CMSF: Not good
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
After a couple of days of on and off acquaintance with Battlefont's
2nd generation CM game I've ended up with a rather firm opinion of
Shock Force- it's shockingly bad. Not irretrievably bad perhaps, but
bad nonetheless. Maybe ghastly is the better word. This is said with a
heavy heart; I respected the developers and really- really- wanted
this to succeed, but....
Let me count the ways. I won't even enumerate all the performance
issues; the crashes, convoluted UI, crazy pathfinding and general
loggy responsiveness. Others have attested to these. The game ran sort
of OK on my (rather beefy) system after I ditched the laser mouse for
the cheapo one that came with the PC.
In no particular order:
1- Previously the TAB button put the player directly behind and
slightly above the unit. This no longer works, or works erratically.
Fighting in multi story bldgs, for example, is rendered arduous due to
the crazy unit selection which is likely to put you on the wrong
floor. Furthermore, the men always rush to the windows, no more in-
building ambushes.
2- Troops no longer surrender, as in previous CMs, but fight to the
last man, US units showing particular insouciance under fire. I
witnessed my Syrian squad- laying prone on the *highway*- take on a
Striker at 30m with the expected result.
3- Quick battles are non-functional. BF abolished the purchase screen,
which is fine by me, but nothing else works. The player can't select
his own maps, for one thing. And the enemy's setup area is awol on the
map; twice I began a scenario surrounded. Also, though one can select
the force type, the actual units vary wildly- and illogically- in
quality and number.
4- The graphical depictions of soldiers and AFVs in CMSF are superb,
the terrain less so. Ditches, ravines, trenches appear out of nowhere;
the player must get down to level 1 and creep along the ground with
the mouse to avoid nasty surprises. These features were clearly
delineated in CMBB and CMAK at any zoom. And forget controlling your
guys in the forest. BF apparently hasn't heard of diaphanous trees.
5- Do you enjoy watching firefights between units separated by 8 foot
concrete walls? Then CMSF is the game for you.
Do I imagine myself one day enjoying this game? Maybe. IMO,
Battlefront appears to have expended excess resources on including
both WEGO and real time options. They should have settled on one or
the other. Apparently the clamor on the forum was for retaining the
former. So, being customer sensitive, they listened.
Rob Pollard
<p.ox...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1185723696....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
The game has problems, but it is growing on me. Havent really looked at the
quick battles yet, but I intend to. The UI is very good, but they give you
too many ways to do things. The best way of moving is LMB down to move
around, RMB to rotate and mouse wheel to go up and down. You can still do
the old CM trick of moving the mouse towards the edges of the screen but it
isn't as efficient or smooth.
I have had the same problems with trenches. Even quite close they seem to
disapear in front of your eyes. In fact you can get to a distance where the
trench doesn't show but the units do!
Firing animations and explosions look great and really add to the
atmosphere. When the fighting kicks off you really feel like you are there.
Even the HMG tracer rounds can be seen deflecting off the ground.
Haven't played it in WEGO mode yet. Having way too much fun in real time,
which never seems as frantic as the old Close Combat titles - so far I have
not needed the pause key.
Scenario wise there only seems to be a handfull of them. But there are two
campaigns (one tutorial and the other a full scale one) and I don't know how
many missions are in the campaigns. Hopefully, like CM there will be many
authored scenarios. I can see people trying to simulate Iraq or Afganistan
engagements here.
Helicopters are very abstract in this game. You call in the AH64's then just
see incoming missiles and chain gun fire from off map. This is an omision as
helicopters are also used extensively for insertion and observation, which
as far as I can tell you can't do in this game. Shame, otherwise there would
have been some cool Blackhawk down type missions.
There doesn't seem to be a los tool! Where did this go? And it is sometimes
difficult to gauge the type of terrain your units are in. Might have missed
this as an AI thing.
I like the way infantry units can equip themselves from equipment within the
IFV's prior to dismounting. They can even go back to pick up more equipment.
Whilst I have played many infantry centric missions in the original CM, this
one just seems much more fun!
RobP
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
tool.
Update: I mentioned that infantry showing an alarming lack of a sense
of self-preservation in SF. Now I'm noticing that armor exhibits the
same stoic imperturbability; remaining in place, never popping smoke
or frantically reversing as in previous titles. Is Hull Down a factor
any more? The seek HD posiion command has gone sayonara. Once you get
pass the gloss, you begin to discover a deeply weird game.
wbur...@aol.com
> <p.oxf...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well at least you can _GET_ some gameplay out of it. My experience has
been nothing more than left click on a unit, game freezes and goes to
desktop. Hoping in the very near future they either offer a patch for
the VISTA/ATI issue or give refunds. There is alot to be said
regarding mainstream companies who actually release stuff at retail
outlets. If they were releasing games such as CM-SF with it's
incompatability issues with OS and video cards that company would
disappear due to customer dissatifaction. I've supported Battlefront
for years but this release makes me very wary about independent labels
who deal strictly with internet sales.
Wayne
Rob Pollard
<wbur...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185732706....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 10:33 am, "Rob Pollard" <robertapoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <p.oxf...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185723696....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Well at least you can _GET_ some gameplay out of it. My experience has
> been nothing more than left click on a unit, game freezes and goes to
> desktop. Hoping in the very near future they either offer a patch for
> the VISTA/ATI issue or give refunds. There is alot to be said
> regarding mainstream companies who actually release stuff at retail
> outlets. If they were releasing games such as CM-SF with it's
> incompatability issues with OS and video cards that company would
> disappear due to customer dissatifaction. I've supported Battlefront
> for years but this release makes me very wary about independent labels
> who deal strictly with internet sales.
>
> Wayne
>
I think they will be releasing to retail outlets, but the dates I have seen
indicate early August, at least for the Uk. The problem is too many
companies these days release games before they are ready so that the can get
a quick cash boost. Invariably, its the publishers forcing the developers to
do this. There aren't many developers out there that would release junk
with their name on it.
If you bought the game and it didn't work, I'd ask for my money back. In the
Uk, consumer law allows one to do this. Hopefully, if enough of you do this
the publishers will take notice.
Rob Pollard
news:1185732705....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I just done my first town battle and got my ass handed to me. My first
defeat in this game so far. I have to say, that I'm finding it harder to
control my troops in the way that I would like when compared to the earlier
CM titles. This didn't really show itself until the street fighting as this
needs more precise attention to detail.
Your troops do have suicidal tendencies. I plot a route around a building
(using it as cover), but my troops decide to go around the front, then get
mowed down by semi-automatic weapons - nice. When I select smoke grenades my
troops seem to just pick a location and throw.
Other wierdness - when a squad has taken casualties and you set movement
orders, sometimes the remaining members go to your waypoint via the place
where their comrades have fallen! Hopefully this is a 'me' bug rather than a
game one. I have also found that my MMG squads cannot be deployed indoors,
which is a pain.
You are right about the vehicles too. You plot them perfect waypoints to
keep them out of trouble, then they decide to make their own way to the
destination and expose themselves to far too much fire in the process.
Going to read the manual now as I seem to be having problems editing
waypoints. In the original CM you clicked the nodes and dragged them. In
this version I can't seem to move them.
Hopefully some of the issues I've witnessed are down to me not understanding
the game properly, but I will have to wait and see to find out!
RobP
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
Just added this post to their forum:
In the WEGO CM games, the player intervened once every 60 seconds. A
refined TacAI was mandatory. Now that we're in RT, or virtual RT,
maybe BF expects us to manually pop smoke, reverse the AFVs and
retreat the shaky squads to safety. They did excise the Seek Hull Down
command so that's become the player's responsibility. If so, I
disagree with the decision. As if an actual company commander has the
time to attend to these details in a firefight.....The micromanagement
would be staggering. And contradicts the philosophy behind real time
spotting environment which the game so convincingly depicts.
Rob Pollard
<p.ox...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1185737361.0...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I agree. Though on the smoke grenades front, I'd like to be able to use them
offensively like most modern armies would in urban situations. Unfortunately
the only option you get is 'pop smoke', then the unit picks the spot. The
spot it picks is nearly always useless for offensive ops. The manual says
you shouldn't be using your troops smoke grenades for offensive ops, you
should be using your artillery for this. Maybe BF needs to visit an army
camp and get them to demo an assault on a building. Not being able to use
smoke grenades offensively means that our digital troops will be taking a
lot higher casualties than they need to, when fighting in urban
environments.
Going to have to look through BF's forums too. After reading the manual I'm
still none the wiser on how to move waypoints that are already laid down!
Hopefully someone there knows the answer.
The TacAI is terrible. Which is weird considering it wasn't too bad in the
earlier CM titles. Given that the chaps have the source code to the
originals, one can only wonder why they have taken a step back with it.
I don't agree with the fact they removed the seek hull down command. This is
a very bad move on their part. In real life it is relatively easy to judge
terrain and get yourself hull down. In a game its a lot harder to see the
contours and the lie of the land properly. Steel Beasts Pro has a good
mechanism where you can click the 'Hull down' button and your unit will
reverse or move forward into a hull down position based on the unit's
current facing.
This game needs around another 6 months of development, maybe more to allow
the devs to implement some of these issues properly.
RobP
Charles Foster Kane
> In the WEGO CM games, the player intervened once every 60 seconds. A
> refined TacAI was mandatory. Now that we're in RT, or virtual RT,
> maybe BF expects us to manually pop smoke, reverse the AFVs and
> retreat the shaky squads to safety.
Did you guys read the part about "Instant Commands"? It seems the
expectation is that the player will overwatch risky moves and press the
"Evade" button as soon as something bad starts to happen. If I
understand it right, this even works in WEGO - which may be the reason
why you can't fast-forward during the first show but have to sit through
60 seconds of boring "get into starting position" turns.
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
Well, that would be practicable in CM:Striker Driver but in, say, a
fight with a dozen AFVs and twice that many squads the player would
require as many arms as Vishnu. Face it, they denuded the TacAI. Why
should player have to control a squad that is OUT OF CONTROL? Seems a
contradiction in terms.
Rob Pollard
"Charles Foster Kane" <cf_...@online.de> wrote in message
news:f8j0m1$hbg$1...@online.de...
Tried the 'evade' command. It isn't too effective and causes more trouble
than it solves.
RobP
Xanu was Here
<p.ox...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1185737361.0...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
decision to not purchase this game. Seems like BF released this far too
soon, and the attitude they have on the subject (via their forums), seems a
bit too "snobby" for my taste. Don't feel like being a Beta tester. My how
the mighty have fallen.....
For the record, have been a huge CM fan since day one, and still regularly
play CMBB & CMAK, and also regularly play T-72 BoF, so I do enjoy BF games,
but they seem to be fading.....
BP
>I think they will be releasing to retail outlets, but the dates I have seen
>indicate early August, at least for the Uk. The problem is too many
>companies these days release games before they are ready so that the can get
>a quick cash boost. Invariably, its the publishers forcing the developers to
>do this. There aren't many developers out there that would release junk
>with their name on it.
Except that in this case you are talking about CM:SF, and aren't the
publisher and developer one and the same?
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I think they will be releasing to retail outlets, but the dates I have seen
> indicate early August, at least for the Uk.
August 10 - there will be German and French localized versions too
distributed by Koch Media into retail.
>The problem is too many
> companies these days release games before they are ready so that the can get
> a quick cash boost. Invariably, its the publishers forcing the developers to
> do this. There aren't many developers out there that would release junk
> with their name on it.
uh, Battlefront is the developer and publisher for this game :)
> If you bought the game and it didn't work, I'd ask for my money back. In the
> Uk, consumer law allows one to do this. Hopefully, if enough of you do this
> the publishers will take notice
Except that they won't. Their official policy is that you should have
tried the demo first to see if it runs on your system.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Just wanted to send a big "Thanks" to both of you for assisting in my
> decision to not purchase this game. Seems like BF released this far too
> soon,
Well, the game sure has it's problems - but it also has some hard to
pinpoint "magic". When the original CM game came out there were lots
of problems too and now everyone is saying it's a classic
I'm officially on the fence until they fix the most glaring problems.
A tactical game that prides itself on calculating the trajectory of
every bullet shouldn't have so many problems with the basics - like
not allowing people to shoot through walls at units not in the LOS.
>and the attitude they have on the subject (via their forums), seems a
> bit too "snobby" for my taste.
You mean posts like this one ?
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001946
Yeah, what a stupid move, insulting your customers like that. The
responses to it showed a lot more maturity and down-to-earth common
sense than the original post.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001946
But that's part of the charm of BFC forums... And notice that "customers"
ie. Battlefront.com fans didn't in fact objected too much... Why you see
this that Battlefront.com is "against" their customers? I many time see
relaxing relation there, many jokes and many fans simply adore them!
Steve, Moon, Matt kick ass and really are great guys. Charles is busy
programming I guess or he also post sometimes?
You must understand that Battlefront.com have better communication with
their customers. They don't need PR officials to channel to the public what
they want to say. They give feedback and they get feedback straight away.
An outside look may find this awkward, strange, clumsy or stupid but that's
just communication and any communication is no ideal.
They are developers but they act like a pals, buddies too, look it that
way... I have had tons of laughs reading their forums.
They are not the only one - many companies have realised that in order to
motivate customers to buy their product they should also speak to them, show
them that they are like them.
Mario
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
wrote:
> > You mean posts like this one ?
>
>
> But that's part of the charm of BFC forums... And notice that "customers"
> ie. Battlefront.com fans didn't in fact objected too much... Why you see
> this that Battlefront.com is "against" their customers? I many time see
> relaxing relation there, many jokes and many fans simply adore them!
> Steve, Moon, Matt kick ass and really are great guys. Charles is busy
> programming I guess or he also post sometimes?
That's right, Mario. There was always something appealing about the
BFC guys and their forum- which was always as entertaining as their
games. You get to appreciate their willingness to get down in the mud
and bicker with posters, their testy retorts, the well thought out
rationales and their obvious love of the genre. No Olympian aloofness
here. No 'suits'.
CMSF will slumber on my hard drive over the next few months. It's true
that CMBO had birthing pains, but nothing this daunting, IIRC. For
example, they've recoded the entire thing. They can't just 'plug in'
the missing TacAI properties. These must be rebuilt from scratch. Or
maybe, they're in denial or simply prefer the current structure. I
expect a quick patch to address critical cpu/driver issues. Then we'll
see.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > You mean posts like this one ?
>
>
> But that's part of the charm of BFC forums... And notice that "customers"
> ie. Battlefront.com fans didn't in fact objected too much...
Yeah, like they're going to post a "dude, get of your high horse" ...
>Why you see
> this that Battlefront.com is "against" their customers?
Because people who are not familiar with this particular "tone" of the
Battlefront guys will see it as extreme arrogance. Which it is.
>I many time see
> relaxing relation there, many jokes and many fans simply adore them!
Yeah, a true fanboy-only zone. Well, it's probably part of what drives
them so who am I to criticize this ? The trouble with fanboy-only
zones is of course that you lose track of reality, but that's their
problem.
> You must understand that Battlefront.com have better communication with
> their customers.
Compared to whom ?
>They don't need PR officials to channel to the public what
> they want to say.
Other publisher do ?
> An outside look may find this awkward, strange, clumsy or stupid but that's
> just communication and any communication is no ideal.
> They are developers but they act like a pals, buddies too, look it that
> way... I have had tons of laughs reading their forums.
Really ? Well, unlike you I'm not into Schadenfreude when I see
someone hurting his own business.
>
> They are not the only one - many companies have realised that in order to
> motivate customers to buy their product they should also speak to them, show
> them that they are like them.
In full agreement here.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> They can't just 'plug in'
> the missing TacAI properties. These must be rebuilt from scratch. Or
> maybe, they're in denial or simply prefer the current structure. I
> expect a quick patch to address critical cpu/driver issues. Then we'll
> see.
Hi,
I've been tinkering some more with the CM:SF demo and had several
"aaargh, gimme that gun and get out of the way" moments. Maximum
points for immersion of course, but also at the same time seriously
frustrating. Now, if you're anything like me you want some level of
frustration in your wargames. A strategic level wargame where you've
got so many resource points you can buy everything is not enjoyable,
you need the nail-biting and frustration that comes with having to
make hard choices - upgrade your panzers to Tiger II's or your U-Boats
to type XXI - can't have both. Same for operational level games where
your foot-sloggers will not be able to move fast enough to plug that
gap, or just one AT unit and two approach roads to cover etc.
But in a tactical game I want the frustration to come from having to
pick between a covered route risking a possible ambush and a quick
dash over open country using smoke and cover fire, not from watching
units take fire and *not* have the sense to pop smoke and retreat. An
enemy AI that is only good at defense and thinks human waves is an
appropriate attack tactic I can live with - there's always PBEM - but
seeing my own units do daft things triggers the wrong kind of
frustration. At that point you're getting punished - not for something
you did wrong - but because you're commanding digital dolts. Pick
Tiger II's and see your clunky, old U-boats getting slaughtered by
escort carriers is your own damn' fault, your own choice, no-one else
to blame but you. But if you get to the point where you're shouting
"get the hell out of there, you idiot" you start to realize they're
digital dolts. And you are their commander. Oh joy - not.
Now, warfare at the tactical level should see a lot of "daft"
behaviour - units panicking, freezing, shooting at their own units
etc. So how much of that digital doltness is by design and how much of
it is simply an inadequate own-unit AI ?
One poster in the Battlefront forum managed to sum it up : the game
feels a bit rough around the edges - it's not that the individual
parts that make the game are bad, but every little part of it could
use some additional spit & polish. A lot of it.
My take on it is that due to the publishing contract with Paradox they
had a *real* deadline for this game. Ready or not it had to go out the
door on a particular date so as not to disrupt the retail schedule,
not to mention the pr and localization schedule. Secretly they may
admit it got pushed out of the door before it was ready and may regret
their decision to simultaneously release it for download and retail.
In hindsight I think it would have been a lot smarter to first go with
digital download only so you're in total control if and when you
release it - the "release when ready" mode of action - and go retail
with a by then steady product 1.02 or so a couple of months later. You
make a smaller initial impact that way, but you also avoid the
slightly negativist mood in your forums, not to mention the early
negativist reviews, of what everyone sees is an unfinished product -
which is detrimental to your sales as well.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> I'm officially on the fence until they fix the most glaring problems.
> A tactical game that prides itself on calculating the trajectory of
> every bullet shouldn't have so many problems with the basics - like
> not allowing people to shoot through walls at units not in the LOS.
Well, and their "answer" for people with nVidia cards can't be, "Oh,
well, nVidia - yeah, there's some problems with those," even as their
"answer" for people with ATI cards is, "Yah, ATI, we've seen some issues
there."
<tilt>
*Everyone* - no shit, statistically *everyone* - who's into 3D gaming
seriously has either an nVidia or ATI GPU in their system. That this
turkey wasn't tested *exhaustively* on both of these product lines is
just ridiculous.
I'll bet it's that frakked-up OpenGl. Seems like every friggin' game
that uses that is just crash, kaboom, blam. DirectX, on the other hand,
seems quite a stable blob of code these days.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The country might decide that it prefers, yes, a Republican - say, 9/11
veteran Rudy Giuliani - to a freshman senator who does not instinctively
understand why an American president does not share the honor of his
office with a malevolent clown like Hugo Chavez."
- Charles Krauthammer
Giftzwerg
re...@newsgroup.please says...
Don't forget that you've got the Paradox version in the mix, too.
That's probably the publisher he's referring to here.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> *Everyone* - no shit, statistically *everyone* - who's into 3D gaming
> seriously has either an nVidia or ATI GPU in their system. That this
> turkey wasn't tested *exhaustively* on both of these product lines is
> just ridiculous.
There are times I wish you would join a beta-team somewhere - a
sobering experience in more than one way :)
> I'll bet it's that frakked-up OpenGl. Seems like every friggin' game
> that uses that is just crash, kaboom, blam.
No need to bet, it's an OpenGl game - these guys have Mac roots and
were maybe thinking about a future Mac version.
> DirectX, on the other hand,
> seems quite a stable blob of code these days.
A library written for a specific platform being more stable and
performant than one that is supposed to run everywhere ? Who would
have thunked ? :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > *Everyone* - no shit, statistically *everyone* - who's into 3D gaming
> > seriously has either an nVidia or ATI GPU in their system. That this
> > turkey wasn't tested *exhaustively* on both of these product lines is
> > just ridiculous.
>
> There are times I wish you would join a beta-team somewhere - a
> sobering experience in more than one way :)
"Sobering?" I'd have to have a BAC of .12% or better.
> > I'll bet it's that frakked-up OpenGl. Seems like every friggin' game
> > that uses that is just crash, kaboom, blam.
>
> No need to bet, it's an OpenGl game - these guys have Mac roots and
> were maybe thinking about a future Mac version.
<laughter>
Yeah, there's a mongo demographic, ripe for the tappin' - MacIntard
gamers.
> > DirectX, on the other hand,
> > seems quite a stable blob of code these days.
>
> A library written for a specific platform being more stable and
> performant than one that is supposed to run everywhere ? Who would
> have thunked ? :)
All I know is that whenever a game offers a choice between the OpenGl
drivers and DirectX, one fork leads to a stable game, and the other to a
Magical Mystery Tour of fiddle-frakking with device setups.
Bloodstar
> BFC guys and their forum- which was always as entertaining as their
> games. You get to appreciate their willingness to get down in the mud
> and bicker with posters, their testy retorts, the well thought out
> rationales and their obvious love of the genre. No Olympian aloofness
> here. No 'suits'.
>
> CMSF will slumber on my hard drive over the next few months. It's true
> that CMBO had birthing pains, but nothing this daunting, IIRC. For
> example, they've recoded the entire thing. They can't just 'plug in'
> the missing TacAI properties. These must be rebuilt from scratch. Or
> maybe, they're in denial or simply prefer the current structure. I
> expect a quick patch to address critical cpu/driver issues. Then we'll
> see.
Thank you Sir, you have really said it right!!!
They are wargamers and bloody passionate in what they doing! Sometimes they
can jump on someone but hey developing games is also stresful! So I have
understanding for them as well!
Regards.
Bloodstar
>> ie. Battlefront.com fans didn't in fact objected too much...
>
> Yeah, like they're going to post a "dude, get of your high horse" ...
They are man from blood and flesh after all ;)
>>Why you see
>> this that Battlefront.com is "against" their customers?
>
> Because people who are not familiar with this particular "tone" of the
> Battlefront guys will see it as extreme arrogance. Which it is.
You are exaggerating - people will see very fast that that's the way BFC
guys communicate. They are respectful of their customers and you are simply
dragging some examples and want to put that in a big, first plan which would
give innacurate picture that BFC guys are some kind of a drunken rednecks
that you will meet in some shaddy bar on a Arisona highway LOL
>>I many time see
>> relaxing relation there, many jokes and many fans simply adore them!
>
> Yeah, a true fanboy-only zone. Well, it's probably part of what drives
> them so who am I to criticize this ? The trouble with fanboy-only
> zones is of course that you lose track of reality, but that's their
> problem.
Well, it's not. I am not some kind of a long time resident here but it's
simply not true that it is fanboy only zone. I see plenty of criticism there
and they are listening. You are not very objective Eddy :)
>> You must understand that Battlefront.com have better communication with
>> their customers.
>
> Compared to whom ?
I am not comparing anything. All are different. I am not saying that Matrix
is worse or better, they are different.
And I am not now jumping on Matrix representative's heels now. They are also
OK. Helpful and all that. I just say that BFC guys have charm and that they
are funny, that's all. :)
Re: Matrix.
What I don't like in attitude from Matrix is that they sometimes defends
their developers just too much even in some cases that from Mars you can see
that it's far from the truth.
Erik Rutins for example will defend Matrix developers and some things in
Matrix games which is far from reality. I've seen that in x100 cases. But,
hey he is making a living out of their sales so I can understand that. But I
would like that they are just MORE OBJECTIVE, nothing else.
BUT! It is not helping a truth too much.
I will give you few examples.
I said that game that I payed CEaW loads on my system way too much and he
said to me that "I can do something else" in that 1: 30 minutes while game
loads. Hello?
That is simply LAME excuse for some piss poor programming skills and you can
defend your developers but that is same like for example Bill Gates saying
"So what if CHESS (free game) on VISTA loads in 1 minute" (and it's not
:o)))))
I was saying that wargames which are NOT OBLIVION and graphic heavy should
load faster. So I don't need lame excuses how I should do something else
while bloody game loads. It's not Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum game so that
we need to wait that bloody TAPE load program into memory!!! HELLO? Jupiter
calls the Earth?
Do we need to exactly count byte by byte how much bloody game of CWaW eats
memory and how much bloody Oblivion eats memory and why bloody wargame loads
slower???
Another example of lame defending of developers. I was a beta tester of
Crown of Glory. So I played some time a game and when I get to the THAT
point when I said to myself "OH CHRIST! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS...!!!". So I
printed a manual on my printer, a lot pages and start to read it and said
again "I CANNOT BELIEVE IT".
Then I realized - game was screwed from a get go.
A BLOODY DESIGN WAS SCREWED!!!
It had WORST INTERFACE and bloody design was screwed with ZILLION of numbers
and they included I think even a value for bloody SOCKS of some commanders.
That is worst design in a wargame that I ever saw! And you have Erik Rutins
defending that DESIGN and that INTERFACE.
Hello???
Tip for Matrix Games would be to print an ad page for Crown of Glory like
this "YOU ARE TIRED FROM TORTURING YOURSELF BY A SPANISH INQUISITION?
TRY OUR LATEST GAME CALLED CROWN OF GLORY" :o))))))))
Because that's what this game is a real torture :))))))
So basically that is what I expect from developers or publisher relations
toward customer, to kind of accept obvious things not to defend something
which is plain undefendable.
> Really ? Well, unlike you I'm not into Schadenfreude when I see
> someone hurting his own business.
???
>> They are not the only one - many companies have realised that in order to
>> motivate customers to buy their product they should also speak to them,
>> show
>> them that they are like them.
>
> In full agreement here.
:))) At least something....
Listen I don't want a flame as you know... but clearly I am just for
objective assesment of all... Not a one eye look on one and glorification of
other.
Mario
eddys...@hotmail.com
> >> But that's part of the charm of BFC forums... And notice that "customers"
> >> ie. Battlefront.com fans didn't in fact objected too much...
>
> > Yeah, like they're going to post a "dude, get of your high horse" ...
>
> They are man from blood and flesh after all ;)
>
> >>Why you see
> >> this that Battlefront.com is "against" their customers?
>
> > Because people who are not familiar with this particular "tone" of the
> > Battlefront guys will see it as extreme arrogance. Which it is.
>
> You are exaggerating - people will see very fast that that's the way BFC
> guys communicate.
I completely agree - and a lot of people will not like their style -
or more precisely their lack of it - but that's their (business)
problem.
> They are respectful of their customers and you are simply
> dragging some examples and want to put that in a big, first plan which would
> give innacurate picture that BFC guys are some kind of a drunken rednecks
> that you will meet in some shaddy bar on a Arisona highway LOL
Could have fooled me ... just "some" examples huh - well, if that is
normal and respectfull it would be very easy for you to quote some
likewise stuff from, let's say Matrix or Shrapnel.
I'm waiting.
Oh, and SES doesn't count.
> Well, it's not. I am not some kind of a long time resident here but it's
> simply not true that it is fanboy only zone. I see plenty of criticism there
> and they are listening. You are not very objective Eddy :)
With fanboy I meant that this "style" attracts only a particular type
of posters who become fans of this "Battlefront, your best friend,
your worst enemy" style of trash-talk.
Back in the Strategic Command 1 days I was a big fan of the game and
played it PBEM with some guys, but almost never posted on the forum
because it simply failed to live up to my personal taste.
<sigh> could be a cultural thing - Flemish people in general don't
like boasting arrogance and want their "stars" to be down-to-earth
normal guys.
> >> You must understand that Battlefront.com have better communication with
> >> their customers.
>
> > Compared to whom ?
>
> I am not comparing anything.
"have better" is not comparing ? my bad for thinking it was.
> So basically that is what I expect from developers or publisher relations
> toward customer, to kind of accept obvious things not to defend something
> which is plain undefendable.
Like renting out software through eLicence ? I fully agree.
> > Really ? Well, unlike you I'm not into Schadenfreude when I see
> > someone hurting his own business.
>
> ???
Let's put it in more simpler terms : their rather aggressive posting
"style" is detrimental to their business. For a wargamer who owns 5
Battlefront titles and wants to see some more of their games published
that is not a Good Thing (tm)
> Listen I don't want a flame as you know... but clearly I am just for
> objective assesment of all... Not a one eye look on one and glorification of
> other.
Well, my objective assesment says the guys at Battlefront have a
posting "style" that's maybe fine for the more outspoken Yanks and the
more hot-blooded Southern Europeans but gets on my Northern European
nerves real quick.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Rob Pollard
"Xanu was Here" <Xa...@cruisee.com> wrote in message
news:sfdri.55079$dI1....@newsfe08.phx...
> decision to not purchase this game. Seems like BF released this far too
> soon, and the attitude they have on the subject (via their forums), seems
> a bit too "snobby" for my taste. Don't feel like being a Beta tester. My
> how the mighty have fallen.....
>
> For the record, have been a huge CM fan since day one, and still regularly
> play CMBB & CMAK, and also regularly play T-72 BoF, so I do enjoy BF
> games, but they seem to be fading.....
I should probably say in the game's defense, that despite its current
shortcomings, it is 'fun'. I think
they will fix the game - eventually. But you are right, too many companies
these days
take on the decision to use their paying public as beta testers...
RobP
Rob Pollard
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2117942da...@news-east.giganews.com...
> well, nVidia - yeah, there's some problems with those," even as their
> "answer" for people with ATI cards is, "Yah, ATI, we've seen some issues
> there."
>
drivers from here:
http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=Files&go=cat&dwn_cat_id=10
Switched to these (2.15822) and my CMSF frame rates have increased quite
dramatically.
> <tilt>
>
> *Everyone* - no shit, statistically *everyone* - who's into 3D gaming
> seriously has either an nVidia or ATI GPU in their system. That this
> turkey wasn't tested *exhaustively* on both of these product lines is
> just ridiculous.
>
Yeah makes you wonder what system the beta testers were using for
their tests! A Matrox maybe? :-)
> I'll bet it's that frakked-up OpenGl. Seems like every friggin' game
> that uses that is just crash, kaboom, blam. DirectX, on the other hand,
> seems quite a stable blob of code these days.
>
OpenGL is a very good 3d library. The problem is it isn't Microsoft and
Microsoft don't like that, especially when they are trying to push Direct-X.
Ever since windows XP (Remember the 60hz 'bug' anyone...), OpenGL support
in windows OS's have been successively nerfed. I'd say this was deliberate,
but would probably get my ass sued by Microsoft. So I'll just settle for
Microsoft's incompetence.
RobP
Rob Pollard
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185777402.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 jul, 20:59, "Rob Pollard" <robertapoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The problem is too many
>> companies these days release games before they are ready so that the can
>> get
>> a quick cash boost. Invariably, its the publishers forcing the developers
>> to
>> do this. There aren't many developers out there that would release junk
>> with their name on it.
>
> uh, Battlefront is the developer and publisher for this game :)
>
Lol! I wonder if they have two different depts and one forced the other?
Could
be the DVD retailers that pressured them?
>> If you bought the game and it didn't work, I'd ask for my money back. In
>> the
>> Uk, consumer law allows one to do this. Hopefully, if enough of you do
>> this
>> the publishers will take notice
>
> Except that they won't. Their official policy is that you should have
> tried the demo first to see if it runs on your system.
>
This might be the case, but Uk consumer law is very specific. In the first
two
years of ownership the onus is on the vendor to disprove the purchasers
claim.
From 2+ years to 6 years the onus is on the buyer to prove their claims. Of
course I'm sure these laws were not originally written with software in
mind! :)
RobP
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
> I should probably say in the game's defense, that despite its current
> shortcomings, it is 'fun'. I think
> they will fix the game - eventually. But you are right, too many companies
> these days
> take on the decision to use their paying public as beta testers...
>
> RobP
Right, as Eddy said SF, though raw, surely possesses that 'X' factor.
It's thrilling watching AFVs advancing down a dusty path, belching
smoke, the live suspensions bucking over the terrain irregularities.
The animations are top notch, the artillery module very deep and
detailed, awesome sounds, etc. As it stands, I'd say we have an
immensely promising 0.7 beta, that should have been released at the
end of the year. Or maybe 2008.
Another gripe, lol: Does anyone miss the detailed information on armor
penetrations?
Giftzwerg
roberta...@hotmail.com says...
> > I'll bet it's that frakked-up OpenGl. Seems like every friggin' game
> > that uses that is just crash, kaboom, blam. DirectX, on the other hand,
> > seems quite a stable blob of code these days.
> >
> OpenGL is a very good 3d library. The problem is it isn't Microsoft and
> Microsoft don't like that, especially when they are trying to push Direct-X.
> Ever since windows XP (Remember the 60hz 'bug' anyone...), OpenGL support
> in windows OS's have been successively nerfed. I'd say this was deliberate,
> but would probably get my ass sued by Microsoft. So I'll just settle for
> Microsoft's incompetence.
<shrug>
The "why" of things is more-or-less unimportant to me. All I know is
that in my long experience of gaming, "OpenGL ~= unstable crashy
trouble," while, "DirectX ~= smoothly running game." As a gamer, I wish
developers would just shitcan OpenGL totally.
Vincenzo Beretta
> A tactical game that prides itself on calculating the trajectory of
> every bullet shouldn't have so many problems with the basics - like
> not allowing people to shoot through walls at units not in the LOS.
The fence I'm on is if to go to Battlefront's forums and molest a bit that
JasonC dude - the one who contributed in his unique way to this legendary
thread
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002167;p=1
Ray O\'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185778237.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 jul, 05:51, "Xanu was Here" <X...@cruisee.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just wanted to send a big "Thanks" to both of you for assisting in my
> > decision to not purchase this game. Seems like BF released this far too
> > soon,
>
> Well, the game sure has it's problems - but it also has some hard to
> pinpoint "magic". When the original CM game came out there were lots
> of problems too and now everyone is saying it's a classic
not everryone.
Charles Foster Kane
> You mean posts like this one ?
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001946
>
> Yeah, what a stupid move, insulting your customers like that.
you're linking? "glass half empty crowd"? Come on! :-P
Giftzwerg
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=
000124
...lead me to wonder if *anyone* - besides, it seems, the developers -
can get this bugware running on any ATI card? I've tried the demo on
three; 2xX1950s, a low-end X1350, and my old(er) X700, and ...
<video fx: LZ 129 mooring attempt, Lakehurst NJ, 5/6/1937>
... every time. I call hereby dub this game, "Click 'n' Crash."
Epi Watkins
Maybe, he missed the smiley. I do that.
--
This is Gerald:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nailbender/417141326/
Click "ALL SIZES," to see a larger size.
----
The album of the moment is The Creek Drank the
Cradle by Iron & Wine. I mentioned a song from this
before, but the whole album deserves a mention.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
> can get this bugware running on any ATI card? I've tried the demo on
> three; 2xX1950s, a low-end X1350, and my old(er) X700, and ...
>
> <video fx: LZ 129 mooring attempt, Lakehurst NJ, 5/6/1937>
>
> ... every time. I call hereby dub this game, "Click 'n' Crash."
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
Hehe. It purrs like a Porsche on my pc, albeit a pre-WW2 Porsche. Of
course, I had the foresight to postpone installing Vista.:)
And what's with the ATI cards? We were led to believe it was an Nvidia
bug. I've got a 7950GT.....
Giftzwerg
p.ox...@ca.rr.com says...
> Hehe. It purrs like a Porsche on my pc, albeit a pre-WW2 Porsche. Of
> course, I had the foresight to postpone installing Vista.:)
<shrug>
And had Battlefront's own docs not explicitly said "Vista Supported,"
your foresight might be relevant. But I've tried the demo on three
Vista systems with three different ATI cards - X1950, X1350, and a tried
& true X700 - and it demonstrates the aforementioned "Click to Crash"
behavior on each of them.
This leads me to wonder if anyone at Battlefront even *tried* to run
CM:SF on a Vista/ATI system? I mean, you'd think somebody might have
suggested trying a video card from the hands-down most popular GPU
manufacturer with the latest OS ... you know, before they slapped the
"Vista Supported" tag on it.
Which brings us to another point; has Battlefront inserted a warning on
their orders page telling Vista/ATI users that they might just as well
save their money at this point? I mean, I don't see *anybody* running a
Vista/ATI system who's got their game working.
Isn't it kinda incumbent on Battlefront to disclose this? And right
smartly?
FTW7
> eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > You mean posts like this one ?
>
>>
>> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001946
>>
>>
>> Yeah, what a stupid move, insulting your customers like that.
>
> Are we reading the same article? Where's the insult in that snippet
> you're linking? "glass half empty crowd"? Come on! :-P
I think that post was edited a little. Dont remember the exact
content, but I do remember it being a little nastier and longer
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> > Yeah, what a stupid move, insulting your customers like that.
>
> Are we reading the same article? Where's the insult in that snippet
> you're linking? "glass half empty crowd"? Come on! :-P
The subject title : "A prime example of why gamers are whiners"
It's just one example, but even Mario didn't dispute the fact they're
a bit "special" in their forum posts.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
old777salt@yahoo
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>...lead me to wonder if *anyone* - besides, it seems, the developers -
>can get this bugware running on any ATI card?
Not me, I can't get pass the "make sure your OpenGL drivers
are up to date" or what ever the fuck they are called.
Giftzwerg
old777salt@yahoo says...
> >...lead me to wonder if *anyone* - besides, it seems, the developers -
> >can get this bugware running on any ATI card?
>
> Not me, I can't get pass the "make sure your OpenGL drivers
> are up to date" or what ever the fuck they are called.
The terrible irony of *that* message is that some folks, I gather, are
having at least a little luck with CM:SF - but only by rolling back
their drivers to old ones.
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Are we reading the same article? Where's the insult in that snippet
> > you're linking? "glass half empty crowd"? Come on! :-P
>
> The subject title : "A prime example of why gamers are whiners"
Yep. That's me. A whiny bastard who wants his game to function for
more than five seconds.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185777402.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 29 jul, 20:59, "Rob Pollard" <robertapoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>The problem is too many
> >> companies these days release games before they are ready so that the can
> >> get
> >> a quick cash boost. Invariably, its the publishers forcing the developers
> >> to
> >> do this. There aren't many developers out there that would release junk
> >> with their name on it.
>
> > uh, Battlefront is the developer and publisher for this game :)
>
> Lol! I wonder if they have two different depts and one forced the other?
Departments ? Battlefront is just 4 guys :)
> Could
> be the DVD retailers that pressured them?
If you sign a retail-going contract that stipulates a particular date,
you better make that date as everything from disk duplication to shelf
space to ads in magazines must be taken care for months in advance.
Miss your release date and you lose *a lot* of money.
>
> >> If you bought the game and it didn't work, I'd ask for my money back. In
> >> the
> >> Uk, consumer law allows one to do this. Hopefully, if enough of you do
> >> this
> >> the publishers will take notice
>
> > Except that they won't. Their official policy is that you should have
> > tried the demo first to see if it runs on your system.
>
> This might be the case, but Uk consumer law is very specific.
So is ours - the thing is they're gambling a bit that nobody is going
to be so pissed off about a mere $50 so as to actually take them to
court. If someone really takes it that far they can always settle in
private.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
old777salt@yahoo
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>but only by rolling back
>their drivers to old ones.
Well I will not roll back drives to get one single game to
run, I got no problems with any others I have.
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
> more than five seconds.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
Got to hand it to you, Giftzwerg, you've been a regular one note
Charlie with your Vista/ATI lamentations over two threads and your
posts are still a kick. Keep it up- for a while longer. CMSF isn't
worth all this public angst, watch some excerpts on youtube and you've
seen the highlights.
Giftzwerg
p.ox...@ca.rr.com says...
> > Yep. That's me. A whiny bastard who wants his game to function for
> > more than five seconds.
> Got to hand it to you, Giftzwerg, you've been a regular one note
> Charlie with your Vista/ATI lamentations over two threads and your
> posts are still a kick.
<shrug>
I'm not the guy who wrote "Vista supported" and "ATI Radeon
recommended" on in the selling puffery for the product. So you'll just
have to color me "astounded" that anyone who professes (or just
purports...) to do this sort of thing for a living managed to ignore
only the second most popular OS and the first most popular GPU on the
planet in their "testing."
> Keep it up- for a while longer. CMSF isn't
> worth all this public angst
See, like a lot of folks, you're making your mistake in imagining that
*anyone* is pouring forth some poignant inner reserves of reason and
emotion over *anything* on USENET.
Dial that back about 10,000 or so, and picture me dashing off this
response in roughly the time it takes a 100WPM typist to strike the
requisite keys.
<click / sends>
Graham Thurlwell
wrote:
> Threads like:
> ...lead me to wonder if *anyone* - besides, it seems, the developers -
> can get this bugware running on any ATI card? I've tried the demo on
> three; 2xX1950s, a low-end X1350, and my old(er) X700, and ...
I'm probably screwed with my old Radeon 9800 Pro then. Really must get
round to looking at newer AGP cards. Any recommendations?
> <video fx: LZ 129 mooring attempt, Lakehurst NJ, 5/6/1937>
Hindenburg disaster? Just a /little/ harsh? ;-)
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Giftzwerg
nos...@jades.org says...
> > ...lead me to wonder if *anyone* - besides, it seems, the developers -
> > can get this bugware running on any ATI card? I've tried the demo on
> > three; 2xX1950s, a low-end X1350, and my old(er) X700, and ...
>
> I'm probably screwed with my old Radeon 9800 Pro then. Really must get
> round to looking at newer AGP cards. Any recommendations?
None!
In fact, according to the threads I'm reading, those of you with the
older ATI cards & driver combos are probably, in the CM:SF sweepstakes,
far ahead of us dumbasses who upgraded. All I know is that Vista and XP
both are useless on an X1950 or X700 or X1350 using reasonably the
latest ATI drivers.
> > <video fx: LZ 129 mooring attempt, Lakehurst NJ, 5/6/1937>
>
> Hindenburg disaster? Just a /little/ harsh? ;-)
We'll see, of course, but it has been almost two weeks with lots of
commercial buyers and demo downloaders just dead in the water. I'm one
of the suspicious buggers who opted for a working demo as a prerequisite
for purchase, but I'm betting those who went whole-hog and still can't
even run their game are in a much more pissy mood than I.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"I think we're past that point in human evolution where there's such a
thing as winning wars."
- Sean Penn
"I wonder, Moonbat Spicoli, if we're at the point in human evolution
where there's no longer any consequences involved in losing one."
- Giftzwerg
Epi Watkins
> I'm probably screwed with my old Radeon 9800 Pro then. Really must get
> round to looking at newer AGP cards. Any recommendations?
After AGP comes PCI Express. I don't know if there's anything even
newer.
A type of card I mean. Not a brand, or model.
----
Alabama has some great photographers:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bamawester/802209053/
----
The album of the moment is Viva Wisconsin by Violent
Femmes. Old groups can do good concerts, when
they're not pushing new stuff.
Rob Pollard
news:f74bcc0e...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...
I hear that the next patch 'available late Wednesday' will fix the ATI
issue.
http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=4489
RobP
Giftzwerg
roberta...@hotmail.com says...
> I hear that the next patch 'available late Wednesday' will fix the ATI
> issue.
> http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=4489
When is a patched demo due to appear? Or can you patch the demo?
Cuz I sure as hell ain't even considering this turkey until I see a
rock-solid demo cheerfully perking away on my PC.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <0%rui.60353$2U6.35...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> robertapoll...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > I hear that the next patch 'available late Wednesday' will fix the ATI
> > issue.
> >http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=4489
>
> When is a patched demo due to appear?
At this point it's even speculation if there will be an updated demo -
in other words : no official news yet - I can appreciate that their
first priority is getting the game fixed for those pre-ordering
suck^H^H^customers who can't get the game to run and that a new demo
is somewhat lower on the priority list.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > When is a patched demo due to appear?
>
> At this point it's even speculation if there will be an updated demo -
> in other words : no official news yet - I can appreciate that their
> first priority is getting the game fixed for those pre-ordering
> suck^H^H^customers who can't get the game to run and that a new demo
> is somewhat lower on the priority list.
<shrug>
Oh, well. But I bet there are a lot of us out here who - after
witnessing the buggy fiasco at release - are keeping out powder dry
about a purchase until we see a demo running solidly on our own systems.
Until then, no sale.