Well, why didn't BZ2 live up to mainstream standards?

[forgottengames]

After reading GSH's comments and those of countless others, I still can't understand why BZ2 didn't get the recognition it deserved. Perhaps the multiplayer patch came too late? Or what else?

[GSH]

"Deserved" is a very loaded word. Fans of the FPS+RTS genre are a very small number to begin with. And, given a chance, they'll badmouth anything and everything in that genre. BZ1ers didn't like BZ2 in part because it wasn't BZ1 with larger assets and a continued focus on DM. Pissant rivalry over game modes continues to this day, with certain arrogant people preferring to be a big fish in an ever-shrinking pond rather than be nice and invite others in.

Also, Activision pushed out BZ2 to die in the week after Christmas, marketing $$$ dried up long before then. Consumers are a fickle bunch, and advertising helps get their attention.

-- GSH

[Zero Angel]

Someone said that it's because BZ2 had both the weaknesses of FPS and RTS games. Aside from the bugginess and lack of traction it got early on there was the fact that FPS players were put off by the additional complication of the command interface and RTS players didnt like to 'die', especially from the hands of an FPS-type player. 1v1 games are the clearest example of this -- players may be good RTS players but if they keep getting 'owned' by a superior dogfighter then they can't put their skills to use -- likewise if an FPS player keeps getting 'owned' by a player who locks down the field with a lot of static D, then it takes some of the fun out of the fighting aspect of it. BZ2 needs players of both minds, who can handle the tactical (e.g: flanking, teamwork), strategic (e.g.: battle plan, like hitting pools, base raiding) and especially dogfighting elements of it (ship maneuvering, target selection, tactics). Players who are unconfortable with any of these aspects tend to like the strat aspect of the game, players who are only confortable with the strategic aspects and have a low tolerance for pressure are usually MPI players. The unusual blend of everything makes BZ2 a bit of a niche title.

I also think there are some fundamental gameplay aspects (like how teammate ship losses sets the commander back, careful management of rec time, additional pressure put on the commander) that can reduce the fun factor in games where teams lack good coordination.

[Ded10c]

I believe Ken put it best.

FPS players don't want to think, RTS players don't want to die.

[Red Devil]

maybe, "fps players just want to kill; rts players just want to stay alive".

if an fps player (thug) dies, they respawn; if an rts player (team's base) dies, they lose.

you'd think that that would be the perfect blend, but most of the herd are simple/rigid in their thinking.

[RubiconAlpha]

maybe, "fps players just want to kill; rts players just want to stay alive".

if an fps player (thug) dies, they respawn; if an rts player (team's base) dies, they lose.

you'd think that that would be the perfect blend, but most of the herd are simple/rigid in their thinking.

I think RD got it right.

For FPS players it's only about the kill and getting the most of them. RTS players are about the battle plan and out thinking the enemy.

I lean towards the RTS side more but dogfighting is fun but not why I play.

[Red Spot]

Consumers are a fickle bunch, and advertising helps get their attention.

That, I never seen any kind of advertisement for the game, couldnt get it at any real PC-store, nothing. I ended up walking into it in a warehouse that mainly focusses on clothing ... and the reason I bought it was only cause I knew and liked BZ1, if that were not the case I probably would have left the game with all the Orangy vehicles alone.

[Apollo]

BZ1ers didn't like BZ2 in part because it wasn't BZ1 with larger assets and a continued focus on DM. Pissant rivalry over game modes continues to this day, with certain arrogant people preferring to be a big fish in an ever-shrinking pond rather than be nice and invite others in.
-- GSH

I would say Bzers didn't like Bz2 mainly because the vehicle physics killed the fun game play they had in Bz.
Also the AVs that occured so often that you had to fix all the lost file fragments.
Back then you couldn't get near and enemy base with a PII 350 without dropping to a slide show frame rate.
The orange skins on tanks didn't help matters.

Bz "pissant rivalry over game mods" maybe the conclusion of people throwing stones without first hand knowlage of what it's really about but what it is truely about is a small group wanting to be dictators over all of Bz, the rest is propaganda to achieve their goals.

Personally i don't care if the game code is released and there are 50 versions of the game. (grow up and get alone)

[Nielk1]

BZ2 didn't do well because it was buggy and the BZ1 fans trashed it in their reviews. It was not more of the same so they hated it, be it the physics, the lack of lives in MP, the treaded recyclers, the biometal pools, the orange tanks, any of it, they hated it all. even now you can still see their attitudes showing in things like the GAME DESCRIPTION on Meta-Critic! Most of the broad statements like "lost the fast paced action" and "story is generic and deals with aliens" are just blatantly untrue but spread like wildfire and everyone pretty much believed them.

AVs do not cause any file fragments of course, I have no idea WTF Apollo is on about. BZ2 early on was buggy yes but it was not yet victim to exploit AVs since they had not yet been uncovered. At this time BZ1 was a hacked hell hole, an issue that still isn't truly solved while BZ2 had asset checking.

Ultimately, a combination of a game rushed to market, high system requirements, bugs, and misinformation from BZ1 diehards lead to the downfall of the title and eliminated any chance of followups. The licensing of the Battlezone IP by Pandemic was meant for at least 2 games, I think 3, though IIRC the name "Combat Commander" was to be the new name after BZ2. This plan was smashed. It didn't help that Pandemic was working on several games all with independent engines at the time, and that is how they continued to work, leading to their eventual demise.

The truth is that a fixed BZ2, getting rid of those rush to release bugs, does fit and even outshines what were modern standards. If not for the crap reviews, bugs, and misinformation campaign by BZ1 fans, it could have at least had similar success to BZ1.

[Apollo]

AVs do not cause any file fragments of course, I have no idea WTF Apollo is on about.

Bz2 1.1 and 1.2 patches caused lost file fragments everytime the game crashed and rebooted the pc, IDK why you think you can speak in such absolutes for everyone. You are wrong!

[squirrelof09]

Maybe hes talking about the way IDE drives would have corrupt data very often if the system had crashed before saving data completely.

[Nielk1]

AVs do not cause any file fragments of course, I have no idea WTF Apollo is on about.

Bz2 1.1 and 1.2 patches caused lost file fragments everytime the game crashed and rebooted the pc, IDK why you think you can speak in such absolutes for everyone. You are wrong!

That goes against the way that the file access works in the language BZ2 is written. The only things that can be damaged are files that are opened for write or append access, which would only cover save files.

What squirrel said makes the most sense, a HW issues was the actual cause of any file damage beyond saves. The simple fact is it is not possible for BZ2 to damage files other than its saves because it opens the files in read only.

To put it simply, IDK why you think you can speak for how a program operates when you are not a programmer. You are wrong!

[Apollo]

As i recall the bzone.log was a lost file fragment after every AV back then on win98 which i had to run scandisk to fix.

[squirrelof09]

I would guess, but likely wrong, that would have to do with the file being open and writes to the log file are delayed a bit? Not sure how bz2 really dealt with the log during those versions

[Nielk1]

As i recall the bzone.log was a lost file fragment after every AV back then on win98 which i had to run scandisk to fix.

Which BTW is a file that BZ2 is writing or appending to. That said, for it to be a lost fragment, as I said, goes outside the bounds of the program. To effect the disk at the level required to cause that issue as a fault of BZ2 would require reimplementing OS level functions or doing some tricky ASM.

It sounds like that was an issue with some buggy drivers for your HDD and would have been caused by any sudden interruption in writing. The fact a fragment can be lost at all in this case is pretty unlikely when you consider the FAT32 file structure. It is even less likely on NTSF but I figure your occurrence was with FAT.

EDIT:
Basically, the kernel functions for disk access are implemented by the driver. Only an error in the inner workings of these functions or the use of special functions by BZ2 (such as those your defragger or scandisk uses) could cause this error. That or of course a hardware issue derived from an error in communication with the driver, be it software or hardware initiated. (ASM in BZ2 actually isn't a possible cause since that would have to recode what the driver does and then BZ2 wouldn't work on another filesystem or driver; so forget I mentioned ASM before.)