Gamerswithjobs pre-view, claims "beta" demo next week.

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
Ahhh, I hadn't looked at it that way before. As usual, you have shown me the way and the light.

-dale
I am indeed the light to which all must be drawn (and then zapped into a crisp poof of dust by my glorious wisdom).

Cheers!

Leto
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Your bias against me is on record, so I feel no need to defend myself against this other than to say I'm keeping an open mind on the new product and recommend others do the same.
Bias? Not really. To be honest I find you entertaining, always have.

Im glad you have an open mind now though, I look forward to a decent review of the game from a grogs perspective.
 
Last edited:

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
One thing pointed out is the amount of stuff coming out about CMBN pre-release. They are doing a lot more than they did with CMSF. I think it still lags behind CMBO with its beta demo, but that is hard to beat.

One thing they could/should have done is actully do a post on the differences between CM1 and CMBN. I think its better to get those out in the open in a nice concise format a month or two before release. Yes there will be gnashing of teeth and complaining. But I would think BFC would rather do that than have it all going on for two months after release. Have one short violent blood-letting and get it over with. I think Steve feels if he just ignores the differences, no one will notice them. The he gets peeved when someone brings them up.

Instead, the information can only be gleaned from playing CMSF or scattered around in a hundred different threads. I wouldn't even think its bad to say they want to limit discussions about things missing into one thread.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I really don't see how things are much different now than, say, a year ago. We have some info but no game, some past experience but no new experience. Tempers are hotter maybe now, because some people are excited about the game, and some are apprehensive. Some are no-doubt both.

I think that a comparison period upon its supposed release is inevitable, even if they invited such a discussion now, and truly, as others have said, a truly fair comparison can't happen until CMN is actually in folks' hands.

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
[hirr]Leto;1387621 said:
As someone with a PhD in business strategy, I would assess that you use of the 'safe snowball strategy': send it out to people who you know will give you a good review, or have little experience with the past history of the game/franchise/company in order to stay away from critical elements associated with the game's evolution and current target market. You control your message as best as you can this way, ignoring those that may be overly critical and putting together a group of reviewers that you can build a successful market strategy on.

I assure you that this will not be how things are communicated to the masses. As well, they did send it to RPS... a very reputable game review website, but not a wargaming niche reviewer, so once again, the game may be viewed from a perspective that is not associated with the turbulent past.

Never heard of gamers with jobs, but who knows, they could be the essence of legitimacy in the wargame review world for all that I know.
Thanks for that. The danger I suppose is if the strategy is too obvious, but that presumes that people really place a high emphasis about mainstream (p)reviews. I thought someone here had predicted there would not be a single review of CM:BN on the mainstream sites, which I find hard to believe. I don't confess to knowing how that works; I suppose if the sites like Gamespot actually requested review copies and BFC actively denied them - I have no knowledge that anything like that happened or reason to believe it did - then that might come to pass.

What do we really know about the relationship of game sales and online reviews - are there outstanding examples of really good or bad reviews helping or hindeing sales of particular titles - any epic examples anyone can point to?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
One thing pointed out is the amount of stuff coming out about CMBN pre-release. They are doing a lot more than they did with CMSF. I think it still lags behind CMBO with its beta demo, but that is hard to beat.
Good post. I think - it's hard to remember now, and I'm not speaking from any inside knowledge as I didn't discuss this while on the beta team - they wanted to maximize the surprise factor with CM:SF given it was a brand new engine. I honestly don't know as I wasn't privy to any of that. I think the deadline was just so tight and things were rushed that it just kind of happened. Things appear much smoother this time, if only because they obviously have much more time. :laugh: About two years to spare...

One thing they could/should have done is actully do a post on the differences between CM1 and CMBN. I think its better to get those out in the open in a nice concise format a month or two before release. Yes there will be gnashing of teeth and complaining. But I would think BFC would rather do that than have it all going on for two months after release. Have one short violent blood-letting and get it over with. I think Steve feels if he just ignores the differences, no one will notice them. The he gets peeved when someone brings them up.

Instead, the information can only be gleaned from playing CMSF or scattered around in a hundred different threads. I wouldn't even think its bad to say they want to limit discussions about things missing into one thread.
It shall be fascinating to see the CM1 guys return to the fold, those who did not have the CM:SF experience. I don't know that there is a "right" way to indoctrinate them but I agree it will be a challenging forum if the new game does not sit well with some of them. Especially if the doubters outnumber the "likers". But over time, as with CM:SF, they will drift off and the core fans will remain.

I think it is guaranteed some will dislike it - oddly, Steve hasn't posted any more of the "we know some of you will hate it" stuff that he did with CM:SF. Or at least I haven't noticed - I don't check that forum much any more. Perhaps the feel of the game has changed enough that he thinks it isn't true, or he realizes that line of logic is not so persuasive...
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
The problem is its happening anyway right now. Those same posts are cropping up and BFC doesn't really step in. Its just circular discussion with rude beta testers thrown into the mix. If BFC did something offcial and just stated this is what it is....don't expect X, Y, and Z, they get it over with before the stress of release happens.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
The problem is its happening anyway right now. Those same posts are cropping up and BFC doesn't really step in. Its just circular discussion with rude beta testers thrown into the mix. If BFC did something offcial and just stated this is what it is....don't expect X, Y, and Z, they get it over with before the stress of release happens.
If I were BFC, I wouldn't see the point of making comparisons after so much has been stated not to do so... the two games share some DNA, but are evolutionary leaps apart. Formally opening up that can of worms and putting themselves in the crossfire of those who may not appreciate that evolution, just makes no sense. Better to let they betas field the questions and hoe the rows.

Besides, isn't that what a demo is for? People can play the demo, and find out if they like it or not for themselves... no need to introduced biased narratives into that self realization experience?

Cheers!

Leto
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
Thanks for that. The danger I suppose is if the strategy is too obvious, but that presumes that people really place a high emphasis about mainstream (p)reviews. I thought someone here had predicted there would not be a single review of CM:BN on the mainstream sites, which I find hard to believe. I don't confess to knowing how that works; I suppose if the sites like Gamespot actually requested review copies and BFC actively denied them - I have no knowledge that anything like that happened or reason to believe it did - then that might come to pass.

What do we really know about the relationship of game sales and online reviews - are there outstanding examples of really good or bad reviews helping or hindeing sales of particular titles - any epic examples anyone can point to?
Let's go back and take a look at the poor reviews for CMSF as the most relevant comparative point. I do not think it was obvious to those outside the dome, but I do recall that many of the posts by the betas and officially by Steve were very tense, terse and emotional when CMSF came out, with many of the reviews having to be put down formally by the BFC team. How that translated into the marketing of the game is perhaps less direct and easy to correlate for effect as the oodles of CMSF paradox versions sitting in bargain bins across the country while attempting to sell their own product online at much more substantial prices (and the ensuing modules as well) could not be overlooked as a significant moderating variable.

To be honest with you, I believe that video gamers, and by extension, wargamers, are a very well informed bunch of consumers. This is a consumer trend that has constantly grown across many different markets. The only way to at least do a surface level study of the phenomenon, one would have to do a weighting of review sites by visits, a weighted aggregation of reviews and scores on certain games and then compare these against unit sales. Coming up with all that information would be a bit of a daunting task, but on that type of general level, not out of the realm of possibility to conduct.

As I begin to assemble my army of beautiful, short skirted, long legged graduate students, I will most likely seek to use some of them in a most unseemly manner: have them do some market research on the wargame industry and test a few of my hypotheses... perhaps publish them in an academic journal and then reference direct citations to them whenever I have to debate somebody on a message board... not that peer reviewed empirical work would have any sway against heathens who come armed with conjecture, anecdote, bias and personal vitriol.

: )

Cheers!

Leto
 
Last edited:

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
Okay, more to the topic of this thread, and the one thing that does seem a bit hinkey, though, is the reviewers that are getting these preview copies. I just got the battlefront newlsetter, which finally announces the preview in "gamerswithjobs".

Who are these "no name" indie previewers? Do they carry as much weight as previews done by Gamespot, say?

I can see an argument for the "indies" having more intimate knowledge of niche subject matter - the reference to Catigny Park and the 1st Infantry Division museum kind of suggests that, in this one. Hard to see a 'mainstream' reviewer getting that reference. I know the argument has been made in the past that larger reviewers were reluctant to look at CM material after CM:SF, but I presumed that was because the modules were simply add-ons and not full-blown releases.
excellent point about the choice of the GWJ site previewing CM:B4N.
As far as previews and reviews go the GWJ site is not very current. The lastest review was was for "Limbo" in July 2010. Before that the game review articles at the site date back to the year 2006.
As far as I can make out GWJ has only 4 previews; CM:B4N, The Witcher (2007), FSX (2006), and Elder Scrolls (2006).
(The podcasts could be taking place of the site reviews/previews or they could be hidden in the myriad of categories?)
GWJ does appear to have an active game forum (in terms of posts, I did not check on number of posters).

Anyway, GWJ seems like an unconventional gaming site to preview CM:B4N. This could be part of BFCs strategy to build up positive game hype; chose obscure sites that will hopefully give the game a big thumbs up in the previews? At the same time avoid the mainstream sites that could be more critical of the game.
dunno...
:nuts:

Does anyone know if BFC listed what game sites it provided with a CM:B4N preview build?
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
[hirr]Leto;1387621 said:
As someone with a PhD in business strategy, I would assess that you use of the 'safe snowball strategy': send it out to people who you know will give you a good review, or have little experience with the past history of the game/franchise/company in order to stay away from critical elements associated with the game's evolution and current target market. You control your message as best as you can this way, ignoring those that may be overly critical and putting together a group of reviewers that you can build a successful market strategy on.

I assure you that this will not be how things are communicated to the masses. As well, they did send it to RPS... a very reputable game review website, but not a wargaming niche reviewer, so once again, the game may be viewed from a perspective that is not associated with the turbulent past.

Never heard of gamers with jobs, but who knows, they could be the essence of legitimacy in the wargame review world for all that I know.

Cheers!

Leto
good points! thanks for sharing.
 

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
6
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
This is the least stoked I have ever been prior to a BFC release, with the exception of CMSF which was never going to get me out of bed anyway.

It has been altogether too long in coming. At the moment I'm a bit fearful that, when I do finally get it, the predominant feeling will be akin to finally getting a glimpse at a much hyped work of art, a sort of 'let's see what the fuss is all about'.

I'm kind of hoping that the game will be sufficiently exciting to get me over that.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
[hirr]Leto;1387671 said:
Let's go back and take a look at the poor reviews for CMSF as the most relevant comparative point. I do not think it was obvious to those outside the dome, but I do recall that many of the posts by the betas and officially by Steve were very tense, terse and emotional when CMSF came out, with many of the reviews having to be put down formally by the BFC team. How that translated into the marketing of the game is perhaps less direct and easy to correlate for effect as the oodles of CMSF paradox versions sitting in bargain bins across the country while attempting to sell their own product online at much more substantial prices (and the ensuing modules as well) could not be overlooked as a significant moderating variable.

To be honest with you, I believe that video gamers, and by extension, wargamers, are a very well informed bunch of consumers. This is a consumer trend that has constantly grown across many different markets. The only way to at least do a service level study of the phenomenon, one would have to do a weighting of review sites by visits, a weighted aggregation of reviews and scores on certain games and then compare these against unit sales. Coming up with all that information would be a bit of a daunting task, but on that type of general level, not out of the realm of possibility to conduct.

As I begin to assemble my army of beautiful, short skirted, long legged graduate students, I will most likely seek to use some of them in a most unseemly manner: have them do some market research on the wargame industry and test a few of my hypotheses... perhaps publish them in an academic journal and then reference direct citations to them whenever I have to debate somebody on a message board... not that peer reviewed empirical work would have any sway against heathens who come armed with conjecture, anecdote, bias and personal vitriol.

: )

Cheers!

Leto
My new formula for reading your posts is

1ps+1.75fp+1.25pf

ps=prelude sentence

fs=factual paragraph

pbs=pure fiction

I'm still trying to figure out if the quotas change on major holidays, but the sampling is still small. :p

I think your observations are apt; they were indeed tense and at that stage I was one of the fanboys of the beta brigade doing his best to rebut some of the reviews, including After Eight's. But the unsold games go hand in hand with the fact that - in my opinion - it really wasn't a good game. So do bad reviews.

The discussion points that followed were on how much the game improved with the patches. Geordie et al have insisted CM:SF is a contender that never got its due - if what you're saying is correct, the reviews may be a big part of that. I'm not so sure. I stated at the time that conceptually the game was flawed.

There have been some people expressing discontentment that some of us who felt this way are now preordering CM:BN, not badmouthing the new game out the gate, etc. I've thought about this and I don't think it is a contradiction. The game engine may well continue to be flawed - I won't know until I've seen it - but it may also be that the modern setting and CM:SF feature set were simply a poor fit for the concept. I just don't know. I'm willing to risk a few of my dollars to find out for myself - and get a metal box in the process...

So the question comes up whether CM:SF was honestly a great game that got zapped by an undeserved bad buzz. I'd like to think the game was judged fairly on its merits - the only thing I will note, which I noted at the time when I was onside, was that games were usually reviewed in their release state and fewer reviewers came back to take a look after the patches/modules. Some proclaimed the game improved.

Any way you slice it, it will be difficult to follow in CM:BO's footsteps, but despite Steve's "most realistic wargame ever made" cries, which ring hollow, I don't think they have seriously tried to do so. If they have, I am so oblivious to that kind of marketing it has passed me by. But just the same, it would be hard to do worse than CM:SF's release, also.
 
Last edited:

British Tommy

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
737
Reaction score
9
Location
mission control, UK
Country
ll
This is the least stoked I have ever been prior to a BFC release, with the exception of CMSF which was never going to get me out of bed anyway.

It has been altogether too long in coming. At the moment I'm a bit fearful that, when I do finally get it, the predominant feeling will be akin to finally getting a glimpse at a much hyped work of art, a sort of 'let's see what the fuss is all about'.

I'm kind of hoping that the game will be sufficiently exciting to get me over that.
Agree 100% and one of the reasons why I didn't jump on the band wagon and pre-order the game.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
My new formula for reading your posts is

1ps+1.75fp+1.25pf

ps=prelude sentence

fs=factual paragraph

pbs=pure fiction

I'm still trying to figure out if the quotas change on major holidays, but the sampling is still small. :p

I think your observations are apt; they were indeed tense and at that stage I was one of the fanboys of the beta brigade doing his best to rebut some of the reviews, including After Eight's. But the unsold games go hand in hand with the fact that - in my opinion - it really wasn't a good game. So do bad reviews.

The discussion points that followed were on how much the game improved with the patches. Geordie et al have insisted CM:SF is a contender that never got its due - if what you're saying is correct, the reviews may be a big part of that. I'm not so sure. I stated at the time that conceptually the game was flawed.

There have been some people expressing discontentment that some of us who felt this way are now preordering CM:BN, not badmouthing the new game out the gate, etc. I've thought about this and I don't think it is a contradiction. The game engine may well continue to be flawed - I won't know until I've seen it - but it may also be that the modern setting and CM:SF feature set were simply a poor fit for the concept. I just don't know. I'm willing to risk a few of my dollars to find out for myself - and get a metal box in the process...

So the question comes up whether CM:SF was honestly a great game that got zapped by an undeserved bad buzz. I'd like to think the game was judged fairly on its merits - the only thing I will note, which I noted at the time when I was onside, was that games were usually reviewed in their release state and fewer reviewers came back to take a look after the patches/modules. Some proclaimed the game improved.

Any way you slice it, it will be difficult to follow in CM:BO's footsteps, but despite Steve's "most realistic wargame ever made" cries, which ring hollow, I don't think they have seriously tried to do so. If they have, I am so oblivious to that kind of marketing it has passed me by. But just the same, it would be hard to do worse than CM:SF's release, also.
I believe you are insightful in your observations: pbs is what makes my world go round. It is ever more so effective and amusing when dovetailed, sandwhiched or post hoc inserted into ps and fs segments of a post.

: )

Cheers!

Leto
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
My new formula for reading your posts is

1ps+1.75fp+1.25pf

ps=prelude sentence

fs=factual paragraph

pbs=pure fiction

I'm still trying to figure out if the quotas change on major holidays, but the sampling is still small. :p

I think your observations are apt; they were indeed tense and at that stage I was one of the fanboys of the beta brigade doing his best to rebut some of the reviews, including After Eight's. But the unsold games go hand in hand with the fact that - in my opinion - it really wasn't a good game. So do bad reviews.

The discussion points that followed were on how much the game improved with the patches. Geordie et al have insisted CM:SF is a contender that never got its due - if what you're saying is correct, the reviews may be a big part of that. I'm not so sure. I stated at the time that conceptually the game was flawed.

There have been some people expressing discontentment that some of us who felt this way are now preordering CM:BN, not badmouthing the new game out the gate, etc. I've thought about this and I don't think it is a contradiction. The game engine may well continue to be flawed - I won't know until I've seen it - but it may also be that the modern setting and CM:SF feature set were simply a poor fit for the concept. I just don't know. I'm willing to risk a few of my dollars to find out for myself - and get a metal box in the process...

So the question comes up whether CM:SF was honestly a great game that got zapped by an undeserved bad buzz. I'd like to think the game was judged fairly on its merits - the only thing I will note, which I noted at the time when I was onside, was that games were usually reviewed in their release state and fewer reviewers came back to take a look after the patches/modules. Some proclaimed the game improved.

Any way you slice it, it will be difficult to follow in CM:BO's footsteps, but despite Steve's "most realistic wargame ever made" cries, which ring hollow, I don't think they have seriously tried to do so. If they have, I am so oblivious to that kind of marketing it has passed me by. But just the same, it would be hard to do worse than CM:SF's release, also.
But consider this: CMBN is now three years evolved from what it should have been initially in CMSF, at least engine wise. With that evolution came many returns to the old regime from what seemed to be at the time, highly intractable positions of stubborn resistance to anything resembling a step backwards... (it messed with the forward ho outlook of the message that analogized the philosophy of the new engine).

It is a very real probability that CMSF did suck in application (and definately in context), but not in theory. That is what CMBN hinges its success on: theory and practice are perhaps now better galvanized into the philosophy.... and due to the sheer dogmatic stance taken by BFC on how good their philosophy really was, let's hope that they were right.

But being a realist, I suspect that another three years may be required to actually implement that vision and truly realize their philosophy of the nexus of simulation and wargame: and I predict that final iteration will be in the form of: "Lobsters from Space!"

Cheers!

Leto
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
[hirr]Leto;1387697 said:
But consider this: CMBN is now three years evolved from what it should have been initially in CMSF, at least engine wise. With that evolution came many returns to the old regime from what seemed to be at the time, highly intractable positions of stubborn resistance to anything resembling a step backwards... (it messed with the forward ho outlook of the message that analogized the philosophy of the new engine).

It is a very real probability that CMSF did suck in application (and definately in context), but not in theory. That is what CMBN hinges its success on: theory and practice are perhaps now better galvanized into the philosophy.... and due to the sheer dogmatic stance taken by BFC on how good their philosophy really was, let's hope that they were right.
Well said, and I agree with your analysis. As to whether or not it has all meshed together somehow better...I can only say that I have already "bet" on it with a substantial amount of my relatively scarce hobby dollars. And when I say I've bet, I don't mean I know the outcome. I mean I've taken a gamble and like anyone else, can only hope, as you say, that it will pay off.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
But unlike some on this board, I bet on CMSF and lost, at least for the first two years. What I lost in those two years was untold hours of trying to make it work. I get maybe 5 real hours of wargaming a week. I lost that for a couple years. I will not make that mistake with BFC again.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I cant fathom why anyone would need to bet any 'gaming dollars' on a game that will have a fully functioning demo. Its just like buying a car without the test drive after you bought the previous model which didnt satisfy you.

Im going to try the Demo and then buy. Im 99% sure I will be buying it as on the whole I enjoy CMSF. That 1% may just be that the game is somehow broken (which Im not expecting). I dont consider $40 that much money though. I spent more than that going to the Cinema on Wednesday night.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Yeah, but with CMSF, most people preordered, not knowing BFC would cock it up completely.

btw, its $60 US for CMBN.
 
Last edited:
Top