User information for Randy Pitchford

Real Name
Randy Pitchford
Nickname
DuvalMagic
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Director, Gearbox Software
Signed On
August 30, 2000
Supporter
-
Total Posts
35 (Suspect)
User ID
6873
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
35 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
6.
 
Re: Is this the sequel...
Apr 12, 2006, 16:28
6.
Re: Is this the sequel... Apr 12, 2006, 16:28
Apr 12, 2006, 16:28
 
We're going to involve ourselves with the copy protection decision this time.

This comment was edited on Apr 12, 16:29.
7.
 
Re: Where to begin
Sep 28, 2005, 15:23
7.
Re: Where to begin Sep 28, 2005, 15:23
Sep 28, 2005, 15:23
 
Brothers in Arms is a game about squad combat command and control based on a true story in the actual WW2 environments.

To make it work, you have to actually make decisions about how to use your fire teams to suppress and flank the enemy.

Making the allied squad automatically play the game wouldn't be very hard for us, but it would nullify the burden of the player to be a good squad leader - to make decisions about good cover and fire positions and where to flank from.

Call of Duty is a classic FPS in a WW2 setting. There is no actual squad command and control as the allies will just move forward as you do - sort of as ambient scripted moments around you.

These are different approaches.

Call of Duty will give you a Quake-style game in a WW2 setting.

Brothers in Arms will make you a paratrooper squad leader in the true story of D-Day.

Check out the "extras" in the BiA demo...

1.
 
Info
Sep 28, 2005, 11:22
1.
Info Sep 28, 2005, 11:22
Sep 28, 2005, 11:22
 
Before anyone asks -

My understanding is that this is a quickie that was required for proper user registration into the matchmaking service - it has nothing to do with the game itself.

For users, this update will be applied automatically and quickly when you go on-line for the first time.

12.
 
Re: Oh Yay
Apr 15, 2005, 01:35
12.
Re: Oh Yay Apr 15, 2005, 01:35
Apr 15, 2005, 01:35
 
I just wanted to clarify that the only thing I was less-than-serious about was the beating of the guys behind the 5.1 screw up.

No developers were harmed in the addition of the 5.1 support.

11.
 
Re: Oh Yay
Apr 15, 2005, 01:33
11.
Re: Oh Yay Apr 15, 2005, 01:33
Apr 15, 2005, 01:33
 
Parallax,

First - 5.1 support on PC was a big goof. As a crazy audio/video technophile myself, I couldn't be more pissed about this one. But, it's fixed now. There's a work around somewhere on the Gearbox forums (that you can use RIGHT NOW to make 5.1 work) and a real fix has already been checked into the next patch and will go out when that one is released. We've already beaten the hell out of the people who let that one get by and we'll be sure to beat on them again - just for you.

I don't know which Gearbox guy told you it was cut because of time, but that's not quite accurate. It was pulled because it was broken and it wasn't discovered that it was broken until the eve of the launch. It was corrected the next day, but because it was ever broken to begin with it got the microscope treatment from test before it was allowed to go into a patch.

I don't know if the details help you feel better, but perhaps knowing that those responsible have been physically beaten will do something for you?

Second - You were banned from the Gearbox forums? You must have done something not good, then.

The Gearbox forums are managed by the moderators (who are not employees of Gearbox, but who have Gearbox's trust and support). Gearbox supports the moderaters implicitly, but the admin tends to be pretty serious about moderators using their power fairly. The result is that there's a pretty good checks and balances system in place that helps me feel confident that the forums are populated by good folks who are being treated fairly.

I know that the moderators tend to show a lot of tolerance before intolerance. No one ever got banned for merely posting a complaint. I mean, we've got a *whole* *forum* dedicated to hearing complaints (and I wish it was more full than it is, actually, because we thrive on feedback).

So, if you got banned, it's a pretty safe bet that you were a doing something trollish or worse.

Also - a tip: Revealing that you got banned here hurts the credibility of your legitimate complaint a bit. A complainer with a grudge isn't objective and folks tend to filter out people who clearly have some other kind of problem.

Finally - as a PC user, cheer up! Gearbox loves the PC. Gearbox is supporting and launching this SDK, isn't it? There have also been two updates so far and more are coming. The game really is neat, and there are even cooler things that can be done with it in the SDK. One of the first testers of the SDK used it to add artillery that is controlled by a friendly squad with the fire directed by the player (using the squad command system)! It's pretty awesome - just give a command at an enemy position and the shells start falling until the rolling barrage takes out the target. Very cool. I think there's going to be some really cool stuff happening with this SDK...

Cheers!

10.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 31, 2005, 09:56
10.
Re: No subject Jan 31, 2005, 09:56
Jan 31, 2005, 09:56
 
<<<Looks like a Band of Brothers rip off to me.>>>

Gearbox started development of Brothers in Arms before the Band of Brothers series was released.


<<<Hell, even the name is similar.>>>

Yeah - Similar sources. The thing the veterans we talked kept reinforcing to us was that in combat it wasn't about duty or honor for them - it was about the guy next to them. There is a real brotherhood between soldiers.

<<<Mohaa took scenes straight from saving private ryan and COD used enemy at the gates. I doubt this one will be any different.>>>

It is different. The scenes in Brothers in Arms were taken not from movies, but from the official US Army After Action Reports, eyewitness accounts and other historical records.

23.
 
Re: Yawn
Dec 24, 2004, 19:36
23.
Re: Yawn Dec 24, 2004, 19:36
Dec 24, 2004, 19:36
 
<<<Still hopeing for a StarControl remake>>>

<<<But now all we get are copycat games cause we live in a copycat world >>>

How would a Star Control remake be any less "copycat"?

Incidentally, I loved Star Control and they would get my money any day. But, what I'd really like to see is another Starflight!

22.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 24, 2004, 19:33
22.
Re: No subject Dec 24, 2004, 19:33
Dec 24, 2004, 19:33
 
<<<I just can't help but feel like I already played this game when it was called "Medal of Honor." And then again when it was called "Call of Duty." >>>

If you play BiA expecting CoD or MoH, you are going to be really disappointed. It's a totally different kind of game - not at all a run and gun shooter. It's about squad based game play, command and control, fire and move...

If you're looking for another CoD or MoH, move along...

20.
 
Re: Let it rest in peace.
Dec 17, 2004, 22:11
20.
Re: Let it rest in peace. Dec 17, 2004, 22:11
Dec 17, 2004, 22:11
 
Riley Pizt - Want a job as a tester?

BTW - Perf. for BiA will be very good on PC.

Here's an interesting thread to read if you're curious about perf for Halo PC:

http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Halo&Number=403603&Forum=All_Forums&Words=zoner&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=403603&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post403603

The guy that wrote this, Zoner, is the same guy that wrote the "Zoner's Tools" that Counter-Strike and every other Half-Life mod was built with. He's smart. Probably smarter than you and I added together.

If you want a job as a tester - go to our webpage

19.
 
Re: Let it rest in peace.
Dec 17, 2004, 22:01
19.
Re: Let it rest in peace. Dec 17, 2004, 22:01
Dec 17, 2004, 22:01
 
<<<I'll buy your BiA game if your guys port Blue Shift to Source/Steam... >>>

I think a Steam version of Blue Shift would be great.

Valve has to drive that, though. We'd be happy to help!

18.
 
Re: To the monkey in the corner
Dec 17, 2004, 21:59
18.
Re: To the monkey in the corner Dec 17, 2004, 21:59
Dec 17, 2004, 21:59
 
<<<Does this mean that we get to participate in Cole's bayonet charge? That would be quite amazing. The man got a Medal of Honor for it.>>>

Yes.

In fact, the game features Cole - it's a pretty strong likeness and recreation of his personality.

14.
 
Re: Let it rest in peace.
Dec 17, 2004, 18:43
14.
Re: Let it rest in peace. Dec 17, 2004, 18:43
Dec 17, 2004, 18:43
 
1) Gearbox had total editorial control over Opposing Force. It has not had that again since - until BiA.

2) Subtitle or not doesn't affect the quality of the game. This was something the suits felt was important - we choose our battles.

3) It's good that people care.

35.
 
Re: WWII realism & authenticity
Dec 13, 2004, 20:25
35.
Re: WWII realism & authenticity Dec 13, 2004, 20:25
Dec 13, 2004, 20:25
 
Like I said - I played CoD three times but have yet to finish CoD: UO.

I think it's because I'm starting to see that they're just standard shooters with good scripted sequences and WW2 themed artwork.

Subject matter or not, BiA is not the same game.

If you're interested in being a squad leader and commanding a fire team and an assault time to suppress and flank the enemy (while you yourself are part of the action), then BiA should interest you.

BiA doesn't only reward the player with the best reflexes, reaction times or aiming skill. It rewards the player who can solve a combat puzzle by pinning the enemy down and maneuvering around them to kill them from the side or from behind.

Of course, the enemy is often doing the same thing to you, so you have to do some quick thinking as you fight with the more advanced and better trained soldiers later in the game.

32.
 
Re: WWII realism & authenticity
Dec 13, 2004, 19:12
32.
Re: WWII realism & authenticity Dec 13, 2004, 19:12
Dec 13, 2004, 19:12
 
<<<I'd have to say that one of the all-time A+ jobs of nitpicking something WWII-related would go to author and WWII historian Mark Bando. >>>

Bando has helped us quite a bit. But, he would probably argue that our game does not go as far as he would like to see as far as authenticity goes :).

He and Colonel Antal (Gearbox's historian) did a very complete survey of the Normandy battlefields of the unit in Brothers in Arms in June of 2003. Bando has also provided the game with some very rare photographs that he has in his collection that were taken by 101st paratroopers he has known.

Bando is one of the premier resources of 101st Airborne history - to call him a 101st fan-boy would be a tremendous understatement. I admire him for his attention to detail and commitment to the study.

To be noticed and criticized by him is a credit to the Band of Brothers mini series. To be helped by him - even in the small ways he has helped - is a credit to Brothers in Arms.

31.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 13, 2004, 19:06
31.
Re: No subject Dec 13, 2004, 19:06
Dec 13, 2004, 19:06
 
<<<And if you have a pop based on a specific piece of wrong info (especially if you call the scenario 'dumb'), then of course someone will point it out. >>>

Yeah - I would totally rout me over this.

I usually don't like busting competitors and if you look at how I represent myself over time, you'll notice that I tend to be very generous towards competitors (I am, after all, a gamer).

The difference here is that we have been bearing the impact that some of these games have had on the veterans that we've talked to. When a guy like Colonel John Antal calls one of these games "shameful", we start to take it personally as well.

It doesn't excuse the mistake. No historian should ever speak in absolutes and, while I'm no historian, I've studied enough material over the past several years that I should know better.

I've already corrected my source, by the way. The source pointed out that the factoid is the exception, not the rule. He pointed out that exception in history does not, actually, make the CoD add-on any more credible from an authenticity point of view.

22.
 
Re: Gearbox
Dec 13, 2004, 16:43
22.
Re: Gearbox Dec 13, 2004, 16:43
Dec 13, 2004, 16:43
 
I don't believe I've ever spoken on behalf of anti-cheating efforts for Counter-Strike.

I participated in a talk at CPL with Cliffe and Lombardi of Valve who hinted at the anti-cheating effect Steam would have on successive versions of Counter-Strike. Perhaps it is that talk you are remembering?

I remember during that talk that one of the people from Punkbuster started challenging Lombardi.

I think the Valve solution with Steam is a good and smart one. I think there are other solutions.

I don't believe I've ever proposed any solutions with Counter-Strike because it's never been within Gearbox's domain or control to affect it. Such things are engine level decisions...

21.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 13, 2004, 16:39
21.
Re: No subject Dec 13, 2004, 16:39
Dec 13, 2004, 16:39
 
I am not a historian and I haven't studied the RAF much.

I was echoing a comment made to me by a historian and a veteran after he saw what they did.

The key point is that veterans we've spoken to have not been totally keen on how the degree of accuracy of those games match their memory of the experiences.

My direction for Gearbox was not to worry about how authentic competitors are, but to ensure that BiA is the most authentic of them.

You can pick out any given piece of CoD or MoH and try to crush it or defend it on authenticity metrics and you can do the same for BiA. The objective conclusion is that BiA is more authentic.

12.
 
Re: Waste of time
Dec 13, 2004, 00:07
12.
Re: Waste of time Dec 13, 2004, 00:07
Dec 13, 2004, 00:07
 
Hey - Come to the Gearbox Forums.

I didn't even see your question. There were over 500 people in the chat - I imagine that there were many dozens of questions we didn't even see, let alone have time to answer in a one hour chat.

12.
 
Re: realism...?
Oct 28, 2004, 10:41
12.
Re: realism...? Oct 28, 2004, 10:41
Oct 28, 2004, 10:41
 
<<<One thing though.... if you get to the point where you're that close, could you add in a simple point & click on the ally which tells them to move out the way? Always struck me that CoD missed that opportunity, they could have had a context sensitive command and avoided a lot of annoyance at being stuck behind people. >>>

This problem simply doesn't exist in Brothers in Arms. You see, CoD was all scripted. But, in BiA you have full command and control over your squad.

Besides, they tend to be really smart - they don't bunch up in your way. They tend to pick really smart cover positions and when you ask them to advance, they use cover where they can along the way.

11.
 
Re: realism...?
Oct 28, 2004, 10:39
11.
Re: realism...? Oct 28, 2004, 10:39
Oct 28, 2004, 10:39
 
<<<Does BiA still have allow you to carry two primary weapons? Because while I could understand the need to balance gameplay with realism, I feel disappointed in this decision.>>>

Let me explain the decision...

The game is about fire and move tactics. A typical player, we find, tends to like to either be the squad leader (he hangs back and orders his men to do the hard work) OR there's the player that wants to use his guys to suppress the enemy while going in for the kill himself.

But, most players tend to enjoy alternating roles - mixing it up. Sometimes hanging back and suppressing while commanding the guys to assault, other times doing the assault.

So, if you only could carry one weapon what tends to happen is that a player who wants to switch roles in the middle of a mission will have to back track and scour the battle field looking for a different weapon to pick up. That's really boring and lame.

By giving you two weapons, you can make decisions about your load out. You can have an assault weapon and a suppression weapon, and switch between them rapidly when you want to switch roles. OR, you can have a suppression weapon and a sniping weapon - I tend to like to play the game like a supression->snipe game when I play on the PC. OR, you can carry, say, a BAR and a Thompson. Use the BAR on the move to suppress while you're closing, then switch to the Thompson for the close assault.

There are a whole bunch of combinations that just enhance the tactical options that the game provides.

Besides, we know, historically, that there were many soldiers who carried more than one weapon. We've got a picture of one paratrooper who's carrying TWO MG-42's AND THREE MP-40s!! Found that one in the National Archives - I've included it in the extra features (which, BTW, are very cool - over 70 Bonus features and you don't have to pay extra for some special version to get them).

35 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older