a lot of things just about right. I loved the splash screen where the devs themselves appeared dressed with in German uniforms. For those who don't know the game, it's highly recommended:

It was a lovely game - I think more so now that some of the innovations have become by comparison with modern standards less insane. It would be a prime indie title in today's market, I think. Though the Germans would probably have to be zombies, or someone's long-lost relatives or something.

I loved it to bits back when I played it, though. It caught me in a way that other games didn't - it was like someone had captured the way I thought about large operations and projected it onto a computer screen. And Chris Crawford looks uncomfortably like one of my uncles, so that B&W shot of him in a German uniform was actually rather disturbing.

Well, in the last part I'm really out of your league, since I'm not privy to the actual details.

It does help to know whether X won't work because of Y. Or whether X could be made to work if the desire were there. CM is a pretty unique game, too, in terms of what it tries to do. Which means the X's and Y's aren't always apparent, let alone obvious.

Would you guys find useful that an effort was made to compile all suggestions regarding the UI? I'm sure that it would be feasible to round up the threads and setup a "directory" of sorts.

Yes, this would be useful. I don't want to send you off on a wild goose chase, though. If it existed we might make use of it, but my guess is the really good and feasible ideas have already been cherry-picked.

[ChrisND]

This! You are this guy, you see!

I know it's really trendy in grognard circles to sneer a bit at the mainstream as 'kiddies' games (much the way the mainstream PC audience sneers a bit at the console audience), but the main thing to remember about mainstream games is that by their nature they need to be thinking about accessibility all the time, whereas wargames developers already have their audience.

Hehe... you really shouldn't try to define someone by one or two statements. You might end up with a hilariously wrong conclusion, like this one. I speak with Phil off of the board, discussing current mainstream and not mainstream games more or less constantly, and he is very, very far from being one of those 600-chit-crazies.

[Alchenar]

"Everyone" is an excessively small pool and honestly, when do most people post? When they are unhappy. That is an unfortunate aspect of any survey process. People who are content generally don't feel the urge to comment, they have other priorities whereas people when upset tend to want to make sure someone knows they are disappointed. It doesn't say you are necessarily wrong, but it does make one want to make sure the data is reflective of what one is arguing it reflects. CMSF was a shock (no pun intended) for a lot of folks coming out and it did have a lot of issues. Given the theater and time frame for the game and the issues is it any wonder the reviews would be bad? On the other hand for BFC despite what you might see in those reviews it did quite well. Again is it simply a very vocal disaffected minority. Honestly I have no idea, but I suspect that to be the case. If it really were as bad as those reviewers say, why does the product in it's continuing additions do better?

In moving a little further and reading the CMBN user reviews we see some of our usual cast of characters trashing BFC and their direction so it is really hard to even include these for me.

Slight problem with your logic; a) the vast majority of users never post anyway; and dissatisfied users don't generally vent on the forums, they just put the game away and never play it again.

I would stick by my assertion that (while this is all a matter of personal opinion and therefore fundamentally subjective), when you get a preponderance of professional reviewers from different backgrounds all agreeing that the UI is difficult to use and poorly designed then that's as close as you will ever get to objective evidence.

e: ps. sorry Phil.

e2: also that last paragraph about grognard sneering wasn't about you but more generally - it's happened earlier in the thread

[ClarkWGriswold]

What I do not see however is any actual basis for all these statements and frankly as the folks making the claims about how impossibly bad it is, I believe it is on the folks making those statements about it to back them up. If you want to say in your opinion it is bad, fine I can work with that. But the statements are implying they have some data source which they do not have and are making it seem it is more than just their opinion.

And what would you have us provide in order to meet this criteria? Many people have already given their own personal opinions (at first blush, the "it's horrible" group seems to outnumber the "it's fine" group). Other people (including me) have offered up anecdotal evidence that people we've introduced to the game think the UI is horrible. Then we have reviews from gaming sites, most of which complain about the UI. At some point you have to admit that despite scientific analysis, perhaps there is something to what we're saying and that maybe your opinion is actually the minority.

On the other hand for BFC despite what you might see in those reviews it did quite well. Again is it simply a very vocal disaffected minority. Honestly I have no idea, but I suspect that to be the case. If it really were as bad as those reviewers say, why does the product in it's continuing additions do better?

How do you define "quite well"? Did it sell better than CMSF? Yup. Steve has said as much. Did it sell as many copies as Modern Warfare 2? Nope. There's a big middle ground in-between and we're talking about a niche product, so that makes it even more difficult to judge. Is it designed the way it is because it's a niche product? Is it a niche product because of the way it is designed? If it had a better UI would it appeal to a wider audience and cease to be such a niche product? Does it sell as well as it does simply because there's very little competition in this space? There's a lot more to this than just "it sold pretty well compared to their last game, so the UI must be fine".