Moon Says that CM x 2 Normandy Coming in 2009

[Elvis]

Maybe I am mixing up my posts. You did say you talk to a lot of people who play. Outside the BFC website regulars, where do you fins them. So you have the chance to clarify.

Why do I have to find them anywhere beyond the BFC site for there to be people I interact with and play against? If I find them at the BFC site does that mean they do not exist? I said that in response to :

A few people might still be playing CM:SF but nobody cares about it.

Where those people come from is immaterial to my response. The fact that they "are" is what the point is (was).

Do you think CMSF was successful and what is the yardstick?

This will be the third time in three posts where I say I don't get involved in conversations about this because it is all speculation or in the eye of the beholder and at the end of the day just a circle jerk.

 

[thewood]

You brought it up about talking to people and you seem to dislike speculation so I thought you would be more than happy to tell us if we are missing some great cache of CMSF playing out there on the internet.

Once again, you seem to always give an opinion without giving one. You like getting involved in these discussions, yet seem to do little other than try to counter other people's opinions. I thought it would be interesting and a good discussion point to hear your actual opinion instead of just counters. We get beta testers breezing through periodically and like to try to counter some of the opinions, yet I haven't really seen any one give us their opinion on CMSF, other than the party line. I typically lump the testers into the category of towing the BFC line, but you seemed to be one of the ones that had a thought or two of your own. If your opinion is the same as the BFC party line, well so be it.

 

[dalem]

I guess what I mean is how do you spin that your first attempt at an engine was so well received and that your second attempt not only isn't mentioned, but was poorly received. I mean it helps the BFC brand, but does it help the CM2 brand?

Well, that I suspect might be bad, but I still think it's pretty good. At least now you can still point to being int he Top 50 once and saying "see? we did that once. Maybe we're #51 this time - you don't know."

-dale

 

[Zonso]

Just looking for opinions:

Does having CMBO recognized as one the top 50 game by a national publication help or hurt CM2.

I think it helps to bring BFC with some much needed recognition, but are the people reading magazines or sites like PCGamer going to buy CMN? Or are CM2 customers more likely visting wargamer.com and GS?

Interesting, I can't help but think, if anyone even notices, that it is a huge coup considering it is the only wargame on that list. Of course that list is most glaring in what it doesn't include, ie Panzer General or Master of Orion to name a couple. Wargamer is a pretty good site, but the name is a misnomer because wargames are talked about less frequently than others.

 

[dalem]

Why do I have to find them anywhere beyond the BFC site for there to be people I interact with and play against? If I find them at the BFC site does that mean they do not exist? I said that in response to :

A few people might still be playing CM:SF but nobody cares about it.

I would offer that the money part of my line is the part about not caring. We don't know how much people are playing CMSF, I'll grant you that. But we DO know how much people are caring about it, and the answer is "'not at all' compared to many other games currently out there, and certainly 'not at all' compared to its stepfather game, CM."

So some things aren't mere speculation.

-dale

 

[Zonso]

I guess what I mean is how do you spin that your first attempt at an engine was so well received and that your second attempt not only isn't mentioned, but was poorly received. I mean it helps the BFC brand, but does it help the CM2 brand?

Why spin anything? I think it is as PhillipCulliton above described. CMBO was ground and genre breaking in many ways and there are many, many great games excluded.

 

[Zonso]

SEAL Team, one of the best simulations of long-term low-intensity warfare ever produced?

Yeah Seal Team was an incredibly great game, nostalgia notswithstanding; it was probably one of the most immersive games I ever played. I don't recall if there was any followup?

 

[Elvis]

You brought it up about talking to people and you seem to dislike speculation so I thought you would be more than happy to tell us if we are missing some great cache of CMSF playing out there on the internet.

Once again, you seem to always give an opinion without giving one. You like getting involved in these discussions, yet seem to do little other than try to counter other people's opinions. I thought it would be interesting and a good discussion point to hear your actual opinion instead of just counters. We get beta testers breezing through periodically and like to try to counter some of the opinions, yet I haven't really seen any one give us their opinion on CMSF, other than the party line. I typically lump the testers into the category of towing the BFC line, but you seemed to be one of the ones that had a thought or two of your own. If your opinion is the same as the BFC party line, well so be it.

That is where you are a little off with me. I did not give my opinion in response to dalems comments. I stated that they were factually incorrect which is different than an opinion. I have intentionally been careful in here to not speak in opinions (party line or otherwise). I may not have always been 100% on that but it is my intention. And I appreciate what you are saying and you may be surprised to hear that I think of you as one of the most informed and reasonable regular posters here (that is an opinion, of course) despite feeling you have taken an uncalled for shot at me from time to time.

 

[Elvis]

I would offer that the money part of my line is the part about not caring. We don't know how much people are playing CMSF, I'll grant you that. But we DO know how much people are caring about it, and the answer is "'not at all' compared to many other games currently out there, and certainly 'not at all' compared to its stepfather game, CM."

So some things aren't mere speculation.

-dale

But that is complete speculation and even more so when you use terms like "not at all" or "nobody". It only takes one person doing one thing to make them false. And since you do not play the game, have claimed for a while to not go to the BFC forums and did not develop and CMSF "internet friendships" I am not sure how you even get the information you are claiming to have. There are people actively creating mods, scenarios and having PBEM/TCP games. There is a long thread that people are following an AAR of a CMSF.To name a few. Are these activities that people who don't care engage in? To say "nobody" or "not at all" is untrue.

 

[Sgt_Kelly]

So is coming in from the garden and saying "all my petunias are dead" when one or two of them might actually still be alive.

Normal people can talk in absolutes while realizing that they are not literally, factually correct. It doesn't require pointing out nor does doing so constitute 'a point'.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

It has a fairly noisy and persistent anti-CMSF group.

That's a horrible way of phrasing it, but then again, I'm not sure I've yet encountered whichever people this is referring to. Then again, I'm not sure I'd want to discuss anything with anyone who described themselves as "anti-" anything. Or simply "noisy" for that matter. So I won't ask you to point them out to me.

It's fair to say though that any endeavour in existence will have its detractors, so that alone is not evidence of success or failure. Not trying to take away from your points, since I support both your main contention and the evidence you are using in support, but this was an unfortunate bit of logic to pursue. Avatar is currently the most commercially successful film ever, but it has a plot so thin you could slice human flesh with it. Anything is open to "noisy and persistent" haters if you try hard enough. I keep thinking of some great example of something no one could possibly be against, but I can't think of it. Mother Theresa came briefly to mind, but her stance on birth control and later admission of self-doubts left thousand if not millions of "haters" of her own. I'm literally stumped on providing an example of something in the world that has no detractors.

 

[Elvis]

So is coming in from the garden and saying "all my petunias are dead" when one or two of them might actually still be alive.

Normal people can talk in absolutes while realizing that they are not literally, factually correct. It doesn't require pointing out nor does doing so constitute 'a point'.

You are correct. Which is why my replies did not cite single instances. That is when it because a point instead of nick picking grammar.As I said earlier, it is the absolutes that got my attention. Additionally you made an excellent point earlier that supports mine.

 

[PhillipCulliton]

Yeah Seal Team was an incredibly great game, nostalgia notswithstanding; it was probably one of the most immersive games I ever played. I don't recall if there was any followup?

Unfortunately, EA appears to have dropped the sequel sometime in the late 90's. I entirely agree with your point about the game's immersion level. Waiting in the bush along a river, waiting for a passing sampan to move out of sight, so you can cross the river and crawl five hundred meters to find and capture a VC postmaster in the middle of their territory... the "firefights", such as they were, were incredible. You hardly ever killed anyone; you spent 90% of your time in combat trying to suppress intelligently - as you carried so little ammo - and get the hell out of dodge.

Anyhow, yes. SEAL Team was a fantastic game that sold reasonably well and yet I've never seen it mentioned in gaming literature, apart from a single contemporary review. This fact alone easily accounts for my distrust of the memories and judgment of a handful of reviewers for a mainstream publication that has not been significantly pro-wargame since Bill Trotter left.

 

[thewood]

That's a horrible way of phrasing it, but then again, I'm not sure I've yet encountered whichever people this is referring to. Then again, I'm not sure I'd want to discuss anything with anyone who described themselves as "anti-" anything. Or simply "noisy" for that matter. So I won't ask you to point them out to me.

It's fair to say though that any endeavour in existence will have its detractors, so that alone is not evidence of success or failure. Not trying to take away from your points, since I support both your main contention and the evidence you are using in support, but this was an unfortunate bit of logic to pursue. Avatar is currently the most commercially successful film ever, but it has a plot so thin you could slice human flesh with it. Anything is open to "noisy and persistent" haters if you try hard enough. I keep thinking of some great example of something no one could possibly be against, but I can't think of it. Mother Theresa came briefly to mind, but her stance on birth control and later admission of self-doubts left thousand if not millions of "haters" of her own. I'm literally stumped on providing an example of something in the world that has no detractors.

Maybe you are taking it from the wrong perspective. I was looking at from how BFC or its supporters might view us. I think you may be a little too literal at times.

And to Elvis; What I am trying to get across is that instead of bieing the resident fact checker, actually join the discussion and give us an opinion. Join us in the discussion instead of just interjecting to defend the facts and defend the people from hyperbole.

 

[Elvis]

Maybe you are taking it from the wrong perspective. I was looking at from how BFC or its supporters might view us. I think you may be a little too literal at times.

And to Elvis; What I am trying to get across is that instead of bieing the resident fact checker, actually join the discussion and give us an opinion. Join us in the discussion instead of just interjecting to defend the facts and defend the people from hyperbole.

Fair enough. I'll see what I can do. Although what I have found in the past with some folks is that because I have a different viewpoint my opinions get written off as the words of a message boy lackey and dismissed out of hand. But we'll see.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Maybe you are taking it from the wrong perspective. I was looking at from how BFC or its supporters might view us. I think you may be a little too literal at times.

I would be astonished to read that you actually support that perspective (i.e. that you consider yourself "anti-CM:SF"); worse, putting that concept into words for whomever does view this site as a bunch of 'cranks' simply validates it. If anyone elsewhere really does feel that there are "anti-CM:SF" and "pro-CM:SF" I think it's an idiotic view, frankly. My personal opinion is that CM:SF was poorly released, poorly advertised, and conceptually flawed. That doesn't make me "anti-" anything. CM:SF exists; there are people who enjoy the game and my position has always been - good for you. Enjoy the hell out of it. It's certainly not for me and I hope something better comes along that I can get behind. Even better, I hope the base game engine improves in ways that make the fans of CM:SF understand why the fans of the original game engine enjoyed that experience so much, and recapture some of the "magic" of that experience.

But "anti-"? I'm not anti- anything and hopefully neither is anyone here. Words mean things.

And by the way - everyone here is a BFC supporter, yourself and myself included. They've certainly gotten enough of my money over the years, and I suspect will continue to do so unless something goes horribly wrong.

The "them" and "us" mentality doesn't really serve anyone well. I would like to think there is one "CM" community, regardless of where people choose to talk about it. The criticisms may get harsh here at times, but in general a modicum of constructiveness and fairness has at least been attempted. Not always attained, but attempted.

 

[thewood]

So...nevermind. I guess my shallow attempt at a little humor hit you on the wrong day.

 

[Elvis]

Do you think CMSF was successful and what is the yardstick?

Well, since there may be as many ways to define successful as there are people talking about it I will throw a few examples out there. (thewood don't surprised if at some point I say "I told you so").

I would think that at the very base of a discussion, in the context of what has been thrown around here, there would be 2 main categories. Has the game successful at making money for the producers, being something fun to play, well executed etc...And the other being has it been successful compared to other games.

From there each of those can be broken down further. Has the game been successful compared to all games, all games in it's genre and, in this case, to its predecessor. The standalone can be broken down further in by who is doing the defining. The producer, the end user, the fan base etc...

So there are are many ways a game can be a failure or success depending on the exact question being asked. So where do we start?

 

[Elvis]

Also, something I have been meaning to say for a long time but it is of little importance. There have not been 20 or 21 patches as I have seen mentioned here.

 

[thewood]

Yeah, there was no 1.09 and it skipped from 1.11 to 1.20 for the Brit module.

CMBO did the same thing and skipped a sequence.

I hear people talk about the 21 patches a lot. Don't blame them. Most of them stopped playing somewhere between 1.05 and 1.08.