Author Topic: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4  (Read 4146 times)

Offline Gezoes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 765
  • There is no middle ground.
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #45 on: 18-08-2011, 03:08:33 »
Apart from some new (gameplay) things, because he obviously did read up on or played a bit of 2.4 (don't think he played some), he missed almost all the points that make 2.4 what it is. That's pretty sloppy, although it reads ok and it's an overall positive piece.

"If I wasn't a little mad, I'd go mad."

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #46 on: 18-08-2011, 04:08:35 »
I share the same view with Seth.

We need to make a point, instead of trying so hard to "sell" the mod to larger audience.

I agree with Natty, that even though mod should be "realistic and authentic" to stand out, it should also be playable and fun in certain way. But, this mod will lose its appeal, if the aspect is too balanced, which makes nothing stands out of this mod: it is bland, it is plain, it is just that.

People like to be fooled, Natty. I don't want BF1942 that gives you oh 50 different weapons, but in actuality, the Russian and the Japanese use MP18 as their SMG. Or 70 or so different vehicles, when you can see Tiger tank wondering in Tobruk.

I know many casual gamers just don't care about details, and you can say that's why BF1942 is a success. But, FH2 is not BF1942, it is a mod, they modify the game for a reason, you see. We tell them, there shouldn't be Tiger tank in Tobruk. The Brits don't fight there in the first defense, and nor the Aussies use BAR as their MG. Oh and there is also Matilda tank and Italians there... that's why FH devs add them to the map. They care about the numbers, representation, authenticity, and all that makes FH stands out as a mod.

The Gamespy reviewer might not see this. But when you tell someone or tell the reviewer, do you know that FH2 is totally realistic? You will only see vehicles and weapons that were used in the actual event. Now, isn't this awesome? Some might say, "don't care, get a life!" but we surely don't want to play FH2 with someone like that, do we?

Offline Malsa

  • A very static artist.
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #47 on: 18-08-2011, 07:08:53 »
It's not difficult to make a historically accurate game, anyone could do that. Surely there must be more than the historical accuracy in FH2 that appeal to all the players?

Offline Alakazou

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.368
  • FHer from the beginning
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #48 on: 18-08-2011, 07:08:02 »
Maybe it's not hard, but I don't know any other FPS how do that.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #49 on: 18-08-2011, 10:08:38 »
It's not difficult to make a historically accurate game, anyone could do that. Surely there must be more than the historical accuracy in FH2 that appeal to all the players?

Its not just historically accurate. And it is NOT.

Fh2 is more about the feel of WWII. The FEEL is the most important aspect. It is based, imo, on something like 80 - 90% accuracy and 10% 'tweaking' . What I mean is this, you are playing a scaled game - Most Maps are not the real size as the battles, but some are. So you need to start off with as much reality as you can, then scale the aspects of play in such a way that it works for both 1:1 scaled maps and 1: X scaled maps without it appearing arcade for the former, or too brutal for the latter.

You recall how howitzers, even tanks lobed shells in BF42, that level of scaling cannot work, as it takes you out of the sense of WWII, you spend more time getting the lobe quotient right to trying fire straight (The way we perceive a tank to). Sure there is shell drop, but it is not like firing mortar. Then there is the range to consider.

BF42 indeed, was going for something similar to what FH2 was going for... But from the other direction. It was more concerned about 'fun' than realism in achieving its  WWII feel, so it put in tanks as needed to make it fun, rather than given the real feel.


It did mean it was easier for FH1 to reach its full size and self, because the content was there - It just needed to be tweaked, and more... ALOT more added later.

Fh2 is basically working of a blank canvas. The engine difference means that it cannot simply refer to FH1 figures and mimic that. And BF2 offers little point of reference for a WWII, if that.

What it DOES need to do, irrespective of which players come along, and I dare say, which DEVS come along, is a proper sense of its being - The reason Forgotten Hope as a franchise existed in the first place.  Otherwise FH2 will not respect the Forgotten Hope theme.

The 'feel' of WWII can be seen from the reviews. Fh1 was described with the term 'realism', 'WWII experience'. BF42 was described as 'Hollywood version of WWII', 'Arcade', 'Balanced' (Although balanced here means 'mirrored', not 'fair'). There are differences between these descriptions.

Forgotten Hope is supposed to be grittier than BF42... ALOT more, but it does have something of a cushion that prevents it from becoming a WWII simulator. Especially, because of the fact that, in its scaled World, perfect realsim will only frustrate players, NOT give them a sense of WWII-speed and intensity at ALL.

If the reviewer didn't see these themes, then it may be either his pespective being the exception, OR the fact that FH2 has changed the game. These things are for the devs to deliberate on, and to act accordingly.... Its not something  we can slug it out here to fix, or understand.

What was the devs' plan for Forgotten Hope back in 2003... And what is it today?

FH2 has the potential to be more than Fh1 because, imo, its engine is more complex in its simulation of combat. Besides a few exceptions like mobility kill, Fh1 was  based on a rather arcade game with little depth for each aspect of play. But the 'Philosophy' is what needs to be looked at, NOT the engine limitations.
« Last Edit: 18-08-2011, 10:08:42 by djinn »

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #50 on: 18-08-2011, 10:08:25 »
please learn that there isn't a meter where Realism/History is on one end and Arcade/Fun is on the other.
Before you grasp this, you can't analyze a game or mod.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #51 on: 18-08-2011, 10:08:51 »
I never said they were on either end of A scale. I just said these 2 are what are balanced to make the game. I didn't come up with this Natty, it was said so many times in the past about FH2.

Let me at least define what I mean when I use each term.

Realism, To mimic Reality
Here refers to the pin-point exact way each weapon, combat system and damage system worked in RL.. or as much as a game can mimic that.

'Fun', Enjoyment by any means neccesary
 Used specifically in quotes, not to be confused with fun, without quotes. This term, I use to define gameplay without care for any other yardstick. i.e by any means neccesary. Is in NO way in contrast to Realism. It just means, it doesn't care about realism or arcadism. But since, it takes more work to make Realism fun, 'fun' tends to move games away from Realism, towards the Arcade

Aracade, Simplistic.
I use to define a game that is more based on Fun by any means than context of the aspects of its play i.e How tanks really functioned against infantry, etc, etc... to achieve balance, as a means of improving 'fun'.  Having a fighter plane with  30bombs is, by this definition, an arcade feature.

I really don't think we should focus on symantics or get patronizing or condescending here... I know we seldom see eye to eye Natty, and sure, I will be the first to admit I have my reservations about you because of how you express your opinion and what those opinions are (Albeit, I have always admited you are right when you are.. which seems to be lost on you), The point I raised is not against anyone, I'm simply expressing my opinion based on what I think I understand from the forums since 2004, when I got here. Just an opinion  :)
« Last Edit: 18-08-2011, 11:08:57 by djinn »

Offline NTH

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 3.146
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #52 on: 18-08-2011, 11:08:18 »
I just left a comment on his review, which isn't all too shabby, to point out to readers that there is more to FH2 then just the African theater and maps. Because personally I feel the map design has drastically improved since Africa. I do feel like his review experience stems from having played a few African based maps.

Anyway it's best to post some comment, if you have a clear opinion why FH2 is so much better, then what he describes in his review.
And be positive there, you don't want to come across as some raving luncatic faboyZzs.

And thank you Sheik for sharing the link.


Milton Gault roared, "Roffey, I know bloody well that Jerry knows we are here but you don't need to advertise the fact!"
(From: First in the Field, Gault of the Patricias by Jeffery Williams, page 72.)

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #53 on: 18-08-2011, 11:08:35 »
Djinn, why do you think Im adressing my post to you? Im not, Im talking to everyone.

I don't want to start analyzing these terms now... I suggest you read this book --> http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Fun-Game-Design/dp/1932111972
Written by brilliant designer Raph Koster (of various RPG fame, EverQuest, Ultima Online, StarWars Galaxies etc)

You'll like it :)

Online Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.783
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #54 on: 18-08-2011, 11:08:16 »
I think what djinn means is that there are games, to which the theories and concepts in that book most definitely apply, and there are simulations, which are not necessarily designed to be fun, but to mimick some kind of real life situation and which can be fun to people into the kind of stuff that is simulated. And forgotten Hope is clearly a game, but retains some of that "simulation vibe" due to its unforgiving nature and historically accurate setting.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #55 on: 18-08-2011, 11:08:00 »
thank you, Ts :)

might post on the Reivewer's Wall myself.

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.124
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #56 on: 18-08-2011, 16:08:12 »
Didn't you read my post? I wrote that it is important. For some people.
Yes, of course I read your post. Maybe I should stop doing so, as I already know what is coming ;)

It is funny to see how you try to state that you really think it is important, just to add that actually it is only for some people, or only secondary. And again you know all this because Dice and EA have so many clever ways to find out what all players want, right?

I can't help to think of a certain fork and a swimming pool, for some reason.


Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #57 on: 18-08-2011, 16:08:51 »
Let's be nice, people. Its about the Review and Fh2... Not here, not now, please.

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #58 on: 18-08-2011, 17:08:49 »
Didn't you read my post? I wrote that it is important. For some people.
Yes, of course I read your post. Maybe I should stop doing so, as I already know what is coming ;)

It is funny to see how you try to state that you really think it is important, just to add that actually it is only for some people, or only secondary. And again you know all this because Dice and EA have so many clever ways to find out what all players want, right?

I can't help to think of a certain fork and a swimming pool, for some reason.

uhm what? What does this have to do with dice or EA? We're discussing the fh2 review.. I have no clue what you are refering to here.
Every player on planet earth who plays a game does so to have fun, period.
Fun for some, is putting bricks in order to make a row disappear, for others it is being in VoIP pretending to reenact military experiences. Others like to jump really high inthe air and shoot lazer beams in other players heads, all this is just different types of fun.

There, now that that's settled, what I meant with secondary, is that players primarily want fun. If the fun fails (simply put) it does not matter how strong the theme is, how awesome the graphics are or how detailed the world is compared to reality. Not one player would enjoy our mod, if the game play didnt work - wasn't fun - . No matter how many exact replicas of weapons we have, how identical to real-life our maps are or anything. It is easy for anyone to say "I dont care about the fun, I just wanna relive WW2, and if everything is historically accurate and realistic, the gameplay and the fun doesnt matter", it is an easy thing to claim, on a forum perhaps.. But I know, that that is a plain and simple Lie. All that stuff comes second to a working, fun and balanced game play experience.
Maybe you feel exposed and scared, that I know what players like? As if Im some sort of threat (a mind-reader who tries to enter your soul) because I know players mentality, what triggers them, what they like, and why they like it? If that's the case then I can't help you much there, just deal with that. It's not rocket science here, players are an audience, a fanbase, they dont hold any secrets about what they like and dont like. You know why? because they cant hide their behaviour, not ingame, not outside the game. They are an open book, and if you know what to look for, you see right through them, and can be one step ahead of them, giving them what they want before they know they want it.

I wont go over it again after this, but that's more or less it  8)

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.124
    • View Profile
Re: Aug. 09/2011 Gamespy review of 2.4
« Reply #59 on: 18-08-2011, 17:08:18 »
Yes, of course I read your post. Maybe I should stop doing so, as I already know what is coming ;)

You don't read yourself. Or no wait, you do, but you do so extremely selectively, making discussing with you a catch 22 all the time.

No, I'm not exposed or scared of course. It is kind of weird to read what a guy, who assumes that he knows what players want, writes about games when it is so totally not what I want in games.

But since I want to spend my time in a useful way, I'll change my comment above into "I should stop doing so, as I already know what is coming".

No hard feelings, I just had enough of the same now  8)