What I feel CC truly lacks is polish and flow.

Games are often fun to play, but it always feels like I really am not in control of my actions when playing the game. Not so much due to random explosions, but instead more due to the fact that actors move at dirt slow speed, and the controlling of them is VERY clunky. The game also tends to lag on my computer (which, is kinda my fault for having a crap computer)

If anything, the game really just needs more time being put into rounding out the things that are hindering gameplay, which In my view are.

Lag.
Movement physics
The entire metagame (really cool concept, needs a TON of things to even begin to have the depth I look for in games)
I would have said friendly fire, but that got fixed
AI and its ability to navigate terrain and just work.

It really is just a matter of polish and gameplay flow. I know these things take time, and I know they are VERY hard to do, and I am not disapointed with the Cortex command that I got. (it was humble bundle, but still)

I personally love the game, nothing really compares to it at the moment, which almost makes up for its clunky squareness. I would love to see a playtest-gamebalance team get started, and the overall game getting smoothed out before anything new gets in (excluding metagame, which needs new things to flow and function)

that can worry people to not give a ♥♥♥♥ about what people think. but on the other hand he doesn't give a ♥♥♥♥ about what the ♥♥♥holes think, but does give a ♥♥♥♥ about what the people with actual feedback think.

the ♥♥♥holes are generally the minority, and many people whom data disagrees with are simply reasonable enough anyways.

the people trying to "school" data on feedback and ♥♥♥♥ are trying to see that the game survives because the developer isn't what they perceive as a complete ♥♥♥hole. not giving a ♥♥♥♥ about any feedback and going ♥♥♥♥ you to anyone with a suggestion, especially considering they probably paid to see the game survive, is going to make you look like an ♥♥♥hole. but data doesn't do that. so i hope you understand data that while some of these people may be ♥♥♥holes, most of them are pushing their message because they want to see the game survive because they perceive you as misanthropic. and one could certainly be judged that way releasing a game in the state that 1.0 is, when the game has a somewhat thriving community.

regarding the whole FF thing, i think it's kind of retarded to want that enabled. it completely rapes the aspect of using groups of actors against enemies among other great things. a squad of clones side by side pumping out rounds is truly magnificent, so magnificent that it makes me question your sanity to want FF back on.
also misthrown grenades and misfired rockets still damage your troops. but i don't see how some gimmicky little thing like being able to shoot your own troops is a big deal AT ALL. it makes the game way less epic ffs.

Oh man, I arrived late to this thread :C

Well, I read page 1 and skipped page 2 and some parts of page 3, and from what I read, it's exactly the same thing that everyone argues always about CC; is it finished or not?

The only difference now is that Data was here to personally give out some answers.

And he did, so, I just want to know something. Is everyone going to keep ranting about the same things over and over? Physics bugs, metagame v/s linear campaign, friendly fire?

In the end, the developer of this game is Data and he can do whatever he wants. Yes, he is selling the game, so he must take into account what the customers say, but to what point? Change the entire game into what customers want? That's not completely possible thanks to many different reasons.

So, just let the game advance, wait for future versions and when it's closer to finished drop your shitloads.
If there is something you guys don't like, you can always create your complete overhaul mods and find as many workarounds as you want to change everything.

Heck, let's just go back and play B23 if you don't like where the game is going and your nostalgia goggles are blinding you.

As someone who got this game with the HIB#2 (and totally would have paid full price had I had the money at the time), I would just like to say that this is exactly the kind of attitude I want my game developers to have. I bought your game because I liked where you were going with it. If you compromised the vision I bought into because of a few self-righteous ♥♥♥holes with over-inflated egos, I'd be disgusted with you; instead, I applaud you, and eagerly await future updates.

In fact, friendly fire is a perfect example of this. I, like everyone else who got CC with the HIB#2, started playing with B24 (actually, I once played a demo of an earlier version, but I can't remember which build that was, as it was a couple years prior, and I was broke at the time, so the only thing I really remembered was thinking that CC had the best intro theme in the ♥♥♥♥ universe). I quickly got used to the quirks of the engine--although the bugs were obviously annoying--and watched with glee as new features were added; features like custom pie menu options, the metagame, and metagame AI. The biggest change for me, however, was when I noticed that friendly fire had ceased to exist. Suddenly, fire teams became viable. Instead of buying elite commandos to single-handedly engage all hostiles (and buying them again when they inevitably failed), I could buy four or five guys at once and have them conduct coordinated assaults. I could have overlapping defenses that didn't blow each other to smithereens. This made CC much more about tactics than about micromanaging individual soldiers to avoid senselessly wasting resources. When 1.0 came out, I immediately redeemed my key on Steam and started playing with 1.0. Are there still bugs? Yes; but as someone who played E.Y.E: Divine Cybermancy when it first came out, I'm familiar with extremely-buggy 1.0 releases, and as with E.Y.E, I fully expect to see those bugs eventually quashed (or, at the very least, mitigated, for problems too deeply-embedded into the engine's core).

Keep up the good work, Data Realms; know that at least one fan still awaits your every development with anticipation and (cautious) optimism.

Setting the record straight on a couple more things before I go ahead and lock this thread:

* This game and business is not just a personal hobby, in the sense that I and a couple of other people do make our living off it. I define a hobby as something that costs money to practice, not vice versa. That still doesn't mean we have to obey the demands of anyone who pays the paltry price of a single game license.

* I agree the game lacks "polish and flow" in its current state. That's why we are still working on.. polishing it, as stated from day one of 1.0 release, and even in the game itself.

* Not being in full control of what happens in the game as you play is kindof how I understand a real battlefield is for even the best commander during the best of circumstances... so in that sense I feel the game is a success. War is messy; troops don't always respond perfectly as you wish, etc etc. It's something I feel the game captures well, and at least one genius agrees with me: http://youtu.be/eVsWDmSrv5I?hd=1&t=2m58s

* I strongly disagree that having customers pay money "is what making games is really about"! That's one of the key differences between us indies (seen http://www.indiegamethemovie.com yet?) and the corporate studios. They are making games to make money; we make games because we want to make games. Sadly, in order to KEEP making games long term, we do have to make a living off them too.

* So, we begrudgingly do what we have to do to make enough money to keep making games, which involves marketing and selling them. Believe me - and I think i can speak for most of my indie peers - if we could just make awesome freeware games and magically also live well at the same time, we would. I think very few of us actually enjoy the marketing, PR, and customer service aspects of this business, and we'd instead prefer to just focus on the craft of making really cool ♥♥♥♥ if we could!

One last thing... (abusing my power to get the last word in: priceless )

I fully realize that making games in the slow-cooked way we do, and being so blunt/not going the traditional, pandering PR route may not be the best business decision. However, I do feel it is the best LIFE decision for me. It makes me a happier, healthier person; it helps me avoid burning out on a project of epic proportions, and it still lets me keep my quality of life where I like it. I have repeatedly seen what crunching on a title has done to many of my indie friends, and I wish to avoid that situation like the plague.

To me, it's not worth almost killing yourself* over a piece of art - especially when it's avoidable. Besides, I want to keep working on games in the long run, and hating life at the end of a project doesn't seem like a good way to set yourself up for being motivated about the next one. Hopefully that sheds some light on the crazy way we do things around here!

* not exaggeration

Also this: http://videogamewriters.com/sunday-sidebar-meet-dan-tabar-of-data-realms-56467

So, this is pretty relevant too: http://gamasutra.com/view/news/176918/Opinion_Do_we_as_an_industry_reward_negative_attention.php#.UJ48vYaK7uw