My Copy Arrived Today!

[wraith2021 1]

Hi all!

Like many people here I owned the original back in the day. I had it on the ZX Spectrum(monochrome 3d) and on the C64 (wasn't 3d, but overhead 2D), and finally on the Amiga 500. So yes, you could say that I was a bit of a Carrier Command boffin.

The Amiga version was the one I remember the most, because it was the one I played the most.

All versions came in the same blue box, the Spectrum and C64 versions came with two tapes and the brown manual, and the Amiga one came with a 3.5" Floppy and a tape and the manual. The second tape was a music tape of the carrier command theme song.

Anyway, I have been following this game since it was first announced, and was hoping for a PS3 version, but had to settle for the PC version as I don't own an Xbox 360 any more.

I have currently been playing this game for the past seven hours, since it arrived this morning. I updated the game with the two patches, and can safely say that so far I am impressed. The path finding is manageable, nothing that can't be sorted out with a little nudge now and then, and as for the rest of it, the strategy game is true to the original with some nice added features. So far I have not had a single problem with it, and I am glad I got it.

[wraith2021 1]

After listening to that, lets get back to my main point.

I have read a lot of grumblings and bad reviews of this game, and it is obvious that most are from before the 1.3 patch. But even now, people are still complaining, saying they want it to be like this game, or they want multiplayer, or they want the game to work a certain way.

Then I have read comments from those who played the original back in 1988. These people love the game, they say it had added something extra to an already great concept without pulling it way from its real purpose. And I agree, it is as good as you will get it without adding too much stuff and losing the real purpose of the game.

I have witnessed the AI do some strange things in places, and had to give them a nudge to get them back on track. I am sure this will improve with further updates, but that does not make the game harder or unplayable in any way. In fact given the complexity of the terrain they have to navigate I think the AI sometimes does pretty well. In the original you didn't have any obstacles, setting a course was a straight line, and if there were something in the way of the walrus it drove directly into it. So there you had to keep watch, and setting a course for you vehicles were just an aid to autopilot. For the majority of the game you had to take control. So this is no different. These vehicles are not piloted by some self aware AI, they are just an autopilot with benefits.

This is how it was in the original, and this is probably why those of us that played the original are not having any major issues with the game. Anyway that is just my view on this.

[Scepticer 1]

I pretty much agree with your initial post. I have played this game for 40+ hours and enjoyed it a lot. No major issues really, great graphics and no I encountered no game-breaking bugs.

With that said, I hope modding tools get released and that some creative and skilled modders get to work with it. I think it has a huge unrealized potential looking at the core graphics, physics and general gameplay...

[Appogee 1]

I respectfully disagree.

Regardless of how much I enjoyed the simpler gameplay of the original CC in eighties, in the year 2013, there is simply no excuse for a developer to release a game which has AI and pathfinding so unfinished as is the case of CC:GM.

Worse, because the game was released with these fatal flaws, it sank with the critics, and has been left dead in the water without much of a gaming community to sustain it.

I only hope BI do the right thing and further develop the game now that it's released, to make good with their customers. They won't be unable to undo the damage of the botched launch, but if they do fix it and build out the unfinished features around the tech tree etc, then I for one will do my best to promote the game to other gamers and sell more copies for them.

[wraith2021 1]

Appogee - I installed the game and both patches before playing the game. And to tell you the truth I have not encountered any "fatal flaws". The path finding is not %100, especially if you are dragging them over rocks and trees, but for the majority, the Walrus works how its supposed to. And because in the original it was never an intelligent AI, I never found a problem.

You assume that these units know what they are doing, but they don't, that is why you are there to help them.

I don't disagree that the path finding needs improvement, they can sometimes get confused on a straight road, but its nothing that can't be handle, and definitely nothing to grumble about.

[scrapser 11]

I too played the original and still do using my Amiga Forever emulator. I just finished the campaign and like wraith, played it on patch 1.3. I had some trouble "getting" what I was supposed to do in the campaign a few times but nothing was a show stopper. I agree first impressions are critical. In this game that is probably more important for people who don't know what the concept of the game actually is. My biggest problem, which came from my having played the original was thinking I needed to dominate the islands in the campaign...but once I realized that was not the goal necessarily, things moved on quickly.

I think the campaign truely is a tutorial and wish BSI made a point of that in the presentation so people would not get a bad impression. It's also not a true FPS at the grunt level. That feature is there mainly for the story line. I think this game's strategy mode will be as enjoyable as Battlezone 1 & 2 was. I hope it persists and establishes itself on its own merits over time. Maybe if enough people get into it we will see some third-party campaign mods like was done with Battlezone 2: Forgotten Enemies. CC:GM brings back a style of play that younger people have probably never experienced before. Some forward thinking on the part of BSI may have helped with its initial release in this respect.

[wraith2021 1]

scrapser - I thought the campaign game was a modern version of the action game option for the original.

I remember them saying in the E3 videos that the campaign was a tutorial, I think they threw in a story just because its a modern game, and they all seem to need a story if its on a console these days.

I agree, they should have made it more clear that the strategy game was the real game, and for me, playing that side is really the best way to play.

I do think the campaign was an afterthought, just to give the game some merit on a console, and explain how everything works.

[Appogee 1]

The campaign must have sucked up a huge amount of development time, with its voice acting and cutscenes.

Imagine if that development time had instead been invested in fixing the basic game mechanics, adding the missing tech tree, etc...

[wraith2021 1]

Appogee - I agree that without the campaign mode the strategy side would be a lot more polished. Unfortunately this game was developed on a console, and to appease the console crowd they had to add a story and a 1st person shooter bit. In fact, I bet they had no choice but to add FPS to the mix or not get it published. But even though the FPS part was forced into a game that obviously wasn't made to handle that, it actually turned out well enough to play, and made a good tutorial.

Now all they need to do is polish the AI path finding, add a physical supply boat that docks with your carrier (like on the original), add a slider to set the enemy carrier's difficulty as some people find it a bit too easy, and add Wire-Guided Missiles!!!

How could they forget them? A missile that you control and fly into enemy targets, that was one of my favourite weapons on the walrus.

[Appogee 1]

A missile that you control and fly into enemy targets, that was one of my favourite weapons on the walrus.

I forgot about those, but yeah, they would be a nice addition.

Also:

Change Hammerheads so they have to be targeted to a specific point - but it can be anywhere on the map.

Enable an (optional) tech tree, so you can start with basic equipment, but need to capture equipment upgrade plans from resource centres.

Let you replenish your vehicles with those on captured islands.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Appogee

[wraith2021 1]

Yeah, I would like to see the ability to use the facilities on an island, Dock my walrus in the walrus hangers, and mantas in the manta bases. You could land your mantas on the runways in the original game. Also you should be able to use on Island vehicles. Especially to help replenish your troops.

[wraith2021 1]

So they have released a beta SDK, and patch V1.4 is coming soon. I don't know what all the moaning was about, they have delivered on their promise. And I bet multiplayer will be added soon, after they fix all the bugs. Well, now people can mod the game, I look forward to seeing some creative add-ons.

[Appogee 1]

And I bet multiplayer will be added soon, after they fix all the bugs.

Not a chance. But if you really want to wager I'll be happy to put down some cash.

[wraith2021 1]

I dunno, I watched enough video interviews prior to the games release that stated otherwise. The general gist was that they would make the game first, then later focus on a multiplayer add-on. Unless they have stated somewhere that they have changed their minds about that, then its still a possibility. They delivered the SDK, they have been releasing patches as and when with the mention of a V1.4 patch soon, so its not as though they have abandoned the game. Personally I don't care about multiplayer. I'd be happy with them just focus on polishing the game, and give me some tools to make some decent mods.

One more thing, just to keep the hope up. This game was made as a labour of love for the original, and that in mind the best way to get it as close to the original but add all the modern bells and whistles is to do it the way they have, then add atop of that. once you capture the spirit of the original you can then build on it. Which is why they are now polishing it up, adding an SDK etc. Then You add Multiplayer at the end. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have loved the original to have datalink capabilities, so I have a feeling that they will do multiplayer in the background over a period of time. And if they play their cards right they can use it as a means to take another shot at rereleasing the game, thus getting peoples attention, for a second time. That would be good marketing. Calling it Carrier Command: Gaea Mission - Extended Edition. Comes with a fully working SDK with some example files/documentation and built in Multiplayer with a polished game. Fully working AI, harder enemy Carrier etc.

I would put my money where my mouth is for this, and pay up front for it. Especially if they did a Collectors Edition with a box like the original with a sticker, poster and t-shirt etc.

Edited January 19, 2013 by wraith2021

[Appogee 1]

I really really REALLY hope you are right.

But I remember them saying that multiplayer would depend on the commercial success of the release, which as we know, hasn't happened.

It's chicken and egg, of course. Many reviewers said the lack of multiplayer was one of the reasons they rated the game poorly.

[wraith2021 1]

Many reviewers said the lack of multiplayer was one of the reasons they rated the game poorly.

Then those reviewers need sacking. When reviewing a game, it has to depend on the game's merits and flaws. If a game does or doesn't have multiplayer should never affect the score. Its like reviewing an mp3 player, then knocking the score down because it doesn't have video.

[Appogee 1]

I respectfully disagree.

Reviewers see their job as telling people how ''good'' a game is. If most players want multiplayer - and the evidence in the these forums is that most people do - then a reviewer is justified in downscoring a game which doesn't offer multiplayer.

[wraith2021 1]

But, how "good" a game is, is based on its own merits, a game is what it is, not on what it lacks.

By your definition any of the Elderscrolls series should have come under serious flack for being an RPG with no multiplayer.

The fact is games are designed to work a certain way, and based on their merits the reviewer must stay unbiassed. Yes they may mention that multiplayer would have added value to the game, but to knock a score down because it lacked something it never had is just wrong. This does not mean that they can't put it in the Pros and Cons, but the end score should be determined by its existing design, not what they think is missing.

Most review do mention no multiplayer, but they still score it fairly, most giving between 5 and 8 out of 10, these scores have not been affected by the lack of multiplayer, but by the bugs/AI path finding/FPS control limitations in the game. You can't score what isn't there.

[wanyfer 1]

i havent seen a review that said they scored the game lower because of lack of multiplayer i seen the ones that said "If the game had multiplayer it would have gotten a better score" which is different and using your analogy a mp3 that has video will get a better score agains a mp3 that doesnt as long as the mp3 part in on par with the rest

[Appogee 1]

i havent seen a review that said they scored the game lower because of lack of multiplayer i seen the ones that said "If the game had multiplayer it would have gotten a better score"

So it would have got a higher score if it had multiplayer, but that is different to me saying it got a lower score because it didn't have multiplayer...? Either way, the absence of multiplayer led to a lower score than if it had multiplayer.

using your analogy a mp3 that has video will get a better score agains a mp3 that doesnt as long as the mp3 part in on par with the rest

Your analogy isn't actually analogous. If people who buy MP3 players generally want and expect their MP3 player to have video, then reviewers will mark down an MP3 player which doesn't have video. Which proves my point.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

But, how "good" a game is, is based on its own merits, a game is what it is, not on what it lacks.

So a game that lacks a good plot, that lacks good graphics, lacks stability, lacks replayability, may still be a ''good'' game because it can only be judged on the merits of the very few things it does have...?

Hardly.

If a Space Invaders clone were released today, do you think it would have any chance of scoring a good review? Of course not. Reviewers will comment on the lack of graphics, the lack of sophisticated gameplay, the lack of variety and replayability, the lack of strategic options, and the lack of just about everything which is currently expected to be part of a ''good'' game today.

The lack of multiplayer in CCGM, which most closely aligns with game genres like BF and COD and ARMA where multiplayer is standard, was noted by several reviewers and stated as a negative for the title.

By your definition any of the Elderscrolls series should have come under serious flack for being an RPG with no multiplayer.

Not at all. It would depend on whether RPGs are generally expected to have multiplayer by people who like to buy RPGs and consider ES to be an RPG. I note that Skyrim, the world's current premier RPG, has no multiplayer. Even then, several reviewers mentioned it as a mild negative when reviewing it, knocking a few points of its otherwise stellar score.

the end score should be determined by its existing design, not what they think is missing.

But here in the real world, reviewers mark games down all the time for things they don't have... from straight out game mechanics such as an absence of certain configuration options to the absence of multiplayer to an absence of compelling plot to an absence of replayability to an absence of variety to an absence of competent AI to an absence of any one of a dozen things which are currently considered to be a necessary part of a ''good'' game within a given genre.

[wraith2021 1]

I think we are tapping at two different rocks here. I know where you are coming from, but I can't help but feel you are missing my point. And I can't be arsed explaining it.

Either way, I added something to my earlier post if you didn't see it.

Edited January 19, 2013 by wraith2021

[npjnpj 1]

I have to agree with wraith2021's point(s) of view.

Having played CC on the Amiga and Atari ST all those years ago (and even now on Emulators), I think that BIS have done a great job, capturing the spirit of the original wonderfully.

The path finding problems are not a concern of mine, the autopilot was always meant mainly for positioning purposes, and this it does relatively well, even if not by today's standards. Which brings me to my actual point:

This game is of its own time. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be my beloved CC. And that's were the main problem lies.

Most reviewers weren't around at the time, so you can't really blame them for 1) not understanding the game's spirit and 2) judging the game by it's perceived lack of speed (facepalm). Today's games thrive on furious fast-paced action and games such as CC compare unfavorably to twitch-fingered players who know no different.

I think that in the light of this we can all be happy that CC:GM even exists and even though its appeal will be probably mostly limited to the original CC enthusiasts, we have to accept that it will not appeal to today's mass market. In that way it's probably doomed, but personally I can't emphasize enough how happy I am with it. If an occasional patch comes along: nice! But if not, I'm perfectly happy with the way it is.

Many thanks to the developers and designers: Great job!

[wraith2021 1]

npjnpj - I agree completely. If they had pandered to the "Modern Masses" we would not have CC, we would have a modern warfare game with some strategy elements. The only way they could capture the spirit of the game was to make the game exact to the original then star adding layer upon layer of modern adjustments, but all the while making sure they were not pulling too far away from the original.

Now they have an SDK, I am hoping that the game will gain more momentum from the modding crowd, who will bring some well needed support to the table. And for the sake of the game I hope they continue patching all the bugs out, and make multiplayer. Not for my sake - I love the game as is - but but to help sales and support for CC in a hopes that BIS decides to continue supporting the game by bringing out some added extras, new armour types and expand on the diversity of the game which already exists within CC. I know they can, because they have shown they can make changes without jeopardising the spirit of the game.

For me, this is CC i know and love. But I feel BI need to reap more rewards for their effort.

[Socratatus 1]

After listening to that, lets get back to my main point.

I have read a lot of grumblings and bad reviews of this game, and it is obvious that most are from before the 1.3 patch. But even now, people are still complaining, saying they want it to be like this game, or they want multiplayer, or they want the game to work a certain way.

Then I have read comments from those who played the original back in 1988. These people love the game, they say it had added something extra to an already great concept without pulling it way from its real purpose. And I agree, it is as good as you will get it without adding too much stuff and losing the real purpose of the game.

I have witnessed the AI do some strange things in places, and had to give them a nudge to get them back on track. I am sure this will improve with further updates, but that does not make the game harder or unplayable in any way. In fact given the complexity of the terrain they have to navigate I think the AI sometimes does pretty well. In the original you didn't have any obstacles, setting a course was a straight line, and if there were something in the way of the walrus it drove directly into it. So there you had to keep watch, and setting a course for you vehicles were just an aid to autopilot. For the majority of the game you had to take control. So this is no different. These vehicles are not piloted by some self aware AI, they are just an autopilot with benefits.

This is how it was in the original, and this is probably why those of us that played the original are not having any major issues with the game. Anyway that is just my view on this.

Hi all, new poster. :)

I also just got the game and spent all day reliving my memories, but in a more real way!

I pretty much agree here with the quote. I think the modern day CC is a great and faithful version of the old one. It does everything I remember the old one did with a LOT more. I suppose the fact that I`m now seeing a real nicely realised carrier (as I imagined it 20 years ago if technology was better), great landscapes, weather and even viewing staff in your Carrier has been more or less a dream I never expected come true. I guess the oldschoolers like me will appreciate it while the younger ones or those who never played it, won`t.

I didn`t even find the Campaign all that bad (although I have only played 1.3), sure it`s not as smooth as today`s shooters, wouldn`t allow mouse button control config (and why is crouch -to -standing so weird?) but it played quite easily. The drones were EASY to take down and it never lasted long enough to be a pain. I didn`t even find the voice-acting to be all that bad... Being English and sounding common is how most English people sound!

The Campaign did bug after I failed one mission and wouldn`t allow me to carry on the same Save, so I went to the Campaign mode. And I am very pleased with it.

I would say that it would`ve been nice to name your Carrier and even place your own personal logo on it- A missed opportunity there.

p.s. Having a non-steam version is greatly appreciated also.

[wraith2021 1]

Yeah, I bought the Physical copy of the game, don't like digital games, I prefer to hold something. Personally I would loved to have bought it in an oldschool box just to make it stand out from the DVD case crowd. But at least you get a fold up cardboard stand thing, with all the keyboard commands for each vehicle type on it.

Being a fan of the original, they really did stick close to it, now its just a case of getting all the kinks ironed out. I would easily pay for an expansion pack that gave you more weapons armour and combinations.