Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dredloc

Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

Recommended Posts

I think gamespot nails it. I'm so disappointed - not just in the game, but for the fact that I have been waiting patiently what I thought would be a stellar game building on the best of CM1. This game is not in any way "fun" the way that CM1 was. Maybe with time it will be sorted out, but I doubt it. I wish I felt differently after playing CM1 to death, but it's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brett Todd doesn't get it. I agree with his comments tooltips, UI and some sections of the manual, but that's it. His review seems to be based on a short playthrough since he didn't find the tutorial campaign. And his statement on the "stealth" insurgents are laughable. I mean doesn't every other RTS give units the power to cloak ? Like snipers in COH ? Yet here it is an unforgivable fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the score.

Sure, the game is not perfect but as far as I'm concern, I'm confident that the patches will produce a high quality product (just like CMBB or CMAK).

I also really don't understand why they complain about the graphics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different expectations. If a person expects to click on a shortcut, have the game run optimally regardless of their unique system configuration, and be simple enough that a tutorial walk-trough will allow them to "grasp" the game in its entirety from the get-go... then yes, Shock Force will come as a major disappointment.

This is not to say that CM:SF is perfect, or that many of the criticisms (especially on the forums here) are not in any way valid (trust me, I have a list). However, I found the review to be unreasonably harsh (especially in his "exporting" of assumptions/expectations from radically different genres) and I hope the bad press doesn't greatly dampen sales...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decent overall review. It's obvious it's based on more than a short playthrough and he really gets it. However, I don't agree with the low rating, but this comment was dead on in my opinion:

"Artificial intelligence is largely missing in action, scenarios feel gimmicky and prearranged, and just about everything seems rough and unfinished."

I agree, at least he stressed the potential of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a Wargamer you'll love CM:SF, see it to be a big step forward tactical simulation. If you're a Gamer who likes playing Army you're just not gonna get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just about to post this review link too. I love Gamespot for gaming news and the such, but I must say, they review for the gamer majority.

I must rant a little, I'm pissed at the state of PC gaming

Most PC gamers [casual gamers] dont read reviews, play demos, or talk on game forums and for that matter most of them never patch their game, or update any of their hardware drivers, they just run to the store and pick up a PC game that catches their eye. As an example, thats why there are so many movie related PC games released, because they catch the casual gamers eye. 99% of those movie games suck.... terribly, but they sell well b/c of this super casual gamer majority. Then when this casual gamer finds out this game sucks horribly in comparison to their console games, they think the PC is a bad gaming platform and so continues the downfall of PC gaming.

end rant, sorta

My point is that GameSpot is reviewing the game as someone who never heard of CM:SF before and knows nothing of the world of small independantly developed games. In my glorious opinion, I think the whole CM series is beyond mere casual review even though the previous CM games got a nice score. I hope many super casual gamers buy this game and cry to their mommies about how bad it sucked. More money in Battlefront's pack I say.

OK, I need to stop, LONG LIVE SPARTA..... I mean THE CM SERIES !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand CMSF is a platform kinda like an operating system. The middle east we are playing is a an "executable" running within the operating system. The OS has teething pains right now like all do. But once solved and they will be I bet additional "executables" / modules will be released faster than CM1-3. What I don't understand is this, CMBO was out with a public beta and demo for a few months. Perhaps this project would have benefited from such a program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The review was spot on.

I really didn't expect the game to come out till the holidays, or even early next year, judging by what was revealed (or the lack thereof) over the last few months.

I'd give it a 5 (or maybe a 6, assuming potential). The 4.5 does seem a bit low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MarkEzra:

If you are a Wargamer you'll love CM:SF, see it to be a big step forward tactical simulation.

Nope.

-dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, at least now i am not so anxious for patch 1.03 to come out.

i kind of got a similar impression about the game in my limited time with it.

[ August 10, 2007, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on.

CMSF should have stayed in development for quite awhile still. Sales would have been better too, as the reviews wouldn't have been so harsh.

I guess BFC knew it, I don't think they pushed it out prematurely just for the hell of it. They obviously needed the cash injection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a saying that BFC and some posters on this forum would do well to take on board and it's "don't shoot the messenger". I have to agree with pretty much all of what the reviewer said, especially the comment that "no game should be released in such a rough, incomplete state". That is spot on I'm afraid. I say that as a great fan of the CM series of games over the years.

Having said that, and perhaps perversely, I am still enjoying the game. If all of the problems are sorted out in future patches it has the potential to be something very special indeed. I would not recommend the game to anyone I know however. Not in its current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but Gamespot has been crap for a long time. I'm not saying this to defend CM:SF in any way. I simply think Gamespot is absolute crap. Their reveiwers are mildly retarded, and they favor games I'd prefer not to play. The only time Gamespot and I like the same games is if there's money behind the game. If it's a small time publisher, very rarely do we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more comment I'd like to add. In games like CM:BB, BFC gave us a vast array of units and a game that worked pretty flawlessly on most systems. They then said that this would never happen again as they wanted to release products with less scope and more depth. Accusations that in effect this would mean "milking" the product were made but if it meant more depth then most of us were happy to pay a little more for the same scope as CM:BB.

With CM:SF, we seem to have less scope AND less depth. In CM:BB I could randomly generate a map, pick my forces, send them into battle and then pick over their remains to see who did what to whom. CM:SF has none of this. In CM:SF, Quick Battles are pretty much a waste of time and the AAR review of the battlefield no longer gives me any decent information. Where is the depth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too visited Gamespot quite often to find out about games I was interested in, but especially the last few years I find that their bias is more towards main-stream gaming and more often you see a reviewer go after his own feelings about a game based on experience with other games or just the persons experience more than actually summing up the good and the bad of a game.

It might also have to do with the fact that most of the reviewers are American and, well, they review for the American market. ;)

I do find, however, that Gamespot disagrees with my opinions about games more and more and maybe that has got to do with a different 'gaming culture'? smile.gif

Might be an age thing as well. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:

If you are a Wargamer you'll love CM:SF, see it to be a big step forward tactical simulation.

Nope.

-dale </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like CMSF, but also

I think they are right with there review.

I'm a long time gamer since 64' times and

Gamespot is one of the few gaming mags, who

I agree with there review in about 90 %.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:

If you are a Wargamer you'll love CM:SF, see it to be a big step forward tactical simulation.

Nope.

-dale </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do some of you expect? Most reviewers need to have the latest graphics card generation and not a slow one.

So it's clear, that the game will get sashed, if it produced 10 frames on a 8800GTX. What would you do? Try system after system until you find one, where the game runs smoothly?

That's inexcuseable that these problems weren't sorted out earlier. Hey, they weren't even detected in the beta-phase!

The game was published as clear early Beta, without naming it and it doesn't run well on modern cards. What else do you need to wake up and see the reviews in a more objective light? Being punished for that in reviews, i can completely understand. It's sad, that BFC did so.

Potential or promises gladly do not count that much. What counts is, what you have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

There's a saying that BFC and some posters on this forum would do well to take on board and it's "don't shoot the messenger".

What the reviewer here is stating is an opinion.

He's entitled to that, as much as I'm entitled to my opinion that this is an enjoyable game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are a Wargamer you'll love CM:SF, see it to be a big step forward tactical simulation. If you're a Gamer who likes playing Army you're just not gonna get it.
I hate this flawed line of reasoning. Dont generalise your own specific experience e.g. I am a wargammer, I like this game therefore all other wargammers will like this game too.WRONG

I am a wargammer and I have no time for CMSF what so ever and think this review sums up many of the reasons why. Mostly this game frustrates planning though the ineptitiude of the AI in all its guises, pathfinding etc and a terrible UI. I want a game where I can handily translate my tactical planning into the game "world" and this game is utterly terrible at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...