Ghebraant

Yeah they jumped ship on this one long ago. Now that I think about it, I'll uninstall and move on, too.

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.

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?

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!

It's more like people criticizing modern cash-grab remakes of classics -- Entirely justified.

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

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. Here's the follow-up: 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.

There was a demo released after the game was released. For all intents and purposes, the beta-test was the demo.

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.

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.

I'm cutting my losses and I've decided to ask for a refund. Again on that subject, I really hope they don't invoke some limit on how I'm not entitled to a refund because too much time has passed since purchase, that would be really rotten of them, given the circumstances, but I'm hoping they'll do the right thing.

What gets to me is the deafening silence more than anything. I'd just like to know whether the game has been de-prioritized following release, because if it has, there's no point to me or others sticking around and prodding them with these threads once in a while. PS: If you must know, I did try the latest beta patch.