Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post): |
-Multiplayer? it will be a 1vs1, it had been great if it had been a 2vs2. |
Quote: |
Me and a friend have always dreamed of playing CO-OP campaign close combat. |
Quote: |
I really think at least 2v2ai and hopefully a co-op campaign mode would be great for sales, especially if released on steam. I don't think it would require a whole lot. Honestly if we just controlled the same units, or could split up the squads how we chose, but have the rest of the campaign be identical to normal single player we would be more than ecstatic, even if that means the host does all of the decision making in the menu/squad selection screens and then 2p is granted control once the actual map starts. |
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post): |
@Nomada Firefox: It is true that ideally we should try to support the developers to make better CC games by buying their products. However, normally they should also give us the confidence that they will be doing a *good* job, not above average, not a "will just have to do" game, but a *really good* game. I don't buy 40 Euro games all the time after all, it is quite a decent sum of money!
So far, I personally believe I have supported the devs by purchasing some of the re-releases. However, I was quite disappointed for most part to see that the community demands/suggestions were not considered properly in these games. They implement a nice thing in one of the games, then they remove it in another. Especially Panthers in the Fog with their stupid lobby system was the final straw. As far as I have read here people commenting on the new features in The Bloody First (assuming they are going to remain like that), it again confirms the general Matrix/Slytherine behaviour. Now they do 3-D stuff, that looks like our normal CC and that's great! But then they say there won't be multi-story buildings now... I mean when you add something new, don't just take away something good which has existed in the games for years. |
Quote: |
You don't have to buy it to support it. Just being part of the community is enough. The community is exactly why its being produced, over and over. |
Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post): |
Now at other point, how do you make more players from the games? selling games is the unique solution. We need a better game and Bloody First has all the attributes for this.
-3D graphics. -Gameplay. -Story. |
Quote: |
Well they started re-releasing them because there was an online community, they were not making any money from us then |
Quote: |
We've not heard much about the AI in TBF except to say it'll be new and improved. If they fail to deliver on this promise of a decent AI, no one will buy the game. |
Quote: |
You can argue until the cows come home about multiplayer and mods, but if the base game isn't up to scratch, you won't get multiplayers or mods. This is perhaps why few people are making mods for games like PitF. The AI is so shocking, it's not worth their time and effort. The multiplayer's fine, but it's hard to convince people to buy a game when the single player is poor and there's trouble finding players. |
Quote: |
Has there been any consideration to putting the series on steam? Or putting the new game to be greenlit on steam? |
Privateryan1 wrote (View Post): |
The way I see it is , take away the Strategic level and you might as well put the redicilous new game on X-Box or Play Station . The reason most of us stay with this game is that we can be creative . We can produce new STUFF . Fighting as a single company is NOT Close Combat , no matter where it can be fought or how . The game is going backwards and all the new so called cool 3D graphics will not hide the fact thay are planning to stray away from the core of the game = War Strategy |
Quote: |
The Strategic layer has its good side, |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT