New SF review

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Look at the thread about this review on BFC. Talk about gudgingly accepting it. It sure does look like they can't accept anything but a 10. At least there is an admission from a beta tester that 1.0 wasn't very good. And Steve talks about people never being happy...pot/kettle.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I love to see the guys at BFC drink the Kool Ade after one of these reviews. :D

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86541

Ali-Baba: I think WW2 will re-establish the series in the pantheon of wargaming classics and achieve some really high scores like CMx1 did.

FightingSeabee: I'm afraid I have to disagree with the review. I may sound like a cheerleader, but it's a 9.7 until some other game comes out that is more realistic. With every module, it gets even better. Not an essential entry in the series? Ofcourse it's essential. The only people who could go without it are Army guys using it as a training tool.

Sixxkiller (beta tester): Not sure if Marines isnt essential.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I bet this guy may become the new Devil of the Beta boys for not giving the game a perfect 10!
I think the site if fairly low traffic enough this goes by without much notice. I'd never heard of it, and if they are just getting around now to reviewing MARINES, perhaps safe to say it isn't much of an industry biggie? Not that I keep my own finger on the pulse of the twitch crowd by any means.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I am psychic. Look who just showed up:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86541

I can't believe they are upset about an 8 rating. At least the guy gave it a second look and liked it. They seem to be upset that he didn't have all good things to say about CMSF 1.0. If anyone wants proof that the beta testers are out to lunch and can't give an objective view, send them to that thread. I hope someone like MikeyD looks back on this type of thread in a few years and is embarassed.
 
Last edited:

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I think MickeyD is out to make Fanboi of the year. I get the impression that he needs to get out more and stop playing CMSF 18 hours a day.

As for the comments on the review, all I can say is wow! Theres some awfully myopic people around and it goes a long way to reinforcing my decision to stay away from them.

BF have gotten themselves a hard core of complete yes men, this does not bode well for any future games if this lot is supposed to be looking out for faults - what faults! Its a perfect 10, was on release, is today!!!!!!
 

Sirocco

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
They miss the point that he complains about Syria because it's so lop sided, not because it's not WW2.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
They miss the point that he complains about Syria because it's so lop sided, not because it's not WW2.
It's also bad on sales because its so close to the situation in Iraq. Not universally; for some people it is a draw. I don't know if it was an overall plus or minus in that regards, but there were more than a couple of people expressing the opinion that it was creepy to play a game hitting so close to home. I don't necessarily agree with that point of view (hell, the U.S. Army put out its own first person shooter for recruiting), but that viewpoint was there, and it is a legitimate one - and the thing is, if you really feel that way, how likely are you to sign up for the forum to express it? You're just going to avoid the game and the forum altogether. I have no interest in playing Hungry Hungry Hippos so guess what - not only don't I refuse to buy a copy, but I really don't go around internet forums explaining why. :D
 

Sirocco

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
It's actually a terrific review; the "backhanded compliment" is that it was FUBAR on release, but BFC have stuck with it and turned it around. Those are facts. It seems to me odd to be ticked off at reviewers pointing this out, and not at the developers.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It's actually a terrific review; the "backhanded compliment" is that it was FUBAR on release, but BFC have stuck with it and turned it around. Those are facts. It seems to me odd to be ticked off at reviewers pointing this out, and not at the developers.
Yeah, 8 out of of 10 is good, and he says a lot of good things about the game. They're choked because he didn't say MARINES was "essential". But it's not essential. It adds a single Syrian unit type and it has a bunch of content that you don't really "need". All the patches and gameplay fixes were free whether or not you bought the "Marines" stuff. All their comments are basic fan hyperbole.

The review could have been scathing, like mine was at IGN or Gamespot. Really, this was a rave review, if you put it on the spectrum. Kind of why I wrote mine so over the top; at least people can compare them and notice the differences and take them for what they are worth. Best review is always going to be the demo and one's own perceptions anyway.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
It's actually a terrific review; the "backhanded compliment" is that it was FUBAR on release, but BFC have stuck with it and turned it around. Those are facts. It seems to me odd to be ticked off at reviewers pointing this out, and not at the developers.
That was exactly my point on release. All the beta testers were on the warpath for reviewers pointing out the alpha state of the release, instead of feeling a little betrayed by BFC for allowing this to happen.
 

Sirocco

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
I think the operative word here is objectivity, and lack thereof. And perhaps that's just the risk of having long term testers.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I should have predicted the next turn in the thread. He doesn't like Syria so he must only like WW2. Thats why he hates CMSF. Holy Crap...are they getting predictable or what. I thought Steve might have the common sense to stay out of that thread and let his minions do his work. I guess not.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Or kicking out testers who complain.
I'm not aware of them having done that with CM:SF. I got the impression there were CM:C testers that had some interesting ideas to bring to the table but no one was really interested in hearing them. We can see how far that project progressed, but - I doubt very much the real problem was one of ideas so much as of focus, technical ability, and perhaps interface with CM:BB.

Actually, I think BFC's track record for selecting CM beta testers has been pretty good, as far as finding people dedicated to the project. You can criticize them for being rabid fanboys, but you can't turn around and suggest that any of their testers are being dismissed for complaining about the game.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I had two people PM me and hinted they no longer beta tested due to differences in opinion on the direction of CM2. It was well over a year ago and those same two no longer post or have anything to do with BFC. They might not have been fired, but I think they read the writing on the wall. I have to be careful on giving too much, but I know there was a feeling from one that BFC was not being up front with the testers, even the rabid fanbois.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I had two people PM me and hinted they no longer beta tested due to differences in opinion on the direction of CM2. It was well over a year ago and those same two no longer post or have anything to do with BFC. They might not have been fired, but I think they read the writing on the wall.
That's interesting to me, thanks; I didn't get too chummy with a lot of the "strangers" to me there. As I've posted before, I know this was the case with earlier CM versions - just look at the manual and see how many testers "graduated" from game to game. I've also emailed with testers on earlier projects and have heard the same things.

But having said that - differences of opinion are fair game. It doesn't stop you from being a good tester - you're there to play the thing, not design it. Like I said in another thread, that's not what you sign up for.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Its BFC's game, beta tester obviously know that up front. And this is just conjecture from only brief interchanges, but it was the release and BFC's approach to handling it that put several testers in a minor ethical bind.

I never would have even mentioned and planned on not mentioning it, but Steve showing up on the review thread shows he hasn't really changed the us vs them philosophy that permeated from the release. He should have just shut up and let the thread fade away.

I've mentioned this before, but one of the reasons I am a little sensitive to to the testers conduct is I was put in a similar bind on another game several years ago. All kinds of grand plans and release was too early and a disaster. The developed abandoned the forums and it was left to several of testers to clean up the hard feelings. From my own SW days, I have always said that good beta testers should listen, not speak to customers.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Its BFC's game, beta tester obviously know that up front. And this is just conjecture from only brief interchanges, but it was the release and BFC's approach to handling it that put several testers in a minor ethical bind.

I never would have even mentioned and planned on not mentioning it, but Steve showing up on the review thread shows he hasn't really changed the us vs them philosophy that permeated from the release. He should have just shut up and let the thread fade away.
I got the impression some of the testers didn't like being "blamed" for the release state; I know some basically were reduced to "hey, we're not paid for this" posts. It was a fair statement, and when BFC disappeared from the forums, the testers were left to the wolves. It was thankless. I didn't care much, I considered myself a scenario designer above the fray. Guess my "laziness" paid off.

I don't know what Steve is doing in that thread, honestly. The guy has a valid point about Syria.
 
Top