Thread: <rant>

<rant>

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    <rant>

    Holy crap. Are you people blind? You realize that 80% of the stuff suggested is either, demented, retarded, will unbalance the game, or all the above? Everyone's just throwing in stuff just for the sake of throwing stuff in and make their state featured in their favourite game. Do the world a favour and let Eidos pick. They happen to be the ones designing Battleships Pacific. You know, it'd be brilliant if I could play on Juno beach instead of Omaha or Utah beach, but guess what: IT AIN'T HAPPENING. So I suck it up and play the game anyway.

    There also comes a point where there's absolutely no point in throwing in any more ships. If Battlestations Pacific worked with 5 or 6 BBs total, there isn't a need to incorperate 20. I mean yeah, I want more units, but I just love how everyone forgets about the little guys. I bet if the forum had its way, battleships could grow wings and fly away, have laser weapons, could dive-bomb, torpedo bomb, and launch fighters. Of course, that makes the game very balanced.

    You can't just shove units in without thinking of how the game would play. This here is what happens before you put style before substance, folks: you get a game that looks great, sounds great, plays like CRAP.

    I don't know what the hell you guys are wanting with BB-launching seaplanes, the ability to sweep mines, and crashing planes into the water. It sounds to me like you're making a simulation game out of BSM, but guess what: THIS IS NOT A SIMULATION GAME. As Xgamer so gracefully states here, Battlestations Midway is =NOT= a simulation game! It's more arcadey than anything, and it should stay that way through and through. That is what BSM is and that's what makes it unique.

    </rant>

  2. #2
    I thought about adding to this thread with a long drawn out explanation why i totaly and fully agree with all of arrows comments.
    But after spending 30 mins draughting a 16 paragraph reply all it came down to realy was...... TOO BLOODY RIGHT M8.

    HEAR HEAR.....

  3. #3
    Is it so bad to want a challenge in the game by making it a tad more realistic? Not MS CFS realistic. Just a little feature here and there.

    I'm not asking for laser guns, a million types of the same planes, nuclear armageddon weapons etc. I'm asking for a little thing that wouldn't unbalance the game much at all (if it even did).

    And to be fair if they stuck the Ise class in without the planes it would look quite silly

  4. #4
    Wait until BS 2 comes out and everybody starts ranting on this thing or that thing. It's a forum, people do that.
    I don' think this game will be over loaded with junk. Plus over the next few years we will probably see a BS 3 and a BS 4.

  5. #5
    for some reason i don't understand your topic name

    ok now , you are 100% right dude

  6. #6
    like i said before, the reason this happens is because their is only ony 3d-command-the-navel-ships game. and that is BSM. some people would like a game like this but more realistic, while some would like a game more simple and arcadey like this. i dont know wht you find this hard to understand.

    telling people to go make another game or something because you dont like their ideas is a bit...selfish. and none of the crazy things you put in your first post were mentiond by others.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    That's true, but at the same time BSM is BSM. Change too much and it's not BSM anymore. Add too much to the RTS section and it becomes Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Add too much to the subs and it becomes Silent Hunter.

    BSM takes a plethora of different genres and makes them all interact on the same field. Picking one genre - flying, RTS, submarine, or ship - and going overboard on that turns it into a game that all of a sudden isn't many genres anymore. 90% of all those who reviewed BSM's gameplay have repeatedly said - one of BSM's greatest assets is its versatility.

  8. #8
    It's pretty clear though, that the reason people want BS:M to be more realistic is because no simulation like BS:M exists. The last all around naval warfare simulation game to try anything remotely like BS:M was ing Task Force 1942!

    That being said, I don't expect BS:M to change for these people anyway. But it is noteworthy that people are looking for sims again.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    That's true, but at the same time BSM is BSM. Change too much and it's not BSM anymore. Add too much to the RTS section and it becomes Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Add too much to the subs and it becomes Silent Hunter.

    BSM takes a plethora of different genres and makes them all interact on the same field. Picking one genre - flying, RTS, submarine, or ship - and going overboard on that turns it into a game that all of a sudden isn't many genres anymore. 90% of all those who reviewed BSM's gameplay have repeatedly said - one of BSM's greatest assets is its versatility.
    I agree. They can't go overboard from one spot or the other...Then it won't be Battlestations.

    We don't want Battleship: Pacific, or another Silent Hunter, or another Blazing Angels....Battlestations is unique with the way it so seamlessly blends so many genres together -- And it needs to stay that way.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye
    It's pretty clear though, that the reason people want BS:M to be more realistic is because no simulation like BS:M exists. The last all around naval warfare simulation game to try anything remotely like BS:M was ing Task Force 1942!

    That being said, I don't expect BS:M to change for these people anyway. But it is noteworthy that people are looking for sims again.
    Those people should be pestering another game company then. Like it or not, BSM is not, will not, and should never be a simulation.

  11. #11

    Smile

    If all we do is post stupid ideas, which I acknowledge some are ludicrous, then why do you stick around. The beauty of sequels/expansion packs is the rely upon community feedback, otherwise the devs are firing wildly, hoping that the consumer will hopefully like it. Agreed some of the suggestions posted are far fetched and , but if we all stopped posting, the devs would make a game. And the thread titled "<rant>" would be you droning on about how poor a game it is and how you feel they should have listened to us and we should have made more suggestions.
    And in all fairness to those who suggested them, not all the ideas you highlighted are that bad, maybe we do need another BB or two, but for you to tell everyone to stop suggesting such, and I quote "demented, retarded" is too far. Maybe when you are the one with a little eidos badge or you are personally making it then you'll be in that position, but not now. Our feedback is just as valid as yours.
    If in BS:P you get BB-launching seaplane, then Boo-hoo. Dont buy it. But that was valuable feed-back and the devs may have previously overlooked it but the suggestion on the forum and boom, what do you know in BSP people are launching sea planes from their BB's. And whats wrong with the ability to sweep mines. It makes the game a bit more strategical. So what if it isnt a hard core naval strategy game but it pulls it away from mind numbingly simple and boring. Games like that dont sell. That also brings me on to "THIS IS NOT A SIMULATION GAME" have a nobel peace prize for that contribution It may not be a sim but its not a arcade game either, its in the murky area in the middle, we like to call FUN.




    -crazy

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    I'm not saying you don't suggest anything. I'm saying that I think with a crapload of lists that are already full of BBs, I don't think Eidos needs MORE of them. Even then the lists weren't suggestions; it was more like how to incorperate every single BB in history in this game. A worthy goal for a game like NavyField, but not for BSP, which I have repeatedly said should focus on the fleet as a whole and the interaction between the ships, not the ships themselves. I'd rather play a game that has only one kind of BB yet has everything else in it rather than just play BBs alone.

    All the above ideas can be incorperated, but it needs more thought than just, "Oh, I think we should launch seaplanes!". For what purpose, what role, how would they work, etc. Additionally, call me a purist but the whole point in CVs is that they can launch planes. A BB doesn't need to start launching planes too. Ever notice how the Cleveland class CL is the only ship with depth charges, but never uses them? I don't know whether the real one had DCs or not, but clearly they decided that DCs should be limited to planes and DDs, and not given to the CLs. Planes, IMO, are the same way.

    The thing is it isn't a hardcore naval strategy/simulation game, it's an arcade game, and anyone else who says otherwise doesn't know BSM's spirit. That's the way the game is supposed to go. Take Command and Conquer as an example; at its core, it is and always will be a strategy game. That doesn't stop them from making an offshoot game like Renegade which is partly first-person shooter. Warcraft does the same thing with the ever-popular World of Warcraft. Some things - the Atlantic and experimental weapons, for instance - are best left as either an expansion or an offshoot.

    Additionally, the game is quite complex as it is, so unless Eidos is stupid, they won't go backwards and make it as simple as a kid's game. That much is clear.

    And to be honest, I've considered just plain avoiding this forum because of the idiocy I've been seeing, but I'm a tenacious bastar.d. Forgive me for trying to knock some sense and practicality into ideas.

  13. #13

    Smile

    BSM isnt a full on arcade, nor is it a full on strategy. If it were an arcade game then where ever you hit a ship it would do the same damage, Dive bombers would be as effective against all ships, I could go on.
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    For what purpose, what role, how would they work, etc
    Their historical role. Recon. And then as is this a game make them like the catylina and strap torps to her belly and put a new twist into maps like steel monsters.
    I would make a longer post, but ive got things to do



    -crazy

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    Holy crap. Are you people blind? You realize that 80% of the stuff suggested is either, demented, retarded, will unbalance the game, or all the above? Everyone's just throwing in stuff just for the sake of throwing stuff in and make their state featured in their favourite game. Do the world a favour and let Eidos pick. They happen to be the ones designing Battleships Pacific. You know, it'd be brilliant if I could play on Juno beach instead of Omaha or Utah beach, but guess what: IT AIN'T HAPPENING. So I suck it up and play the game anyway.

    There also comes a point where there's absolutely no point in throwing in any more ships. If Battlestations Pacific worked with 5 or 6 BBs total, there isn't a need to incorperate 20. I mean yeah, I want more units, but I just love how everyone forgets about the little guys. I bet if the forum had its way, battleships could grow wings and fly away, have laser weapons, could dive-bomb, torpedo bomb, and launch fighters. Of course, that makes the game very balanced.

    You can't just shove units in without thinking of how the game would play. This here is what happens before you put style before substance, folks: you get a game that looks great, sounds great, plays like CRAP.

    I don't know what the hell you guys are wanting with BB-launching seaplanes, the ability to sweep mines, and crashing planes into the water. It sounds to me like you're making a simulation game out of BSM, but guess what: THIS IS NOT A SIMULATION GAME. As Xgamer so gracefully states here, Battlestations Midway is =NOT= a simulation game! It's more arcadey than anything, and it should stay that way through and through. That is what BSM is and that's what makes it unique.

    </rant>

    thats why i stopped posting in those threads! it just doesnt make sense to me anymore!

    -=)CSF(=-Haruna

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    Originally Posted by crazyhorse128
    BSM isnt a full on arcade, nor is it a full on strategy. If it were an arcade game then where ever you hit a ship it would do the same damage, Dive bombers would be as effective against all ships, I could go on.

    Their historical role. Recon. And then as is this a game make them like the catylina and strap torps to her belly and put a new twist into maps like steel monsters.
    I would make a longer post, but ive got things to do



    -crazy

    In Steel Monsters there is absolutely no POINT in recon because the enemy starts in front of you when the game starts! The only place where recon is kind of necessary is battles like Phillipines or especially Coral, but there are already CVs in those maps anyway!

  16. #16

    Smile

    okay then. On BSP there may be a use. But seeming as 80% of stuff suggested is . Then whats the point in even thinking, lets just see what the devs throw at us and then you, seeming as you so desperately want to duetur us from suggesting can point out the mistakes.


    -crazy

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    11
    I agree mostly with arrow but lets give the development team some credit. Just because someone on these forums suggests something wacky doesnt mean they run and implement it. But you are right arrow, I like the spirit of the game the way it is but adding a few more tactical elements would extend game play without taking away from the fun of the game.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,274
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    Holy crap. Are you people blind? You realize that 80% of the stuff suggested is either, demented, retarded, will unbalance the game, or all the above? Everyone's just throwing in stuff just for the sake of throwing stuff in and make their state featured in their favourite game. Do the world a favour and let Eidos pick. They happen to be the ones designing Battleships Pacific. You know, it'd be brilliant if I could play on Juno beach instead of Omaha or Utah beach, but guess what: IT AIN'T HAPPENING. So I suck it up and play the game anyway.

    There also comes a point where there's absolutely no point in throwing in any more ships. If Battlestations Pacific worked with 5 or 6 BBs total, there isn't a need to incorperate 20. I mean yeah, I want more units, but I just love how everyone forgets about the little guys. I bet if the forum had its way, battleships could grow wings and fly away, have laser weapons, could dive-bomb, torpedo bomb, and launch fighters. Of course, that makes the game very balanced.

    You can't just shove units in without thinking of how the game would play. This here is what happens before you put style before substance, folks: you get a game that looks great, sounds great, plays like CRAP.

    I don't know what the hell you guys are wanting with BB-launching seaplanes, the ability to sweep mines, and crashing planes into the water. It sounds to me like you're making a simulation game out of BSM, but guess what: THIS IS NOT A SIMULATION GAME. As Xgamer so gracefully states here, Battlestations Midway is =NOT= a simulation game! It's more arcadey than anything, and it should stay that way through and through. That is what BSM is and that's what makes it unique.

    </rant>


    LOL, sooo true.
    I gave up reply long ago as it would just lead my into more arguments.

    Must be an influx of 5 year olds using thier parents PC

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    Originally Posted by vangoh
    I agree mostly with arrow but lets give the development team some credit. Just because someone on these forums suggests something wacky doesnt mean they run and implement it. But you are right arrow, I like the spirit of the game the way it is but adding a few more tactical elements would extend game play without taking away from the fun of the game.
    That's true. I should know that the dev team doesn't consist of idiots and will likely help in filtering the crappier ideas out.

    It really depends on what kind of "tactical elements" you're referring to, and how they're implemented. I'd say 80% of all concepts taken from other games won't work in BSM, because they started from another game to begin with. You'd have to "BSM-ify" them first, and then if it's not retarded then it could fly.

  20. #20
    well........

    I haven't posted in a couple weeks as no new news......but as someone who's hanged around the board long enough I'll have to play devil's advocate and say I sorta disagree.

    Yes there have been millions of suggestions.....some worse than others ("hey guys, who wants to play minesweepers!??!) but I believe this level of activity is neccessary in helping foster the community involvement.

    For certain the devs will not read anything, but after posting enough, the people here who made enough splash-thedivingmongoose, texvindictive, the CSF crew, andy365billion, Chip, that Kai Robin guy, and many other people (my memory is horrible) managed to get the attention of the higher ups and hey! guess what? alot of us got involved in discussions that were directly brought up to the devs and guess what else?

    In JUST the initial press release, huge parts of our requests were mentioned and included-

    1-Japanese Campaign
    2-Improved damage system/ damage visuals
    3-Expanded online playability
    4-Skirmish

    these were all HUGE issues that have been rectified for BSM2 because the fan community was screaming for it, and I think it payed off.

    For all you silly noble nights of request flying battleships with space lasers (we're off...to outer space, we're leaving mother earth, to save the human race, Our Star Blazers!) I salute thee!

  21. #21

    Smile

    there's someone I can get along with.

  22. #22
    yup. for that that flying battleships and stuff, the battleship halberd sure fits the bill. lol. (i mean from brawl, that thing looks really cool!)