Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Ghebraant

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    14

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Ghebraant

  2. Posted

    People should be lapping it up not complaining. They don't know how lucky they are, getting a remake of CC. Spoiled buggers. ;)

    I don't get where you see people complaining; This forum's dead. The people complaining, along with pretty much everyone else, left a long time ago because BIS ignored this game after releasing it broken.

  3. Posted · Edited by Ghebraant
    Formatting

    This section of the forum cannot possibly have more than 100 people in total viewing it, yet the thread "Bug on Bacchus" has over 1000 views, with 11 replies. You entered this topic, now I want you to explain why you did so. It may seem confusing, but I'm curious to see if these are actually forum members or it's just the accumulated views from guests and members clicking the same topic twice. It's only fair that I explain myself before I expect anyone else to: I beta-tested this game. I asked for a refund after it was released, which I was not granted. Now in what I guess is an attempt at making my money not totally wasted, I frequent this forum looking for patches and hoping someone makes some kind of mod. I also post dustballs. What about you; what are you doing on here?

  4. Posted · Edited by Ghebraant

    It just occurred to me: Carrier Command Gaea Mission is to BIS what Aliens: Colonial Marines is to Gearbox Software. Think about it: Both studios have big games under their belt -- BIS has the ArmA series, Gearbox has Borderlands.

    Just like Gearbox just totally stopped talking about Aliens: Colonial Marines at all, BIS did with CCGM. In the case of Gearbox, they were using money they had received from Sega to develop ACM on Borderlands, and outsourced development to other studios while they focused on their 'own' titles, so to speak. In the case of BIS, they inherited this game from another studio, and it's painfully obvious that they, in similar fashion, have shifted resources to a bigger project: ArmA 3. There is one key difference however: Gearbox is attempting to patch their broken game, and these patches are aimed at the game's most critical problems, whereas in this case, the changes are either minimal or they fail to address the problem in any significant way. ACM has multiplayer, and this is touted as being the only point where the game rises above mediocrity. When asked if CCGM would have multiplayer, BIS commented that if the game became popular enough, they would consider it. One last comparison: Randy Pitchford, who bore a large part of the brunt for his studio releasing a bad game, blocked anyone who commented about it on his twitter feed. On this forum, the few people who complain about moderators are also banned. The key difference here is that in this case is that banning someone here takes away like 5% of the game's entire community since this game gained much less attention than ACM, whereas Randy banning someone on Twitter is absolutely insignificant to the game. Different issues, but definitely some similarity there, too.

    It's fun, and informative, to draw parallels!

  7. Posted

    There just arent enough zombies in it to justify spending time and money I guess :rolleyes:

    I guess sooner or later the modding community may be the saviour, thats where more of the better developments with this engine seem to originate.

    I did kind of envisage this to game to be kind of like Warfare on ArmA2 but on a continental scale - maybe theres something in that for multiplayer ? ;)

    BTW these or only my opinions, feel free to ignore - Im probably wrong :p.

    There's not going to be a modding community for this game, let's be honest.

  9. Posted · Edited by [FRL]Myke
    Formatting / Removed CC numbers by Moderator

    I sent a message asking for a refund. Here was my original message to the BI Store. I sent it after waiting a week or so for them to respond to my previous request.

    The game was Carrier Command: Gaea Mission, bought through Store.Bistudio.com, and I'm requesting the refund because the game is simply too buggy to play. The gameplay is fundamentally flawed, too, but that's another thing. My store.bistudio.com account is the same as this email.

    Merry Christmas.

    Here's the follow-up:

    Hello,

    all refunds are issued solely on our discretion as is stated in Terms

    of Service which you agreed to when registering. We do not issue

    refunds based on dissatisfaction with gameplay or bugs in the game. All

    games have bugs.

    In this case I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for a

    refund. Please make sure your CCGM is patched to the latest version,

    1.03:

    http://www.carriercommand.com/updates/

    On Wed Dec 19 22:46:51 2012, REDACTED wrote:

    >

    > Addendum:

    > Order Date: 13. May 2012

    > Total: € 19.99Order Status: Paid/Confirmed

    > Order Number: 00031961The card number associated with the above

    > purchase is not valid anymore. My new one is also a VISA card, but

    > XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX instead of YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY.

    > > Subject: [iDEA-GAMES-RT #33317] Store.Bistudio.com: Refund

    > > From: support@bistudio.com

    > > To: REDACTED

    > > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:44:24 +0100

    > >

    > > Hello,

    > >

    > > I'm sorry we haven't received any refund request from this email

    > > address.

    > >

    > > Please let me know:

    > > - where did you buy the game

    > > - what game it is

    > > - why are you requesting a refund (if you have any problems with the

    > > game, please describe them, we might be able to help you)

    > >

    > > Thanks.

    > >

    > > On Fri Dec 14 19:23:29 2012, REDACTED wrote:

    > > > This is an enquiry e-mail via https://store.bistudio.com/ from:

    > > > REDACTED. <REDACTED@REDACTED.com>

    > > >

    > > > Hi. I have requested a refund but haven't received an answer.

    > > >

    > >

    > >

    > > --

    > > Best regards,

    > >

    > > Jan Libich

    > > STORE.Bistudio.com/support

    --

    Best regards,

    REDACTED

    STORE.Bistudio.com/support

    Here's the reason this was exactly the wrong response:

    BIS has taken a hell of a beating for this game, as the reviewers have primarily focused on the broken AI; Units not firing at the enemy, units driving into each other, units stuck in any object it feels like, units not being able to drive because they're too close to each other, and so on. It is broken to such a degree that gameplay suffers. I think he confused gameplay gripes like the enemy carrier being way too easy to beat; that's minor compared to the aforementioned. On the whole the entire game feels broken. I thought that by beta-testing, my concerns would be addressed. They weren't. I waited for patches, and I got up to 1.03. None of the patches touched upon these problems in any significant way.

    Here's the bottom line and the reason I posted this: I feel ripped off, and I regret holding out this long, waiting in good faith for BIS to fix something that should have been worked out before the game was released because a lot of us paid them extra money to help them test it before release. What a rotten way to treat your customers.

  10. Posted

    Well it goes like this: I, like many others, payed for early access to the beta so we could report bugs and hence make the game better. They ignored the most fatal one, which is the common denominator within all reviews of the game; broken AI. I can't play this game when the units cannot engage the enemy, drive in proximity to one another, or manage not to get stuck in objects such as trees. Put it another way -- It's not about disappointment, it's about the game actually being broken. That is to say that any other faults than the AI are secondary, really.

    PS: I haven't received a response to my refund request through the store.bistudio.com contact form yet.

  13. Posted

    Vague question, I know. Let me elaborate:

    The game's AI is still broken, and this game's section of the forums seems to be dying out now. I'm wondering if the developers are gonna keep trying to fix it or just call it quits and move over to ArmA 3. Certainly feels like it, and it would make sense given how hard this game has been slammed by reviewers. I want to give BIS the benefit of the doubt given their record, but it seems like this game was just a cash-grab. The beta-test would seem to contradict that, but on the other hand they totally failed to address the biggest flaw in the game that multiple testers -- myself included -- reported time and time again, and continued to release the game before this was fixed, so I don't know what to think. I'm trying to enjoy the game, but it's just not possible; it brings more frustration than pleasure. Now I'm thinking I should have asked for a refund long ago, but in waiting for BIS to fix their broken product, I don't know if I'm entitled to it anymore. I'm hoping for the best, though.

×