More features than ever?

[Michael Dorosh]

CM:SF has more features and variety of things to play with than any tactical wargame ever made.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94593&page=2

Steve said this in response to a query from someone asking, basically, what happens to CM:SF now that everyone is apparently moving on to CM:BN. Same thing we have been asking on this forum, really.

I think Steve is suggesting CM:SF has enough legs that it should be "good enough" you won't want anything else. Maybe. But the comment on its own is...kind of odd. Does it stand up to scrutiny? "More features"? "Than any game ever made?"

I always thought it had stripped out a lot of stuff from CM:X1 to be honest. So on that basis alone, it kind of fails. Not saying it hasn't improved the way it does some things. But that isn't the same thing as a feature count.

Odd.

But it avoids the question, or at least deflects from it.

Oh, and then he says:

On top of this we added more free stuff to CM:SF over the past 3 years than we will ever add to CM:BN or, probably, any CM product in the future.

From which I get, he recognizes that CM:SF was a lemon, so they pretty much bribed people to play it.

But what was the "free" stuff?

Necessary patches?

That idiotic mousepad that is now redundant?

Salesman Steve finishes wooing his customers with:

We think you guys have gotten your money's worth out of CM:SF and then some, so we're satisfied to call it "complete" as soon as we get v1.32 out. Well, pending some sort of technical glitch that crops up which we can fix.

Check your rear view mirror...that's where BFC is putting CM:SF.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Forum stats since 23 December (first day of dedicated CM:BN forum) - 19 days:

             [B]CM:SF[/B]  [B]CM:BN[/B]  [B]CM:A[/B]
New Threads     73    111     5
New Posts      996   3185    45

 

[dalem]

Check your rear view mirror...that's where BFC is putting CM:SF.

I certainly wasn't the only one, but...

Told ya.

-clueless dale

 

[thewood]

I am not sure this is any kind of surprise. Since about two months in Steve was complaining about how much stuff was already in CMSF. I have been saying all along that I was screwed into being a real beta tester. The beta brigade ia really a QA department and the customers ended up being beta testers. In some cases they may actually be unpaid employees.

 

[thewood]

I will note that some features were added in patches, but nothing I can remember being earth shattering. In fact the first year or two of patches were really fixing broken things that should have been set from day 1. Unlike CMBO, no new units showed up in patches, only modules.

As far as features go, POA2 and maybe even Steel Panthers would give CMSF a run for its money on features, as well as features added in patches. POA2 had a similar tortuted beginning.

 

[slm]

I will note that some features were added in patches, but nothing I can remember being earth shattering.

Two modifications that were added in patches and which improved playability *a lot* IMO:
-"modeless" keyboard shortcuts like in CMx1 - you could give commands by simply pressing a key. Originally you first had to have for example Movement tab active, then press key.

-blue bar - the turn was first calculated, then you could fast forward through the movie without having to watch the whole 60 seconds first

 

[thewood]

I am reluctant to say those were "added". They should have been in from the beginning. In fact, Steve resisted both and continues to be somewhat disdainful of them.

The only major adddition was the eLOS. And that was only done because regular LOS was screwed.

 

[slm]

If they wrote CMx2 engine from scratch then every feature had to be built/added *to the engine* even if that feature had been in CMx1. That's what I meant.

 

[Redwolf]

Overengineering and then letting the top 20% of things be half-baken has always been the bane of CM.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Overengineering and then letting the top 20% of things be half-baken has always been the bane of CM.

And the German Army.

 

[thewood]

The blue bar and key strokes were "added" because of poor design. They were both something that was needed, especially the blue bar, to make the game more playable.

 

[sparty]

Ultimately, I think BFC's technical limits have been reached. Time and again they blame hardware manufacturers and computers not being powerful enough for their AI to mask underlying fundamental flaws in their engine.

I've said it many times before: BFC needs to license the 3D engine and focus on writing the game. You got out and license something like the Unreal 3D engine...it comes with the hardware compatibility. It's maintained by others who are expert in dealing with graphics vendors and state of the art graphics technology.

If the company is truly about building great games, then it's time to see a focus on the games rather than the engine. Half the posts from BFC are about things like, "We got bridges to work!" or "Look at this new grass." Remember the whole hullabaloo about tracer dynamic lighting in CMSF shortly after release? They even made a video of it.

Honestly, what folks really wanted was a graphical update for the CMx1 engine. Instead we got a mess. That's been the fight ever since CMSF was released so it's unsurprising that the game that brought that disappointment to the forefront is now going into unsupported mode.

 

[dalem]

Interesting point. I've never really thought of it in those terms - focus on what you're good at and let other specialists specialize with you.

I remember a time when I worked in telecom when I was laboring to create a simple interface to exchange somewhat-secure information with our client, and one of the network code guys got wind of what I was doing. "Got wind of" it in that I sought him out to ask for his help in writing my little CGI thingie. He asked me what I really was aiming for and I told him, and he suggested that perhaps, since he was an actual code guy whereas I was a project/sales manager, that maybe he could do it for me. It took a bit of cajoling and convincing on his part but I finally agreed, and the next day he had a neat little package all set and working for me. My efforts would have worked, mind you, but not nearly as well and with far more time spent.

An important lesson for me, to be sure. Know your limitations and leverage your assets properly.

-dale

 

[Redwolf]

You cannot use a classic FPS engine. Even using something more universal like Ogre (let's leave the GPL issue aside) puts up enormous difficulties starting with the terrain managers which are all unsuitable for a game like CM. Cover and concealment would still have to be by hand, and with the 1:1 they would have the same mess at their hands as they do now. Flawless rendering is important to some customers but it's not where the mess is.

 

[thewood]

I also think the WEGO aspect might have had some issues. I keep looking at ArmA 2 and some of the mods there are actually not far off what CMSF can do, and in some cases exceed it.

 

[sparty]

You cannot use a classic FPS engine. Even using something more universal like Ogre (let's leave the GPL issue aside) puts up enormous difficulties starting with the terrain managers which are all unsuitable for a game like CM. Cover and concealment would still have to be by hand, and with the 1:1 they would have the same mess at their hands as they do now. Flawless rendering is important to some customers but it's not where the mess is.

Unreal Engine is a generic 3D engine not a "classic FPS engine" which I'm assuming when you say this that you believe Unreal Engine to be the engine that powered the original Unreal and nothing more. The Unreal Engine is alive and well powering FPS games like Gears of War, but can be used to create anything. See http://www.unreal.com/ for examples.

Another excellent engine, from what I've seen of its use is the id Tech 5 engine (commonly known as the RAGE engine). Ultimately this kind of technology lets developers focus on the development of their games and not on the minutia of things like collision detection, physics simulation, sphere mapping, particle systems, etc. The only reason I'm critical of BFC is that they have some really knowledgeable folks who care deeply about bringing their products to the table. They are not, however, being remotely practical about the way in which they're doing it. AAA titles and indie releases along with a huge community of "modders" are capable of licensing and using pre-existing 3d engines. It has become far more common for folks to go that route than to start from scratch. Their business model is outdated at this point and it is painful to watch them flailing around with each release.

It is entirely possible if CM:N doesn't "hit" that it'll end them. The audience for CM:SF products was not nearly what it was for the CMx1 products. Surely they made a nice chunk of change on that engine and it's games, but I have to believe supporting it, growing their staff, and buying rights to publish other games like Theater of War, etc. were a nearly equal drag on their finances. I wish them the best, but I think they're adding unnecessary risk by not adopting to newer models of game development.

 

[junk2drive]

I think their vision was that the CMx2 engine would be another unreal or rage or whatever that they would be able to license to others.

At least that is what I recall from way back when they said that any kind of game could be built off of the base engine. Space Lobsters and all.

 

[Redwolf]

Unreal Engine is a generic 3D engine not a "classic FPS engine" which I'm assuming when you say this that you believe Unreal Engine to be the engine that powered the original Unreal and nothing more. The Unreal Engine is alive and well powering FPS games like Gears of War, but can be used to create anything. See http://www.unreal.com/ for examples.

Another excellent engine, from what I've seen of its use is the id Tech 5 engine (commonly known as the RAGE engine). Ultimately this kind of technology lets developers focus on the development of their games and not on the minutia of things like collision detection, physics simulation, sphere mapping, particle systems, etc. The only reason I'm critical of BFC is that they have some really knowledgeable folks who care deeply about bringing their products to the table. They are not, however, being remotely practical about the way in which they're doing it. AAA titles and indie releases along with a huge community of "modders" are capable of licensing and using pre-existing 3d engines. It has become far more common for folks to go that route than to start from scratch. Their business model is outdated at this point and it is painful to watch them flailing around with each release.

While I'm not familiar with the non-free engines in particular I looked into all of the free ones for suitability for a CM style game. I found that they don't help nearly as much as when implementing a more fitting game. There are large problems in a CM game not addressed by these engines just starting from terrain management and LOS/LOF/cover/concealment which you have to do all on your own and the engine might get in the way more than it helps.

A 3D engine is a bunch of premade parts and some parts fit a CM style game and others do not.

The thing that using an engine helps with is portability. Want to run on Linux, Mac, FreeBSD? They do it. But BFC isn't interested in that.

It is entirely possible if CM:N doesn't "hit" that it'll end them. The audience for CM:SF products was not nearly what it was for the CMx1 products. Surely they made a nice chunk of change on that engine and it's games, but I have to believe supporting it, growing their staff, and buying rights to publish other games like Theater of War, etc. were a nearly equal drag on their finances. I wish them the best, but I think they're adding unnecessary risk by not adopting to newer models of game development.

Suicidal is the word you are looking for.

ToW is available on steam not involving BFC according to the steam thread, BTW. Doesn't look like solid business.

I think their vision was that the CMx2 engine would be another unreal or rage or whatever that they would be able to license to others.

At least that is what I recall from way back when they said that any kind of game could be built off of the base engine. Space Lobsters and all.

I don't recall that. All I recall they wanted to have lots of contracting companies make CM games. But nothing as in licensing the CM engine to make a different game.

BFC clearly isn't even remotely close to a mindset where they could make an engine offer that people could bite on.

 

[junk2drive]

I think your memory is better than mine. Sounds more like it.

 

[jwb3]

On top of this we added more free stuff to CM:SF over the past 3 years than we will ever add to CM:BN or, probably, any CM product in the future.

If this is his attitude then it bodes very poorly for my long-term interest in CMx2... since I was already dissatisfied with the limited scope of what they plan to put in CM:BN, and since I don't recall hearing about one single thing that was added for free to CM:SF in the last 3 years that wasn't there to fix a problem.


John