RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront



Message

Mobius -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (4/30/2011 4:44:36 AM)

The main thing is to have fun. You can play the game and have fun. You can play the campaigns and have fun. You can make scenarios and have fun. You can make your own realistic maps and have fun.

The open system allows you to make your own models of structures, guns and tanks and put them in the game. That is a lot of fun too.



Mad Russian -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (4/30/2011 6:11:07 AM)

I personally can't imagine than any other game ever got the kind of attention that PCO was given. Whether it was a paid effort or not.

I, for one, am proud of how PCO has turned out, especially as a free update.

Good Hunting.

MR



diablo1 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (4/30/2011 6:12:36 AM)

quote:

The open system allows you to make your own models of structures, guns and tanks and put them in the game. That is a lot of fun too.


Not to me it isn't that's boring as hell on a Sunday Morning. I guess some gamers (if you can call them gamers) like to play with their tinker toys. I prefer to play a game not redesign it.



HintJ -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/1/2011 1:58:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1

quote:

The open system allows you to make your own models of structures, guns and tanks and put them in the game. That is a lot of fun too.


Not to me it isn't that's boring as hell on a Sunday Morning. I guess some gamers (if you can call them gamers) like to play with their tinker toys. I prefer to play a game not redesign it.


Sounds like you need to be playing an XBox or something.

One of the greatest advantages to many PC games is the ease of modification, and the fun involved w/that. And yes, it is fun I think.



Yoozernamemember -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/1/2011 5:46:35 PM)

I don't quite understand the comments by Stridor.

I have already bought into the 'system' as far as Panzer command.  Twice.  There would be no way I would not try the upgrade and all the scenarios and campaigns, etc.  As a CMx1 fan, that does not play CMx1 anymore, it will fill a void.

I recently downloaded the demo for shockforce/marines/etc.  I don't see it as a defined system.  The RT/WEGO 'systems' show a lack of product definition.  I would never play this 'Shockforce' product over what I have seen so far in the mOBIUS videos.  i would never buy the modern CMx2 products.

I am most interested in seeing if a game can utilize relative spotting to increase game enjoyment.  I look forward to playing PCO and trying the demo for CMBN.  The comparison will interesting and I do not see how anyone can really judge at this point un less they are on the PCO development team AND somehow on the CMBN development team.



Yoozernamemember -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 2:30:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Don't think CM2 wasn't built on the bcks of volunteers.  There are a lot of testers building scenarios, doing alpha testing, fixing QBs, building textures, etc. for free.



And there are plenty of people unemployed at the present time. So, there are ample volunteers.

As a person that was once accused by the '1:1 guy' as being 'on the dole' because I was unemployed in the early 90s and '00s, I find it exceptionally satisfying that they might be leaning on this 'dole-pool' now. They wouldn't expect people that should be looking for work to play thier beta projects I hope????

Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk



thewood1 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 11:31:23 AM)

They have been working on it since well before the economic meltdown.  Most of the people I know working on it are "gainfully" employed.

All my point was about was that BFC leans on "volunteers" very heavily.  To the point that I don't think they coule produce the game without them.



Mobius -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 12:48:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HintJ
Sounds like you need to be playing an XBox or something.
One of the greatest advantages to many PC games is the ease of modification, and the fun involved w/that. And yes, it is fun I think.
The ability to make game mods and share them with a community is one of the advantages the PC still has over the xboxes and Ithings.



Enigma6584 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 5:46:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

They have been working on it since well before the economic meltdown.  Most of the people I know working on it are "gainfully" employed.

All my point was about was that BFC leans on "volunteers" very heavily.  To the point that I don't think they coule produce the game without them.


Volunteers are indeed used for testing, map making, scenario design and creation. Coding, graphic arts for the game etc. are all down by BF and its paid employees. That is a big difference in my book with respect to what Stridor had stated...that being even coders were not paid employees of Matrix. Or is he wrong?





thewood1 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 6:51:10 PM)

The base game was coded by paid programmers.  I think any changes since PCK were volunteers.

I am not saying volunteers did any programming.  But some of the graphics from the community have found their way into released games in CM. 



Enigma6584 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 7:24:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The base game was coded by paid programmers.  I think any changes since PCK were volunteers.

I am not saying volunteers did any programming.  But some of the graphics from the community have found their way into released games in CM. 


Fair enough. I agree with your clarification. Still, that means IMHO there is a big difference when it comes to organized planning and development with respect to these two games. I intend on purchasing PCO as a first time user. I passed on first two games. I think what the volunteers have done here is tremendous and my hat is tipped in respect to them. I also think there is really no point anymore in comparing them as others have done, completely different approaches, planning, and completely different resources put into the games.



thewood1 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 8:34:13 PM)

I think you can compare them, and should.  Its not like comparing CC an TAOW, or ArmA and CM.  They cover the exact same scale, to some extent.  They will most likley cover the same battles.  How can you not compare them?



Ratzki -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/2/2011 9:11:33 PM)

I think that comparing the two gives the 'powers that be' a chance to hear what players want and not want in any upcomming updates and new games. It also provides a good critical look at what needs fixing and what we can all live with. Chances are, I bet most of us will end up playing both games.



sburke1959 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/14/2011 7:11:32 AM)

well having played the CMBN demo instead of just making an assessment (proof?) from a video clip, the game rocks. Between it and the games I have picked up over here, it is a great time to be a gamer. As Frank Zappa said - if you don't think it is F**kin great to be alive then leave now or this show will really bring you down.



petrus58 -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/14/2011 9:04:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sburke1959

well having played the CMBN demo instead of just making an assessment (proof?) from a video clip, the game rocks. Between it and the games I have picked up over here, it is a great time to be a gamer. As Frank Zappa said - if you don't think it is F**kin great to be alive then leave now or this show will really bring you down.


This pretty much sums up my feelings as well. Having beta tested PCO I knew that it was a great game - one that I am sure I will be playing for years to come. But I also - based on the demo - like what I've seen of CMBN, and likewise expect to be playing that for a while as well. Obviously there are differences between both, but this is something I regard as positive. Neither game is 'perfect', both will be improved and enhanced by their respective communities. So yeah, Frank Zappa was right!



Mad Russian -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/14/2011 4:35:35 PM)

I think both companies put a lot of time and effort into these two games. I think that shows and it means that tactical gamers are in a "Win-Win" situation for the first time in awhile.

Good Hunting.

MR



junk2drive -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/14/2011 4:41:41 PM)

Both companies will keep improving the games too.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/14/2011 5:18:17 PM)

I can't watch any videos of Combat Mission Normandy. Not because of the game, but EVERY ONE I've seen, the player has NO IDEA how to make a video - they are ALL over the place with the camera. It's really not a good advertisement for the game...the video makers makes it look frantic - and it really doesn't have to be!



junk2drive -> RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. (5/14/2011 5:21:08 PM)

I like the Bil H video AAR. One frame at a time [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.560547