Steve of BFC is the new Derek Smart?

Feofilakt

Recruit
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
I’ve been on the Battlefront forums since probably the second year of Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord and in addition to being utterly appalled and more than a little distressed by the direction BFC as a whole has taken, I can’t help but see some striking similarities to Steve’s behavior and product and an infamous man known as Derek Smart.

For those of you in the dark, Derek Smart was a particularly slimy fellow in the business of promising grand spaceship sims and delivering half-baked nonsense, with a double specialization in abusing people on his forum and gathering a cult of beta testers and lackeys. More info on him can be found here

This connection has been on my mind for some time, so I figured I would put it out there for some other long time fans of the CM series: Are there significant parallels between Steve and Mr. Smart’s bad behavior, and does the misstep that is CM:SF speak to a larger malfunction within BFC and a future of further missteps due to the fundamentalist nature of the leadership and their modest following?
 

GenSplatton

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
Location
Cibolo, TX
Wow, there's a name I haven't thought about in years. Interesting analogy. I've pretty much stayed out of the BF forums since the main contributor is himself a self-absorbed horses ass so I really haven't followed it much other than what Dorosh and others have posted here. But it will be interesting to read people's thoughts on this.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
No. Steve clearly improved since e.g. the CMBB days.

The beta testers sure got worse, though. There have always been those who define reality as whatever is in the game, but now they got a lot more testers, they are worse in this respect - and there aren't that many non-beta testers left on the forum that are interested in detailed technical discussions.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
I’ve been on the Battlefront forums since probably the second year of Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord and in addition to being utterly appalled and more than a little distressed by the direction BFC as a whole has taken, I can’t help but see some striking similarities to Steve’s behavior and product and an infamous man known as Derek Smart.

For those of you in the dark, Derek Smart was a particularly slimy fellow in the business of promising grand spaceship sims and delivering half-baked nonsense, with a double specialization in abusing people on his forum and gathering a cult of beta testers and lackeys. More info on him can be found here

This connection has been on my mind for some time, so I figured I would put it out there for some other long time fans of the CM series: Are there significant parallels between Steve and Mr. Smart’s bad behavior, and does the misstep that is CM:SF speak to a larger malfunction within BFC and a future of further missteps due to the fundamentalist nature of the leadership and their modest following?
Wow, you must really hate Steve to make this your first post at Gamesquad! LOL

"You just don't get it!"
 

Feofilakt

Recruit
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
No. Steve clearly improved since e.g. the CMBB days.

The beta testers sure got worse, though. There have always been those who define reality as whatever is in the game, but now they got a lot more testers, they are worse in this respect - and there aren't that many non-beta testers left on the forum that are interested in detailed technical discussions.
Ah, but I think the clear difference with CMSF Steve and CMBO/CMBB Steve is that the latter is arrogant, confrontational, and pig-headed while providing an amazing product that delivers in many of its stated goals, while the former is all the gusto and none of the substance, making him uniquely Derek Smart-esque (or Smartey). I also think that due to the prestige of CMx1 Steve may have succumbed to the cult of the beta-tester over time, as you indicate. Most definitely their image of the game in relation to the fanbase is completely out of touch due to said cult, but I am unsure as to the degree.

Patrocles: I don't hate Steve so much as feel frustrated by the cliff BFC is most likely headed and the good people that are being cast off as they blindly march on towards the edge, with the cheerleaders in tow to really weld on the blinders. Michael Dorosh's quasi-falling out was a good indicator that something was wrong, as he was most definitely one of the finest members of that board, his presence here sort of bolstering my belief that I can talk about such failings without fearing -too- much retribution.

"You just don't get it" was certainly a great example of the kind of behavior that would be described as Smartey, as IIRC, I believe Derek Smart said things to that same effect.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Welcome to the forum, though I fear I'm going to get blamed for your presence. :)

I like Steve, or at least the character of Steve we see on the forum. I've never met the real Steve, so I can't comment on that, but I'm pretty sure he's a regular guy with a nice wife and a normal life. But from what I know of Steve the character,he's a man of principle. I mean that sincerely. He sticks to his guns, and he doesn't compromise his own core beliefs. He's proven that to me in private communication. I got the feeling he doesn't enjoy personal confrontations, for example, and is really just a guy who wants to make games that other people will enjoy.

If only it were that simple, though.

Which, unfortunately, and in my opinion, means he's not been a great spokesman for his own company. When he was making a quality product, we all forgave him for his faults. And we all have the kinds of faults Steve chooses to display on his forum. Myself more than anyone. Opinions change, though, and now we judge more harshly with a "what have you done for us lately" attitude.

I still like him but I don't feel sorry for him in the least. But it's ok, because he's never asked anyone for that.

If he has a weakness, he's probably too good to the people that work for him. He may have kept me around far too long as a beta-tester for example, when it was clear I wasn't happy with the direction of the series. Or he may not have. I have no idea why he keeps Moon there, or what Moon even does to earn his keep - he's the one who is truly abusive to the customer base in my opinion. People have complained about Madmatt in the past also - I never really had a problem with him but he was certainly never 'warm & fuzzy' the way Kwazydog or Schrullenhaft are when dealing with questions on the forum.

But yeah, "you just don't get it' kind of sets the tone, and that kind of message filters from the top down. If the boss is acting that way, what's to stop the help from doing it. The beta testers just pick up on it and do the same, too. I did; I was as snotty as anyone to reviewers in the immediate post-release phase of CM:SF - belittling people for their screen names or domain names were among my many "accomplishments" - Bahger become "little Badger" and arsgeek became "arse geek" among my more clever applied appellations. You won't find any evidence in the public forums of displeasure by Steve at this conduct by the beta testers then or now - but to be honest, he had a catastrophically bad release to work on, so he was probably oblivious to the nonsense and probably just glad the beta testers were "handling" some of the load for him. He may still feel that way and honestly not be aware of the effect his "staff" has on how the customers are reacting to them.

I think those of us from military backgrounds also tend to judge civilians in leadership or authority roles very harshly and wonder why they don't just "axe" what we would consider to be dead wood. Ironic, since no one gets fired in the military! But military-style leadership is more direct and if not actually more "ruthless", at the very least less willing to suffer fools or poor results.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Ah, but I think the clear difference with CMSF Steve and CMBO/CMBB Steve is that the latter is arrogant, confrontational, and pig-headed while providing an amazing product that delivers in many of its stated goals,[...]
I disagree.

In CMBB times Steve would just push through "it's working as designed and the design is perfect" unconditionally. You could go on for weeks or months, with constantly implying the game engine is more complex than it is and that's it's actually more right than, whatever, a Tiger on youtube from actual WW2 footage.

Now he's much more reasonable, stating engine limitations, time constraints and freely admitting things that got fatfingered.

Of course that doesn't quite make it right. When I had the "tanks turn asses to enemy" thread about the lousy path invetion (not path finding), he said it's by design and it was pilot error (despite the fact that I has slow move and smooth curves). Apparently Charles just fixed it and it got better. Then in 1.10 it got broken again and Steve says it's a bug, something that got broken. This is a step up from old times.

Anybody want to compare to Lepereur(sp?) over in the Distant Guns section? Now there's somebody that makes Steve look good.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Why are most of the bashers from MA and Canadia, BTW?
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
And what pisses me most off is that they turned the "edit post" time limit so low that the mortal users can't correct mistakes or spelling errors. Of course they can go back and edit their own posts as long as they want. Talk about tuning the forum to the disadvantage of the "outsiders".

I understand you don't want people come back months later and nuke their stuff (like here) and edit something very old totally out of context. But the limit is what? A couple hours?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I disagree.

In CMBB times Steve would just push through "it's working as designed and the design is perfect" unconditionally. You could go on for weeks or months, with constantly implying the game engine is more complex than it is and that's it's actually more right than, whatever, a Tiger on youtube from actual WW2 footage.

Now he's much more reasonable, stating engine limitations, time constraints and freely admitting things that got fatfingered.
If it's true that he's more reasonable on case-for-case stuff, it's only as a result of having his ass handed to him by the really disastrous release of CM:SF. The hotkeys and the mousepad were probably the most humbling thing about that experience. He swore up and down that no one "needed" a right-click or space bar menu and was proud as punch of this boon to his ingenuity. The fans won out and he probably has a pile of those idiotic mousepads in his closet as a testament to his poor decision, unless he landfilled them, sort of like those ET: The Extraterrestrial videogame cartridges that marked the videogame crash for Atari and the 2600 VCS.

He's been forced to backpedal on other major design blunders too, notably the Quick Battle system, but I don't think you'll find that the conversations have been anything like as quick and easy as you're describing them. He may be reasonable on some things, but he's still stubborn on others, and slow to credit people for making him see the light of day on stuff he had no business changing in the first place.

Like I said, he stands for his principles. I didn't say he was always smart to do so.

Why are most of the bashers from MA and Canada, BTW?
Who's "bashing"? I find the topic interesting. Combat Mission set the standard for squad-based, company-level conflict simulation on the PC for many years, among a crowded field, I might add, one that included Panzer Command and Squad Assault and Steel Panthers and Close Combat, the latter two of which spawned multiple titles of their own. It's unfortunate the series is going off in the direction of a platoon-level game, which removes it from series consideration as part of the genre I enjoy. The other series can't compete, and the latter two have seemingly reached the end of their rope.

And what pisses me most off is that they turned the "edit post" time limit so low that the mortal users can't correct mistakes or spelling errors. Of course they can go back and edit their own posts as long as they want. Talk about tuning the forum to the disadvantage of the "outsiders".

I understand you don't want people come back months later and nuke their stuff (like here) and edit something very old totally out of context. But the limit is what? A couple hours?
What does "they" have to do with it? I told you who the problem is. And it isn't Steve. Guess who sets forum policy there. :)
 
Last edited:

Feofilakt

Recruit
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
I disagree.

In CMBB times Steve would just push through "it's working as designed and the design is perfect" unconditionally. You could go on for weeks or months, with constantly implying the game engine is more complex than it is and that's it's actually more right than, whatever, a Tiger on youtube from actual WW2 footage.

Now he's much more reasonable, stating engine limitations, time constraints and freely admitting things that got fatfingered.

Of course that doesn't quite make it right. When I had the "tanks turn asses to enemy" thread about the lousy path invetion (not path finding), he said it's by design and it was pilot error (despite the fact that I has slow move and smooth curves). Apparently Charles just fixed it and it got better. Then in 1.10 it got broken again and Steve says it's a bug, something that got broken. This is a step up from old times.

Anybody want to compare to Lepereur(sp?) over in the Distant Guns section? Now there's somebody that makes Steve look good.
No doubt that Steve was more than stubborn on a number of issues, and perhaps even downright obscurantist. The issue of true modding in CM comes to mind, as well as the invincible Stug issue never being resolved. I think my main point is that while Steve never budges on these, and other, issues the core product was still superb and easily better than most everything else out there at the time. This is in direct contrast to the present in which his behavior, while perhaps softened due to some sort of realization of the danger that BFC is in, is made absurd by the failure of his product. If you are going to be a dictator, make sure you are an effective dictator, otherwise the villagers might become restless...

Why are most of the bashers from MA and Canadia, BTW?
Good question, though I'll argue I'm not so much a basher as a concerned fan. I imagine it may be due to our relative level of civilization compared to the rest of the continent :p

If it's true that he's more reasonable on case-for-case stuff, it's only as a result of having his ass handed to him by the really disastrous release of CM:SF. The hotkeys and the mousepad were probably the most humbling thing about that experience. He swore up and down that no one "needed" a right-click or space bar menu and was proud as punch of this boon to his ingenuity. The fans won out and he probably has a pile of those idiotic mousepads in his closet as a testament to his poor decision, unless he landfilled them, sort of like those ET: The Extraterrestrial videogame cartridges that marked the videogame crash for Atari and the 2600 VCS.

He's been forced to backpedal on other major design blunders too, notably the Quick Battle system, but I don't think you'll find that the conversations have been anything like as quick and easy as you're describing them. He may be reasonable on some things, but he's still stubborn on others, and slow to credit people for making him see the light of day on stuff he had no business changing in the first place.

Like I said, he stands for his principles. I didn't say he was always smart to do so.



Who's "bashing"? I find the topic interesting. Combat Mission set the standard for squad-based, company-level conflict simulation on the PC for many years, among a crowded field, I might add, one that included Panzer Command and Squad Assault and Steel Panthers and Close Combat, the latter two of which spawned multiple titles of their own. It's unfortunate the series is going off in the direction of a platoon-level game, which removes it from series consideration as part of the genre I enjoy. The other series can't compete, and the latter two have seemingly reached the end of their rope.
Indeed, if he has softened it is more through the humbling experience of failure than some sort of acknowledgment of his rather glaring errors. The game direction is still horrible, and their business model is approaching theft. They'd be better served making a WW2 wargame sandbox with all the necessary tools and some sleek, neat coding, charging 65-80 for it and throwing it to the masses with actual mod support. If anything, mod support only helps game sales, and has kept the sales going of more than a few rather diverse titles. Obviously not going to happen, I realize, but I can't help but feel their concept of the gaming market is rather antiquated and perhaps only tenuously connected to reality. I can't help but think they want to follow a miniature version of the Activision-Blizzard stated model and churn out smaller incremental "updates" for a largely inflated price, a business model I don't find to have any sort of long term staying power whatsoever for either party. EA tried the same business model some time ago and suffered greatly, only gaining steam once again once they gave back autonomy to the devs.

Which is the problem, I think, they want to tighten the reins and make the whole thing more centralized when it was already as centralized as it was going to be, with any more restrictions likely causing the sloughing off of a fan base. A highly centralized structure requires big updates and revisions, more akin to what Oleg Maddox does, not tiny incremental updates at a price far too high for what you receive. They need less centralization to follow that model, not more.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
And those increments better be good ones. Marines was a joke; a broken campaign that you can't even unlock 20% of the battles for? You can't say they were crass about it. I mean, they posted a flowchart of the campaign branching, so they couldn't hide the fact there were "missing" battles in the campaign. So it wasn't like they tried to pull a fast one and got caught out. But my issue was always that they should have never adopted that model to begin with - or if so, at least give the player a status screen in between battles and let him see which units he's going into battle with and where he needs to preserve his forces.

And then the other content. There are some threads here about just what the other "modules" will actually provide. I get the impression the British will be just more U.S. Army troops in funny clothes with different voice files. BFC made clear with the first Combat Mission titles they had no desire to put in "national characteristics" the way that, say, Advanced Squad Leader over-stated rules to reflect flavour such as British marksmanship or coolness under fire, or German initiative, or American love of gadgets, citing it as unrealistic. But what about the very real problem of simulating different tactical training? Steve has stated you would need to have a super-advanced AI to be able to do such a thing, so forget about it.

So what, exactly, are they offering then, with these incremental little nationality modules, besides different coloured skins and slightly different weapons stats? New scenarios and maps? We can get those for free in their new Repository.

Like you say - not exactly a big update.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
I'm from Canada, and I will indeed bash.

I find that BFC are under the influence of voodoo magic: "the melange of superstitious beliefs used for deceptive purposes" and that they are stricken by a black magic game engine that inculcates a form of self-deceptive culture around the efficacy (or otherwise) in practice of what is desired in principle. In so doing, they are adopting one of the key characteristics of voodoo mysticism, which is to 'elaborate... an image of mysterious wisdom won by toil', and magic being what it is, is repetitive, covering every new possibility, or else it does not work, since tiny failures to follow the prescription protect the magician from responsibility. In other words it is natural for a magician to take refuge behind questions of procedure and technicalities, to protect himself in case of failure in magical prowess.

I picture Steve with a large bone in his nose, chanting as he often writes on the BFC message board to ward off nonbelievers, with floating shrunken heads in jars (like charles) on the shelves of the BFC offices.

That's fine by me if he puts out a good product, but one only commits his will to the mystery of magic when one is enjoying himself... otherwise the show produces tedium, frustration and anger when we can see the strings holding rings, hear the birds under sleeves, and see the stage assistants doppleganger drunk in front of the theatre right before the show begins...



Cheers!

Leto
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
There's no way to discuss CM:SF on forums external to battlefront without quote-unquote "bashing" it.

The discussions on their own forum revolve around people asking about the future or pumping the developers for information about undocumented design elements, or how the Repository works, or what other future titles will be like, which is stuff that obviously can't be discussed out in the world. I did a count, and fully 1/6 IIRC of the CM:SF forum's posts have been devoted to the nonsense of the Peng threads.

As was mentioned above, there are few people willing to discuss the game itself, because I get the feeling few are playing it, especially in a competitive (tournament or non-tourny MP) setting. I don't doubt there are people - Geordie here at GS is one of them - that are enjoying it solo - but how many conversations can you have about such an experience? It might raise questions about gameplay or tactics, but those seem few and far between.

Oddly, the new game has raised really odd questions that seem more appropriate for a first person shooter - stuff like 'how do I get past mission 3 in the campaign' - stuff you would never have expected to hear in the CM:BB days.

Certainly there is little scope for technical or historical discussion since the "historical" background CM:SF is rooted in is mostly fantasy, and true technical stuff such as armor penetration stats for the M1 tank is often classified and really just a "best guess" on BFC's part.

So there seems to be little else to talk about with respect to CM:SF in the world beyond BFC's doors that is non-critical.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
Ah, but I think the clear difference with CMSF Steve and CMBO/CMBB Steve is that the latter is arrogant, confrontational, and pig-headed while providing an amazing product that delivers in many of its stated goals, while the former is all the gusto and none of the substance, making him uniquely Derek Smart-esque (or Smartey). I also think that due to the prestige of CMx1 Steve may have succumbed to the cult of the beta-tester over time, as you indicate. Most definitely their image of the game in relation to the fanbase is completely out of touch due to said cult, but I am unsure as to the degree.

Patrocles: I don't hate Steve so much as feel frustrated by the cliff BFC is most likely headed and the good people that are being cast off as they blindly march on towards the edge, with the cheerleaders in tow to really weld on the blinders. Michael Dorosh's quasi-falling out was a good indicator that something was wrong, as he was most definitely one of the finest members of that board, his presence here sort of bolstering my belief that I can talk about such failings without fearing -too- much retribution.

"You just don't get it" was certainly a great example of the kind of behavior that would be described as Smartey, as IIRC, I believe Derek Smart said things to that same effect.
Ok, i see what you mean! I know what you mean about feeling frustrated about BFC. I still have a bad taste in my mouth about BFC and Steve after seeing the response, "you just don't get it" over and over from over to legit gripes, questions, concerns about the buggy release of CMSF. Personally, I bought CMSF, but I vowed to never buy any additional CMSF modules and currently I'm wavering on the purchase of CMX2 Normandy.

a bit OT...somewhere I read about AGEOD recently releasing a buggy game (iirc, they were the publisher and not developer) and offering refunds?
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I dont disagree with any of your stuff there, but this bit is slightly wrong:

I don't doubt there are people - Geordie here at GS is one of them - that are enjoying it solo
There is a little league over at WaW and although I do play the game solo I also have a few PBEM going on.

Have I enjoyed it, yes, is the Marines really any different from the Army, er no. Will the Brits be any different? I doubt it. That leaves me paying money for about 3 new vehicles and some new uniforms.

I still remain convinced that modern war does not make for a fair and balanced Military Sim. Even with scenario scripting and penalising for casualties etc its just not fair. So much so that in the vast majority of my PBEMs I have gone Syrians, knowing I will most definitely lose.

I hate to say it but the best experience with this game is playing solo against the Syrians in small Platoon sized actions with a couple of vehicles. I now play it without taking the javelins and try to take on Syrian AFVs with lighter AT. Try not to use Arty or Air either.

As for the BF forum, it always was a bit priggish, but now that most of the really good posters seem to have gone its a beta tester driven forum where any decent suggestion that doesnt fit the mould gets poo pooed very quickly. Still I will continue to soldier on!

Sorry for sort of hijacking your thread.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I dont disagree with any of your stuff there, but this bit is slightly wrong:

Sorry for sort of hijacking your thread.
No hijack perceived; thanks for clarifying. I had wanted to avoid speaking for you since I know you've been pointing out your own positive experiences with the game each time the 'bashing' starts. :) Wanted to reiterate that you've had and continue to have some positive experiences - I apologize for mischaracterizing the nature of those experiences!

Your explanation is interesting. I think "modern" conflict can be quite interesting, it is the asymmetric juxtaposition of a 1st world and a 2nd world army that is making CM:SF such a downer. A NATO vs. Warsaw Pact game set in 1985 West Germany would be much more interesting, I think, even with the increased lethality of the weapons (if done correctly - and many games have i.e. M-1 Tank Platoon, though that was something of a solo bug-hunt, also Steel Panthers, Steel Beasts, et al), and other topics come to mind. I wouldn't be all that interested in them myself, but they're doable at the tactical level. Operation Flashpoint proved that a man-to-man game is plausible, and some mods morphed it into a decent platoon-level tactical game with enough players and even included artillery support, etc. with first class armies on both sides doing battle. Though perhaps the presence of the M-1 will always be something of a "King Tiger" and unbalance any "modern" tactical game - but there are other topics where parity is easier to achieve, notably in the Middle East or the Falklands, if one can find a really decent infantry-oriented game engine for the latter.

A "modern" setting doesn't have to be a downer in my opinion, you just need parity between the combatants. And a good game engine. I don't happen to believe CMX2 delivers either.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
CMx2 would provide a fine challenge if:

1) Syrian artillery wasn't crippled. I don't think anybody here thinks that the response times presented in CMx2 are close to reality? We are talking WW2 russians here.

2) Trenches were subject to FoW and placeable by the defender, and if the defender could place foxholes (with better cover than CMx1s). Buildings occupied during setup should be assumed to offer better cover (stacked furniture or whatever)

3) Spotting is too random on the pessimistic side (see the thread about 2 out of 4 tanks spotted). Units lose sight of things they've seen before too easily.

4) Some weapons have miss rates that are obviously off, on the pessimistic side.

A creative defensive setup isn't possible the way it is (get into the trenches that are visible to the attacker, great idea).

If you fix the above then you can set effective ambushes and once you execute the ambush you hurt whoever walks into it pretty badly.

Of course fixing thermal imaging would shift some balance back to the U.S.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
CMx2 would provide a fine challenge if:

1) Syrian artillery wasn't crippled. I don't think anybody here thinks that the response times presented in CMx2 are close to reality? We are talking WW2 russians here.
There is an entire thread right now by a Russian that talks about Soviet doctrine and equipment that says that basically, the Syrians are using training and equipment that would allow them to provide artillery response in a fraction of the time allowed them in the game.

A creative defensive setup isn't possible the way it is (get into the trenches that are visible to the attacker, great idea).
Even bunkers are visible due to the terrain deformation.

The scripts and the telegraphing of the scripts in the terrain editor by inexperienced scenario designers is an issue too, coupled with the lack of event triggers.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I take it back. Steve is starting to sound like Derek Smart. :D

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84750&page=7

Poster: CMx1 got great reviews for it's graphics. For example:

http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/n...atmissionbbpc/

"Here, the units are beautiful 3D depictions of the actual vehicles and infantry being represented, moving and fighting on a 3D map. This is the first area in which the improvements in Barbarossa to Berlin are evident."

or from
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ry;read-review

"the foliage is more complex, the textures are sharper, the special effects like fire and smoke don't look so homegrown, and the vehicle models feature more detail and animation. You'll spend more time getting in close to study the replays just because they look so good. With the possible exception of its stiff little infantry models, Combat Mission now looks like a big-budget game."

or Computer Gaming world's:
"With a superb game system, unrivaled detail, great graphics for the genre, and outstanding multiplayer, CMBB is more than enough to please any wargamer."

etc. CMx1 was not reviewed anywhere nearly as bad as you remember. It was LOVED by the critics and fans and the graphics were praised for the time. CMAK graphics did not get as good a review, but that is because they didn't change much from CMBB despite time going by.
Steve:I think the problem with Lurker765's selective quoted reviews shows this quite clearly. When CMx1 games were reviewed by guys who were into/used to wargames we generally got excellent reviews EVEN on the graphics. Same with our customers. But when the reviewers and gamers were more mainstream we got criticism that ranged from mild to score slaughtering. And yeah, I remember this VERY WELL because it was so infuriating to get compared to an indoor shooter like Quake or a sprite based game like Warcraft 2. And yeah, we were compared to them all the time by non-wargamers.

By the time CMAK came around even the guys that were expecting more from the game, graphically, than it offered. This was NOT just because the environment since it had all the temperate terrain of CMBB as well as the desert setting. Nope, we got hit more frequently because a) there were a lot less publications out there with "relevant" reviewers and b) everybody expected to see release over release improvements. CMAK was, obviously, the same graphics engine and therefore improvement other than dust was just not enough.

So I'm not the one with the selective memory

The criticism of CMx1's graphics were so strong that we almost didn't make CMAK because of that alone. I'm serious. What do you think we did? Make up a bunch of imaginary criticism to short change our own investment in the CMx1 game engine? That's stupid beyond belief and therefore is certainly not what we did. Therefore, the criticism were there and were real at the time. If you don't believe this, then please ask yourself... how much more critical of CMx2 would reviewers and gamers alike be of CM:SF if its graphics were not as good as they are? More or less? If you say "less" then once again I must point out that I'm not the one that's using selective reasoning

Now, it is true that we still have room for improvement. Definitely some views of CM's environment are rougher than others. The way I play, which is high up but more at a 3/4 view instead of overhead, the game still looks vastly superior to CMx1. But more than that, the terrain detail means a much richer game experience even if I'm not down at ground level oogling over a specific unit.
Poster:I did not selectively quote any reviews. I went to MetaCritic:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...ionbarbarossa/

and grabbed the first couple reviews I could find about CMBB. I could have quoted:

"and counting in well-drawn graphics and outstanding sound" from Pregaming.com

or a more 'mainstream' review:

"Combat Mission is not the best looking tactical simulator out there with it’s rather odd looking characters but the grandeur of the environments are really something to behold." from GameZone.com

or

"Don't let the great sounds and graphics fool you into thinking that this is an arcade game, or simply an RTS dressed in WWII clothing." from GameSpy.com

etc.

CMx1 was loved by critics. I honestly don't know where these 'mainstream' reviews that you keep bringing up (without any links) are. Every place I have looked for reviews of CMBB has given it a higher score than CMSF and not one was "score slaughtering" on the graphics.

I don't understand where this bashing of your own game comes from? As far as I can tell you do have selective memory on this topic.
:popc1:

It's the same point I made here recently; Steve keeps trashing CMX1 because as so many others like [hirr]Leto have pointed out, the real competition is between CM:SF and the older CM titles.

Incidentally, I see someone in that thread has badmouthed me for giving CM:SF a lower score in a review for graphics than I did for CM:BB. It's simple. CM:BB came out many years ago, and the fact is that the troops in CM:SF are supposed to represent individuals - 1:1 representation and all that. Yet they look like they're running underwater and are clones of each other. Of course I rate them lower. I would expect a game like CM:SF that has individual models to make them look like individuals, not clones. The 3D models in CM:BB are chess pieces - doesn't matter if they look alike, really, and at the time they were released, they were perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:
Top