$142, spend or not

[Rule_303]

From the Metacritic thread over at BFC, which has touched a few raw nerves....

Quote:
[REDWOLF] The UI is too difficult to criticize in specifics, especially when the problem is a lack of information about what's going on when your own knowledge of the game isn't sufficient to have an idea.

[BATTLEFRONT] Putting aside that most of the criticisms on that site were coming from people who don't fit this description, you're still inventing your own narrative. When I see people have problems with UI they are very clear about it. "this game is stupid! My units don't go where I tell them too! I right click on a unit and I don't get orders! There's too much going on and I don't have a clue how to control it." I should know because I've read plenty of comments like that since before Battlefront was even a thought.

Steve

Seems we're just 'a few cranks and haters' over here, stuck in the past or something, but at any rate not worth listening to. But I'm trying hard to understan Steve's POV since that's the only one that matters ATEOTD. So Redwolf claims the UI creates a needless barrier to entry for many demo players who are smart enough to get that CM2 isn't a shooter and are cool with that, but give up after struggling with the interface.

Steve claims these people are mostly short attention span types who wouldn't like the game anyway, so theres low ROI in spending Charles' limited bandwidth catering to them. Better business to focus on cranking out more and more content now that the engine is 'mature' (his word). Logic seems to be that the kind of smart tactical gamer BFC seeks will climb the learning curve and forgive other remaining flaws just to get this content. And the haters gonna hate, there's no pleasing them, so they can bug off.

 

[Redwolf]

Charles makes the part of the game I like to play. Steve talking like that has been standard since the beginnings of time.

 

[Fleischer]

Charles Moylan is Battlefront, Battlefront is Charles Moylan. And the hallmark of people who can't take criticism is that they mistake it for hate. You have to wonder what business people who continuously use psychiatric terms to diagnose their criticis have lecturing others about "hate" and "vitriol". Talk about having illusions and living in a bubble...

Ironically, the fanbois' argumentation in that thread is nothing different from what you will see on any mass market game forum: their own game is an amazing piece of complex simulation, while the people who don't like it are simple-minded "COD-players".

 

[Geordie]

I'm not sure what to make of Steve these days, I can understand his cronies defending every criticism of the game, after all they spend all day apparently play testing the games and blowing the smoke where the sun doesn't shine. But Steve, I thought he was smarter than he is. Keeps going on about how no one knows the business like him, but, what's the business? A small niche market that rakes in a few dollars compared to big software companies. Sad to say but if he were really good at what he says he is good at, he wouldn't be working for an unknown company.

Outside of BF, where would you see him being like he is and how he treats his customers. Hes not a psychiatrist, he's not hugely successful and this I think is his main problem. It's having a huge chip that he gets to exercise on a wee forum at the arse end of the Internet.

Must make him feel superior.

 

[Fleischer]

It's the clasical problem of the echo chamber: you can only hear your own voice over and over again.

 

[Rule_303]

I don't think we should be passing judgment on BFC for not being the next EA, or not having its games in retail stores etc. i believe Steve when he says he and the guys make the games they themselves like to play. They seem content not to lose money (which would annoy their wives) and who are we to say that's a bad career choice? I personally am glad they made it.

In general, I highly respect a small businessperson who can stay in business for 15 years serving a niche market. One that's filled with customers who think of themselves as the smartest guys in the room.

I'm no programmer, but I suspect Redwolf is right that some of the very basic programming compromises Charles made in ~2005 have put the CM engine into a box it now finds it hard to get out of. At core, it's a 2d hex wargame rendered in 3d, with most unit behaviors still tied to the hex center dots. So the calculations are very brute force (think of tens of thousands of strings being laid dot to dot, like in the old ASL days), with drag effects we all see. The terrain mesh and terrain polygons are also slaved to those hex dots, creating still more limitations on placement angle, granularity etc. Infantry has only 3 stances (stands, kneels, prone).

 

[Geordie]

Sorry, I'm not passing judgement on the company, simply wondering why Steve has to behave the way he does. I'm actually all for BF as there really is no one making the games they make. I don't even mind Steve most of the time, but his very low tolerance rate for anything that goes against what he says puzzles me.

 

[Fleischer]

Being small does not imply that you are 'niche'. I have no doubt Battlefront are small, but this seems to be the result of an appeal to a wider market that went wrong, rather than making games for a small market segment in the first place. Of course Steve clings to the idea that his game is 'niche' (while dismissing the wide appeal the original Combat Mission games had as a one time fluke). The alternative would be admitting failure.

 

[Rule_303]

Was CM1 for all its critical acclaim, really a huge mainstream seller (by the standards of "strategy" games, not gaming as a whole)? I don't recall that Steve & co bought beach houses off the proceeds.

 

[Fleischer]

I don't think you could call it a huge mainstream seller, but it certainly sold well. I would guess Steve & co used the money they earned from CMx1 to develop CMx2 ?

 

[Geordie]

I like the modular approach to CM2 but just think that they dropped the ball with its implementation and this leads to longer lead in times and multi games at multi stages and the point where customers like me stop buying the games because they feel that they don't want another very similar game.

I think they could have went another way and this was to Bring out CMEurope and add modules for Italy, bulge MG etc and then declare the game over. Then do the same with east front but maybe improve the engine over the Westfront game, then bring out modern, again with a new engine and then upgrade the whole thing and bring out another Europe game say 5 years later with a whole lot of newer features. In between they could have sold packs and stuff for the originals.

Theyre maybe making a mistake by trying to keep everyone updated and happy rather than concentrate on one or two main games and having a long term plan to update games and features. Other games do it and were happy to pay for that and I'm sure I'd be happy to as wel.

 

[Rule_303]

Yeah, but that's the dreaded "Theater In A Box" that Steve said nearly killed them with CMBB and CMAK and they'll never ever ever do again no way nohow.

My attention has turned to another thread that is all too typical, with someone saying "gosh, tanks sure can blast infantry out of solid buildings easily", followed by a blizzard of rationalizations as to why that was prob'ly the way it really was... No problems, nothing to see here, move along. You're just a bad player.

That's what I'm saying though. With enemies behind hedgerows, I usually have to suppress and launch infantry assaults on their positions to root them out, which isn't always that easy. Putting a tank shell into the side of a building can sometimes blow up an entire squad though. Buildings are vulnerable to panzerschreck or bazooka rockets as well, since they're such big targets.

 

[Redwolf]

I don't perceive Steve's behavior as having changed since the CMx1 days. But the difference is that he now has a game which is much less accessible (and the interface is a lot less efficient, you spend relatively more time messing with the game itself than with the tactical problem at hand). What is worse is that although we can't look at sales other than through Amazon's ranking, the game for sure has a less diverse audience. And the people hanging out on the forum might be noisy, but they are few well-known people and again hardly diverse in any way.

Also, their patching process, the patch downloads and some aspects of their DRM are simply outrageous, especially the total lack of verifications, checks and error messages.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Steve's behavior hasn't changed but his policies and business decisions have. The evolution has been a subtle but glaring malignancy towards an insidious and sinister use of his Forum to further his jealousy of my great ideas. It is, of course, a manipulation on a very small signal amplitude that most can not perceive. Only those, like myself, can filter it out and amplify it correctly. I can say with some assurance that the forum here is very grateful for my reporting on this. No thanks is needed or approved by me.

Here is another case of MGI (My Great Ideas):

Soviet policy for company use of tanks was a standing SOP of "50%Rule". Basically, that is that if half the leaders or half the tanks got KO'd, then the unit was to consolidate and hold what they have achieved. Another SOP was that if they shot off their ammo, they would get back to the designated resupply point and 'bomb-up'. This simple and realistic behavior should be modeled in a game at this level that CM seems to want to model. But the fact is that the BF management has no real military experience or appreciation of small unit tactics or of my genius.

So let this Eastern Front "families" come out in 2013. I dare them

 

[Fleischer]

What is worse is that although we can't look at sales other than through Amazon's ranking, the game for sure has a less diverse audience. And the people hanging out on the forum might be noisy, but they are few well-known people and again hardly diverse in any way.

The mass man in a nutshell.

 

[Redwolf]

Looks like the heroic GSX is running into a bit of fanboism in that thread. Oh my.

 

[Fleischer]

Haha, hang in there GSX.

Because someone who can't respect a difference of opinion doesn't deserve respect in return.

After reading his rant about "mentally ill cranks" earlier, I think possible hypocrisy just reached a new level.

 

[Geordie]

Didn't really get anywhere there. I'm not sure if the way I put my points down was just to ambiguous or not. Apparently the game as it is portrays things as they really are and real soldiers only use formations in training. I hate it when someone runs off at a tangent on one of my posts and infers things I never said. Fair enough though as when I re- read my posts I probably could have been more specific.

 

[Rule_303]

Meh, obvious to me that the hostility and wilful misrepresenting you're getting there from the usual suspects is because you're the mod over here. This site deeply deeply bothers them even though they keep teling themselves its just the same few cranks (thats true enough).

If its any consolation it sounds like most people there agree that it'd be nice to have a skirmish line someday. But like RW said before these guys all play so much they dont see any value in making it easier or faster to control lots of units; if you want formations, split your squads. Now shut yer yap.

 

[Redwolf]

Whatever real world formations might or might not have been used in combat or under fire...

... the voluntary exposure to concrete enemy fire that CMx2 soldier practice is just ridiculous to defend. Real people have self-preservation instincts.