Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Do you speak Battlefront?

Battlefront has one of the obnoxious customer relations approaches I've ever seen in my life. They must be doing something right, they are still in business after all ...

For the average guy out there, understanding what they are saying may be a bit challenging, so I thought of providing a translation of what they are actually trying to say.

(All stuff below provided in a jokingly way, I still play Combat Mission after all ... Oh, wait! My copy doesn't work. Should I go to their forums and ask for help?) :)


Original, Battlefront:
We have a very, very long and well established history of fixing things when they are proven to be in need of fixing.

Translation:
We have a very, very long and well established history of fixing things when we give up trying to prove they don't need fixing.


Original, Battlefront:
We also have a long and well established history of rejecting requests for change when they aren't backed up.

Translation:

We also have a long and well established history of rejecting requests just because YOU made them.



Original, Battlefront:
We've seen TONS of that with CM:SF, where people want us to make the Syrians like Russians or to change things so that Pet Peeve Of The Day is tweaked to make the Syrians more gamey and less realistic.

Translation:

Making the Syrians like Russians or anything else would mean to actually write real AI routines. Even when nobody have seen the Syrians fight a modern western army so far, take my word for it our Syrians are realistic enough.


(On Battlefront dropping HistWar from its product line)
Original, Battlefront:
After 4 years of waiting we've decided not to wait any more.

Translation:

After being bullied by Paradox with a deadline that made us to release CMSF in an unfinished state, we were looking forward to shove OUR deadline up this poor lone fellow's rear end.


(On the lack of water terrain in CMSF)
Original, Battlefront:
We deliberately avoided water for CM:SF because it is not a common terrain feature relevant to tactical combat. At least not proportional to the majority of probable combat situations. If adding such terrain weren't a major time consuming issue for us, we would have included it. But water has a lot of issues attached to it.

Translation:
We deliberately avoided water for CM:SF because we had no clue on how to implement it. Now stop bitching about water and Google Syria and you will see its just a freaking desert, with only minor rivers that nobody would want to establish a defense on. Everybody knows that the tactically sound way to defend a country against the US Army is to deploy forces in the open desert, preferably without any cover. That's why we also deliberately avoided writing decent path finding and use-of-cover routines for the AI.

Cheers,

1 comment:

Michael Dorosh said...

I had been following your blog at gamesquad with much interest; nice to see you made the leap to your own "digs". Some interesting comments here.