A port too far.

[gadgetmind 10]

I demand that CCGM be ported to the Nintendo Wii! And none of this kowtowing to the keyboard-obsessed PC crowd! I want to be able to do everything with my Wiimote (just one, obviously) *and* I want proper Mii support so I can populate my mantas with those cute little guys and gals.

[metalcraze 290]

what exactly is wrong with this game being on consoles? how will this affect the PC version?

Consoles have horrible controls for both action and strategy games - meaning interface on PC is usually extremely annoying and the gameplay is simplified because gamepads don't have enough buttons and precision for quick movement in Action and in-depth tactical capabilities in Strategy.

Consoles have terrible hardware which always causes the game to have as less content, interactivity and openness in its levels as possible to make it run at at least 30 FPS most of the time. Minecraft will have invisible walls and small islands in console version. What else can be said.

And judging from comments the case is the same with Carrier Command GM. I was afraid that the game will be too simple to be a strategy and too slow to be an action game when it was announced as multiplatform.

I wouldn't be surprised if Battlezone from 14 years ago will be a much better game, especially strategically. With the amount of power and the flexibility of controls that PCs have today CCGM looks disappointing.

[max power 21]

You should probably play it before you go ringing alarm bells like that, metalcraze.

[harbinger 1]

You should probably play it before you go ringing alarm bells like that, metalcraze.

He's right though.

Why have a game for a PC, with all it's possibilities, nerfed into oblivion just so it can reach the console market?

I understand the financial reasons - but seriously - this is a game - no a masterpiece that should not be compromised under any circumstances.

Stop development on the console versions, develop the PC game, let it blossom into what it deserves to.

When that is complete - port it to the consoles as best as their abilties allow - but for goodness sake - don't let this sink!

[Dajunka 10]

I would imagine they may sell as many as 10 copies for consoles, so I guess they see it as worth it. :)

[max power 21]

Reasoning that 2+2=4 because 2x2=4 has the same numbers in it is not really arriving at the right answer for the right reasons.

The game has already won awards at E3 I think so it will surely not sink.

I get the anti console sentiment and I understand it. However, there is quite a lot of extreme rhetoric going on in this forum. Will the fact this game is going to be released on multiple platforms mean it will be a total failure? Completely unenjoyable? Even in its current state, I don't find that to be true.

[Dajunka 10]

If the game is a complete fail then I will eat my 3 hats, BUT.....

It was a bad decision to give us this classic as a console port. It will never meet it's full potential and will always feel like a crappy console port, even though a GOOD crappy console port, a crappy console port none the less. :)

What they should have done was make it PC only, and then in two years time when console owners are begging for it, knock up a quick console version. They are only going to get one chance at this, why mess it up all because of a extra few quick bucks .

[derk yall 0]

Dajunka: Would you still complain that it is a "crappy console port" if you were not aware that this game is going to be published also on consoles? What aspects of the current releases make it a "crappy console port". Would a "crappy console port" have a PC only pre-release Beta? Isn't it a port from PC to console by the other hand? That would make i a "crappy PC port"... :j:

Personaly, i am not a console player, I play solely on PC, but I don't see the logic behind this complaining.

[Dajunka 10]

Dajunka: Would you still complain that it is a "crappy console port" if you were not aware that this game is going to be published also on consoles? What aspects of the current releases make it a "crappy console port". Would a "crappy console port" have a PC only pre-release Beta? Isn't it a port from PC to console by the other hand? That would make i a "crappy PC port"... :j:

Personaly, i am not a console player, I play solely on PC, but I don't see the logic behind this complaining.

I am not complaining. As it stands it's a good refashioned version of Carrier command. We are discussing how it could have been better.

Sorry about the rest of it, but I don't really understand what it is you are trying to say.

[max power 21]

He is speculating that the knowledge that it is a multiplatform game is painting your perception of its quality.

[Dajunka 10]

He is speculating that the knowledge that it is a multiplatform game is painting your perception of its quality.

I see.

To put it plainly, I think Carrier Command GM is a great game, I have recommended it to everyone I know, as well as spread the word all over the net. I bet at least 100 of those beta participants are a result of my recommendation. :)

All I am doing here is agreeing with those that disagree with it being a console port.

[jedra 11]

People seem to be confusing 'bad ports' to games developed for multi-platform. This is not a console port. There have been a few in the past, that were terrible there have also been a few multi-platform developments that were terrible too - this isn't one of them as far as the beta tells me. I just don't get it - I have played this game a fair bit and just don't see the problem here. It works very well on the PC and I bet it plays very well on a console too. I can't see anywhere where they have made horrendous sacrifices.

I will probably buy it for the 360 as I know a number of people who don't have gaming PCs who would be interested in playing it. It will probably bring in a load more people who are interested in BI products, and who knows I may be able to persuade a couple of them to build a gaming PC and buy Arma 3 when it's out.

Someone said 'for a few extra bucks' - the console market is huge - it's an untapped resource for BI and I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to go for it. Just think of all that extra revenue which can be used to support the development of PC only games like Arma 3 and Take On Helicopters. How long do you think BI can continue to make these massive games when restricted to an every diminishing PC market?

[Dajunka 10]

We have the date of release September 27th. Also the information that this and the console version will be the same, meh!

[jedra 11]

We have the date of release September 27th. Also the information that this and the console version will be the same, meh!

Are you annoyed because the versions are the same, or because the PC version is bad or has made too many compromises? If the latter then how? If the former then that's a little illogical really.

[Dajunka 10]

Are you annoyed because the versions are the same, or because the PC version is bad or has made too many compromises? If the latter then how? If the former then that's a little illogical really.

You can't but help feeling a little screwed, having a game downgraded so that it will work on a crappy console. And it leaves you wondering what it might have been like if crappy consoles didn't exist. :o:

[Nicholas 5]

I'm sure that if they never would have announced that this would be on consoles, you would probably be quite happy with it. But the fact that it is also coming out on consoles, people like you will look for things that they can complain about saying that it is just a crappy console "port".

Edited May 18, 2012 by Nicholas

[max power 21]

It certainly seems to bring to mind imaginary benefits of what could be.

edit: I'm not saying that the multiplatform requirement didn't factor into the design, but how different do you think it would be?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Max Power

[Dajunka 10]

I can have a guess at a few pointers. :)

Graphics would be better if optimized for the PC, you can see that straight away when playing CC, they are nice but not the best.

There would be more content. There is always less content on the console version of a game made separately for both.

The controls. On all console ports I have ever played the controls are always zhit.

Also when it goes on general release, I can't see it doing as well as you would expect for a title such as this, mainly due to a great many PC owners see console ports as substandard software.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Dajunka

[Nicholas 5]

I can have a guess at a few pointers. :)

1. Graphics would be better if optimized for the PC, you can see that straight away when playing CC, they are nice but not the best.

2. There would be more content. There is always less content on the console version of a game made separately for both.

3. The controls. On all console ports I have ever played the controls are always zhit.

1. I believe that right now, the graphics are optimized for the PC. I believe this may be the same engine used to create Alpha Prime, which was a PC-only game. The beta is not on consoles right now. I personally think the graphics look amazing.

2. They've almost exactly recreated Carrier Command with 2012 graphics, how could there possibly be more content. And it is a beta.

3. How are the controls shit? Because you can't change them? As said before, it's still in beta.

[Hawk Firestorm 10]

I can certanly understand BI's reasoning to want to push it to the console market too, however while the graphics engine etc can be converged the rest of the games developement should be separate, better to have a excellent PC game and try convert it to console use than a mediocre console one converted to the PC.

If the design choices are only for a PC game I'll be amazed and TBH even more concerned, because what I'm looking at appears to be a dual platform game and its limiting its potential significantly on the strategy front, something consoles just arent good at.

If Arma had followed the same design doctrine it most certainly wouldn't have been the successful series of games it has.

If BI wish to develope for consoles they should do but they should design products specific to that markets audience, not a half way house approach, the world doesn't need another so so game house.

As for PC users seeing Console software substandard yup absolutely, the two different platoforms have consumers with totally different expectations and tastes, trying to converge the two is simply silly, what you gain on one hand you loose on the other not to mention fluffing up a opportunity on such a licence and the damage you cause to your brand.

The game todate I'm seeing is heavy on the graphics and very light on the gameplay design, where the orginal was the flipside, as with many older games alot more attention was paid to the gameplay because the hardware wasn't about, today the opposite seems to be true, personally I think its partly because of the impact consoles have had on the upcomming generation of developers, me at 45 I'm old school I like good well thought out games with good gameplay, graphics ya nice but the game itself is far more important.

Personally I find it rather sad, the standard and quality of games has dropped enourmously from the old games like Wingcommander etc where the gaming industry drove the hardware industry, now there's the hardware but there seems to be no developer talent about to use it.

Ironic I guess.

But I think this will end up being a mediocre Xbox game pushed to the PC, rather than a excellent PC game pushed to the Xbox as it should have been, and probably spawned a whole series of games, instead of being forgetten about 3 weeks after release.

It's like star wars MMO all over again, get a fantastic licence then utterly fluff it.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Hawk Firestorm

[Gazzareth 1]

You guys are obviously playing a completely different BETA to me, sure there are a few things that (given the choice) I would change, but overall it is excellent and a good follow up from the "Carrier Command" legacy. I am sure that there will be many changes before the release date after all it is still a BETA.

You should also bear in mind that saying a game is for "PC" brings in a whole lot of variables in itself, not everyone has a ninja gaming PC - so compromises will have to be made so that things work on the "average machine" not just so that it runs on the XBOX as well. I can think of a few PC only games that have had really bad control systems, and a few ported games that are fine so if there is something you don't like (anchorages for example - not a favorite of mine) then use the feedback system to highlight it.

Finally for those that say it will affect sales - damn right it will - read the sales charts, from UK games chart for week 12/May from Guardian (only showing games available on PC):::::

1: Sniper Elite v2 : Breakdown: XBOX 56%, PS3 38%, PC 7%

5: Mass Effect 3 : XBOX 62%, PS3 31%, PC 7%

9: Battlefield 3 : XBOX 54%, PS3 34%, PC 12%

10: Assasins Creed: Revelations : XBOX 53%, PS3 44%, PC 2%

11: MW3 : XBOX 49%, PS3 40%, PC 8%, Wii 3%

12: Skyrim : XBOX 49%, PS3 33%, PC 18%

13: Saints Row 3rd : XBOX 57%, PS3 40%, PC 3%

16: Witcher 2 : XBOX 96%, PC 4%

and finally one good one for the PC.. .. ..

18: Football Manager 2012 : PC 93%, PSP 7%

With figures like that it would be foolish in the extreme to ignore consoles, unless of course you only ever want to produce very niche products for a declining customer base. Like it or not consoles are here to stay, and that is the way gaming is going - although I am proud to be in the minority and stay with the PC !!!

G

[Nicholas 5]

You guys are obviously playing a completely different BETA to me, sure there are a few things that (given the choice) I would change, but overall it is excellent and a good follow up from the "Carrier Command" legacy. I am sure that there will be many changes before the release date after all it is still a BETA.

You should also bear in mind that saying a game is for "PC" brings in a whole lot of variables in itself, not everyone has a ninja gaming PC - so compromises will have to be made so that things work on the "average machine" not just so that it runs on the XBOX as well. I can think of a few PC only games that have had really bad control systems, and a few ported games that are fine so if there is something you don't like (anchorages for example - not a favorite of mine) then use the feedback system to highlight it.

Finally for those that say it will affect sales - damn right it will - read the sales charts, from UK games chart for week 12/May from Guardian (only showing games available on PC):::::

1: Sniper Elite v2 : Breakdown: XBOX 56%, PS3 38%, PC 7%

5: Mass Effect 3 : XBOX 62%, PS3 31%, PC 7%

9: Battlefield 3 : XBOX 54%, PS3 34%, PC 12%

10: Assasins Creed: Revelations : XBOX 53%, PS3 44%, PC 2%

11: MW3 : XBOX 49%, PS3 40%, PC 8%, Wii 3%

12: Skyrim : XBOX 49%, PS3 33%, PC 18%

13: Saints Row 3rd : XBOX 57%, PS3 40%, PC 3%

16: Witcher 2 : XBOX 96%, PC 4%

and finally one good one for the PC.. .. ..

18: Football Manager 2012 : PC 93%, PSP 7%

With figures like that it would be foolish in the extreme to ignore consoles, unless of course you only ever want to produce very niche products for a declining customer base. Like it or not consoles are here to stay, and that is the way gaming is going - although I am proud to be in the minority and stay with the PC !!!

G

Right on, Gazzareth.

[harbinger 1]

To defend some peeps - I would have to say that console play is indeed "dumbed down" - and there are many and varied reasons for it.

Consoles are, mostly, a homogenous platform. Games on them need to cater for the lowest common denominator. They are vastly underpowered compared to whats available on the modern PC build - but it's ok - it's a known platform, easy to code for, and not entirelly dissimilar that a code fork wastes a fortune in development cash.

However, they are limited in the experience they can bring. Not the manufacturers fault, not the game designers fault, only fault is in what the average person can achieve with a hand controller. Which is not much. Which is why console games tend to be a bit arse.

Carrier Command utilizing the full capabilities of a modern, multi-core, multi-gigabyte, GPU heavy PC would just be wondrous.

Instead - it looks like we are being given Carrier Command on a platform from 2005. Wich begs the question - why is the graphical performance so poor on High Settings on modern hardware without some tweakage?

Will 360 owners enjoy full FPS on High? Can they even change it?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Harbinger

[Dajunka 10]

But I think this will end up being a mediocre Xbox game pushed to the PC, rather than a excellent PC game pushed to the Xbox as it should have been, and probably spawned a whole series of games, instead of being forgetten about 3 weeks after release.

It's like star wars MMO all over again, get a fantastic licence then utterly fluff it.

Sadly I believe this is the way it will go as well. On the bright side, one of those games that it may spawn will be the ONE.

Hehe, I am trying to imagine where Arma II would be today if it had been a console port. :)

[Nicholas 5]

Hehe, I am trying to imagine where Arma II would be today if it had been a console port. :)

Oh Jesus Christ. OFP had a console port and it turned out fine. The OFP port did not effect the way that ArmA turned out, did it?