madorosh
Posts: 390
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: helm123456789
Chad,
I'm not defending one game or the other, but the problem is the fact that Shock Force's AI is completely scripted. Which really means that no AI is present. I bought TOW without knowing (should have tried demo) that the AI is nothing more than scripting moves. That really kills replayability and any surprise of having units show up from no where.
I like to design my own what-if scenarios to play out, but with needing to script the AI's moves I dont think that will be much fun. Unless you enjoy setting up ambushes every game.
Haven't been to this forum in a long while - been busy as a tester and scenario designer for CM:SF - but thought I'd stop by and see what has been happening. Herston, to you, especially, I'm glad to see you providing such thought-provoking and even-handed analysis of the game, here and at BF.C.
I want to address the scripted AI point raised here - it's definitely a concern. The TacAI - the reaction of the soldiers in the game - is something that has been identified by the developers as needing improvement, and the first patch has significantly improved some behaviours. We don't have a random strategic AI as in CMX1 (which did goofy things on occasion, like lead attacks with mortars and HQ units) but the defensive actions of the soldiers has been beefed up. They have not yet patched the demo, but I understand that a patched demo is in the offing at some point in time.
The 1.03 patch will be available in about two weeks, according to Steve's posts at BF.C.
Incidentally, you are all more than welcome to participate in the battlefront forums also - I know some of you already do.
I also want to note that there are more than one possible AI script for each scenario - there are 5 empty slots for every group of units, so I think replayability is increased by that factor; you could probably play a scenario 10 times before having a really good handle on predicting what the AI is doing if all 5 plans are in place. I've never played a scenario of any game 10 times, not even venerable old The Guards Counterattack from SL.
There has been a lot of discussion about the state of CM:SF's release. I'd urge all of you to participate in the discussions at the BF.C forums to find out more direct from the developers. Needless to say, CM:SF is a very complex bit of code. You may not realize that it was rewritten from the ground up and is not a rehash of the "CMX1" games (that is to say, the first three titles). They also have a very small development team - including just one primary coder. Which isn't to make excuses, but to state a fact.
Thanks to all those who have shown an interest in the product and who have made constructive comments - BF.C really does make an effort to listen to the fanbase. I have to say that those who would choose to quote Steve out of context here aren't doing anyone a great service. The really great thing about BF.C is that they actually have a developer like Steve who really does circulate among the masses. I see the same thing here with Panzer Command and Marc and Erik. I think it's great to have that kind of access; it's a shame when their own openness is open to abuse.
Good discussion so far.
EDIT: regarding replayability in general; the full fledged editor is a terrific tool. Even if one isn't inclined to make one's own scenarios, it means that those out in the community who are so inclined can provide a steady stream of offerings. The most frustrating part of some of my favourite offerings - Close Combat, Operation Flashpoint - and other games I tried but didn't have time to get into, such as Matrix's own Panzer Command - was the fact that you couldn't easily (or in some cases, at all) make new maps for them.
The decreased functionality of quick battles is a let down, and so is the inability to make random maps. Even if the random maps in the earlier CM titles weren't great, they were often a good starting point at least for inspiration. Nonetheless, the editor and the community should be able to provide a pretty good number of unique scenarios in short order - we've already seen a couple of pretty nifty airfield scenarios posted to the BF.C forum.
As I posted several months ago at BF.C, one of the most exciting things about the CM products has been the creativity of the fans. Some genius out there figured out that you could use a bug in CM:BO to run walls up a cliff and use them as climbing ropes, and simulate the assault on Pointe du Hoc. We've already seen some fellow recreate the appearance of dug in aircraft hangars by fooling around in the editor.
The intended features are impressive enough - 8-story buildings with variable balconies, for example, and 1000 or more different elevation levels. Very cool stuff.
This isn't to dismiss the very real concerns expressed here about gameplay - pretty is as pretty does - but with reference to replayability, I think there will be sufficient replayability given the variability in the AI slots and the fact that the editor is indeed open ended. The community is also known for putting together such things as meta-campaigns and tank rumbles, so if you're into the whole community thing, those are definite draws as well.
< Message edited by Michael Dorosh -- 8/13/2007 6:33:46 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Another PREVIEW - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread