Reading more of that thread, I am flummoxed by the idea that the betatesters claim that they are not representing the company. They most certainly are.
-dale
Reading more of that thread, I am flummoxed by the idea that the betatesters claim that they are not representing the company. They most certainly are.
-dale
It's one of those threads that BFC must cringe collectively when they see it. It can be held up as a good example of everything that is wrong with BFC's approach to customers. Any hint of something negative about actual design decisions gets hammered. The UI thread is heading the same way.
I read through a bit of it last night. They should cringe (I refer to the beta tester comments), but of course, they don't. I think the BFC staffers - I don't mean the beta testers - are too busy to read most of the threads. I think there is a lot of conjecture about how professional an approach to business there would be behind the scenes or what level of communication exists, but if you remember that BFC is a long distance company for the most part and then picture your own workplace you can get a better perspective. How often do you communicate effectively to a guy three cubicles away from you - and he's within walking distance? It's not a failing of BFC - think human nature.Originally Posted by thewood
I was as surprised at the comments by Sixxkiller, The_Capt etc. on how they don't "respresent the company" as dalem was. And especially Warren's (The_Capt's) comments on entitlement. I don't know where any of that comes from. I don't get a sense that the BFC staffers actively encourage it. It seems like a weird kind of Stanford Prison Experiment where you leave the beta testers without any kind of briefing or instructions and see how far they will take themselves, and in what direction.
Having been part of that experiment myself, I look back now and am embarrassed at how easy it was for me personally to drop the ball (which I did as well as anyone else), particularly given what I've learned about customer service and leadership through my paying employers. It speaks to the ease with which you get attached to the project, a point Warren makes with some clarity in his comments - a point on which I would agree with his statements.
Last edited by Michael Dorosh; 21 Oct 11 at 09:18.
BFC has never come out an encouraged that behavior explicitly. But during the dark days of CMSF's first year, an unwritten standard was set with Moon handing out warnings left and right to regular customers, yet never doing anything to beta testers exhibiting worse behavior. Then there was that with 4 month communication shutdown BFC did before the 1.05 patch and the beta testers like Huntaar were basically allowed to run the board.
That set a precedent that the beta brigade could do as they please. I think Steve actually likes it. They obviously take their tone from his actions and responses.
User38 - I just read the responses to your comments - and it just seems like a fantasy world on the BFC forum.
Here is Holien -
I've been saying this since the game came out. I don't easily know what is going on as play develops because there are fewer tools to tell me what the hell is happening. It's not as fun to play as CMX1. Period. Holien is telling me that based on the demo - other people have the same experience. And if you can't sell someone the game based on the demo - you've got a less successful product.Not really going to get too involved in the thread other than to add to ClarkWGriswold points.
I was out last night talking with a former CM player who kept playing it beyond me and has not yet been able to get to terms with the new game and has not bought based upon the demo experience. It could be that he has not invested the time in it yet and said he would try again and I will check on his exact feedback later on Saturday when I see him again.
Also I have got 3 hardcore Table Top Gamers introduced to the game from my local TT club (computer savy, and with great computer game interests) and again no buys as of yet that I know about... Again I will check with them on Monday night to find out why.
I have a feeling that it is down to the UI and even one of my current opponents keeps on about lack of feed back and not knowing what is going on. For me I find it strange as I get it and by following the forum here I have learnt more to understand why...
Average players won't follow the forum as closely and will be put off... The UI thread is great and getting the UI right will make a great difference to the whole fan base and hence income to be able to generate new modules and games.
So I think Mr Griswold is right players are being put off and anything that can be done to make the game easier to play (without compromising the real world emphasis / model) would be good. Of course that is far easier said than done.
The response from a beta tester?
The response is basically - who cares? Learn to play the game the way we enjoy it and if you can't learn it - go someplace else. Because you don't get it.I've found that focusing on the tactical plan and small unit tactics rather than hit or bogging chances plus keeping an eye on my platoons rather than getting involved with individuals means I'm not as concerned about the 'detail' i.e. who is KOd in a section etc.
By 'zooming' out in this way I enjoy the game and find that it is very immersive. In effect I tend to operate as the combat group/kampfgruppe commander only occasionally getting involved in the minutia. My advice would be players adapt their play style and rather than trying to play the game engine play the game. Get it?
Warren posts just after that he acknowledges the UI needs work, so there are definitely mixed messages - they do speak for the company - in fact, he defends the company for several paragraphs in the same post - http://www.battlefront.com/community...7&postcount=86 but the messaging is definitely mixed.
Your observations are consistent with what I observed as a beta tester with the exception of the noted sentence. I've never seen Steve express an opinion one way or another, but I think you are correct in suggesting that implicit permission is no different than explicit permission. If I bring my dog into your house and my dog bites all your guests, if you don't tell me to throw my dog into the back yard, I guess you're ok with me having my dog bite your guests.
But then again, maybe you're just too busy in the kitchen making dinner to notice.
There are definitely chosen ones, as you mention; I recall being one of them. Cabron66 - or was it P51D Mustang - was not impressed when Seanachai and myself took after him with brooms, though it was not a beta tester beat-up so much as general mischievousness gone bad. I do not miss those days.
For what it's worth (and this is probably off topic) my issues with the game are not UI related (at least not in any way that can be fixed). My issue is that you have to go through 15 different steps to move troops from point A to point B. What I see when I play the game is a super detailed animated tabletop wargame. I can see the tactical problem, I can work out a plan, but I can't execute that plan without devoting hours and hours to the game which are hours that I don't have (doing mundane things like setting waypoints, deleting waypoints, adjusting the troop facing, setting target arcs etc). If I am playing a game with a reinforced company, why do I have to play as a section commander, telling each soldier which point to move to and which direction to face when they get there. (And why can't my troops figure out how to use a bridge without my setting waypoints every 12 paces.)
And don't get me started on the missing game. Years ago I read a book about pinball machines. One of the table designers said his design philosphy was "come close, try again". He tried to design tables such that the player would achive some early successes which provided positive reinforcement and encouraged the players to keep playing. I get no positive reinforcement from this game. This game is frustrating. In one scenario I was moving a tank across a field and I thought it was safe behind high bocage. But in the middle of the field there was an invisble hill, and my tank was destroyed by an invisible anti tank gun at the other end of the map. I get that my tank should be destroyed if I play stupidly. But a historical game should be educational. What I have learned from this game is, if you move you die and if you stay still you die. Maybe that's how it was in 1944. But do they have to put that lesson into a game that takes five hours to pay a 40 minute scenario?
user38 - despite your contention, I think you just described classic UI issues!
The non 1:1 nature of the earlier game engine masked many of these issues - the biggest complaint was convoy movement/lack of a "follow me" command for vehicles. Moving vehicles in platoons was labour intensive. With 1:1 extended to infantry, the problem has magnified. And they never fixed it for vehicles. And they coupled it with a watered down order tree rather than making it more robust.
Into that context comes the beta tester quoted above who suggests you put the camera at the highest level and ignore the "minutia".
Not for nothing and not looking to pick a fight but a legit question would have to be.. Why didn't you say any of this while you were beta testing? Getting into specifics would violate my NDA but during both For Liberty and especially ToW I had some major concerns right up to and through release. I was very vocal about them on the testing forums. Not only was it allowed but it is/was encouraged. So I think it is a fair question why you didn't say more when you were in a position to do more good. Heck, brought in to express your opinion. Beta testing is not for "Yes" men. I'm very curious.
"Certainly takes a lot more effort to simulate each soldier down to individual bullets than it is to make a piece of cardboard that says "2-3-5"
This was and continues to be my biggest unanswered question regarding CM-2 and the release of CMSF in particular.
If on day one I could see how bad the game was, then why didnt any of the Betas? Further to this, if Betas didnt and dont represent the Company, then why were the vast majority of them so pro-BF and anti criticism of a game they certainly knew was massively flawed.
Of course, they can all hide behind the NDA thing, but Ive been a tester too and signed NDA but it doesnt stop all discussion about what went on 4 to 6 years ago. Far too easy to hide behind in my opinion. Id like to add Ive nothing against Betas by the way, if not for them, God knows what we would have gotten.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks