Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[KAding]

I just hope Battlefront survives all the negativity surrounding CM:SF to still be able to make CMx2:WW2. If they survive that long to polish the game engine for WW2 I think we'll have a great game on our hands.

As it is now, I would only rate the engine as mediocre. It is simply too unpolished.

[Battlefront.com]

Our "official" take on the review is as follows...

Overall, we don't have a problem with the review or the score (though we personally think it is too low, and is far lower than other reviews). There are some valid points of criticism in there and we'll not argue with them. It is pretty clear to us, though, that the reviewer formed his opinion based on version 1.0 and then amended it with v1.01. Since we (Battlefront) never released version 1.0, and v1.01 was available for Paradox players within days of their premature release in some countries, it is a bit sad for us to see reviews based on something that (basically) nobody played. But that's life and stuff happens.

It is also clear that the reviewer had some technical problems, one of which is likely due to the known bugs in Microsoft's power management software. Unfortunately, the reviewer did not know this on his own, nor did he ask us if there was a fix for his issues. In hindsight we should have sent a trouble shooting guide to the reviewers since we obviously had higher expectations for their technical abilities than some actually have. It's a shame that this happened, but again it's just the way things go.

There are three points in that we do disagree with:

1. We shoehorned contemporary warfare into a WWII paradigm. That's ridiculous and completely baseless. It just shows his ignorance about contemporary warfare. I can't get mad at him for having this poorly formed opinion because many on this Forum have also expressed it. There are tons of threads that can be found here where people had the same erroneous opinion of what the Syrians could be capable of doing. The high percentage of professional soldiers that find the simulation aspect of CM:SF "spot on" has made us comfortable that we have it more right than wrong.

2. Appalling graphics. This is likely due to problems with his setup and CM, not the game itself. We think CM:SF's graphics are actually better than some of the games out there with millions in development Dollars. Perfect? No, not by a long shot. But not the abysmal failure the reviewer thinks. CMBO looked a lot worse compared to contemporary FPS games IMHO.

3. Bad user interface. This is a matter of opinion, so we can only disagree with it because we have a different opinion. We'll take blame for not explaining the reasons behind the default arrangement as well as not offering the v1.02 hotkey options from the start.

Overall I'd say the reviewer "didn't get it". We expected this and we don't have a problem with it at all. Lots of people "didn't get it" when they played CMx1 games. And yes, CMBO in particular was savaged by reviewers here and there too. And yes, the people that didn't like CMx1 games pointed to these harsh reviews and said "see, the game sucks because this one review says it does" while ignoring all the other reviews that said the opposite. It's selective reasoning and it's to be expected since it's the most common form of reasoning out there.

Steve

[Feltan]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Those people, and the Gamespot reviewer, should stick with a game that suits them: Barbie's Pony Adventure.

*sigh* Yes, ofcos, its the reviewrs fault for "dissing" your fav game, they just dont "get it", right?

Funny how many ppl that does not "get it". And funny how GS were competent when they reviewed CMx1, and gave rave reviews. But the moment they point out obvious flaws that has been said time and time again on this forum, they can only review kids games etc.

Great post. </font>

[Zemke]

I have waited so long for this game, and not because I wanted to fight Syria, but because of what it should be, an improvement to a simulation at Battalion and below combat. I have played the Demo over and over, trying to "get it". I mean the game does have the name "Combat Mission", but it just does not feel right. I think it is the RT vs WEGO, with real time I feel I am playing Command and Conquer instead of a Wargame, and the interface seems poor, but then I am not used to it either, and it took me awhile to get used to the CM1 interface. I don't want a click fest game, I want a thinking game that simulates modern combat. So far I think Brett Todd hit the nail on the head, except for the "shoehorned contemporary warfare into a WWII paradigm" comment, which I felt was not fair. After all the talk from Battlefront about not releasing the game "till it is ready" turned out to be BS, I question what they are up to. I think they are running out of money and needed a cash infusion to keep things going, just my theory. I promised I would buy this game just to support BF's efforts to build the WWII version, as I have hated the idea of modern combat from the start, but I will not pay to be a "Beta Tester", and will wait till BF sorts out a lot of these problems. Maybe the 1.02 patch will do it, maybe not........but for now I will wait before I part with my money.

[sandy]

Steve,

You and the other defenders of CM2 (in it's current state) just don't get it.

You keep saying "The reviews of CMBO were bad too" and "People didn't like CM1 when it first appeared"

Sorry - NO WAY!

I loved CMBO when I discovered it, and could see genius and great design decisions from the start.

Things just got better with CMBB and CMAK.

Now CMSF simply doesn't work as well (nor is it as much fun) as your earlier masterpieces - eg losing unit selection in QBs (for just one example) is critical...

There are design errors which you seemingly cannot recognise, and keep telling your customers that they are wrong...

Plenty of people and reviews are telling you that many CMSF decisions could be improved, but you just keep saying it was the like that before - sorry but it was NOT, it was love at first sight.

[dalem]

Originally posted by average:

Bitch, Bitch, Moan, Moan, Games were better when they were played on boards. Can't believe you don't get as long as you need to think about things. Its like a click fest. I prefer staged 60 seconds turns. I have 4 hours an evening to play out 30 minutes of action.

Lot of child like moaning about how its not the same as CMX1 and it should be because, you know we really liked CMX1. Well keep playing CMX1. But it has the same name. Well, its a brand name.

It is like saying the F-22 Lighting 2 should be similiar to the P-38 Lighting 1. Things change, sometimes you like it sometimes you don't.

If you don't like it, it does not mean it is crap ipso facto. It is different. There is a grown ups lesson guys. Something board based war gamers are not renound for, but regardless, try applying it to other situations in your life, see if you spend less time moaning.

The review is off the mark. Most of the bitching is off the mark as far as I'm concerned.

You want to see utter crap, get your hands on Eric Young's Squad Assault, to see just how good BFC have got CMSF.

Next week we learn to use the word 'challenge' instead of 'problem.'

Cram it, pard.

Steiner (and others) has expressed a rational, lucid, and calm opinion about the current CM release and the state of the CM brand as he sees it. I happen to agree with his post 100%. Some also do, some less so. That doesn't make us whiners, that doesn't make us babies. It just makes us customers - current, potential, or former - with a stake in the CM brand and its future.

You have to understand (or admit) that not every new direction is forward, and not every bold decision is right. People that bought your first album will not necessarily like your second one if you change from bluegrass to disco. Especially if it's particularly sh*tty disco. Expecting them to like it is, quite frankly, stupid and childish. Throwing tantrums is also childish in my opinion, whether they are from the intended audience or from anyone else.

But what we have above are not tantrums. They are reasoned (and seasoned! ) critiques. Deal with them.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Feltan:

One get's the feeling that the Gamespot reviewer would be happier playing with ogres and gremlins than realistic military forces that, on occasion, don't respond in an expected manner.

I have commanded a company in the field. The amount of "control" one has is about 10 times less than in CMSF. You are quite lucky if you simply know where everyone is, let alone what they are doing at any given point in time. That makes some people very uncomfortable. Those people, and the Gamespot reviewer, should stick with a game that suits them: Barbie's Pony Adventure.

Regards,

Feltan

I think his concern has more to do with not having adequate control over units which need his control. In the game. If the scale representation were correct and functional, I bet you a pizza he wouldn't say "boo" about it.

-dale

[Zemke]

Originally posted by sandy:

Steve,

You and the other defenders of CM2 (in it's current state) just don't get it.

You keep saying "The reviews of CMBO were bad too" and "People didn't like CM1 when it first appeared"

Sorry - NO WAY!

I loved CMBO when I discovered it, and could see genius and great design decisions from the start.

Things just got better with CMBB and CMAK.

Now CMSF simply doesn't work as well (nor is it as much fun) as your earlier masterpeices - eg losing unit selection in QBs (for just one example) is critical...

There are design errors which you seemingly cannot recognise, and keep telling your cistomers that they are wrong...

Plenty of people and reviews are telling you that many CMSF decisions could be improved, but you just keep saying it was the like that before - sorry but it was NOT, it was love at first sight.

Sandy I have been reading everything I can on this game sense getting back from Afghanistan in the last week, played the Demo...and you are right, Steve and Battlefront seem to be in a State of Denial, and if you think about it makes sense. They have put it a lot of time, heart, money and effort and frankly come up short it seems.

Steve you guys at Battlefront need to do some real soul searching and decide if Battlefront is going to build Wargames or Computer Games......I understand you have to make a living, just don't try and blow smoke up an old Wargamers ass and tell me this is a Combat Simulation, when it feels like Command and Conquer, except with more realistic armor penatration modeling...ok not really a fair statement, but CMSF is broke and you guys need to fix it. Wargamers want to win by out thinking their opponent, using better tactics, and fighting their force better than the other guy. I don't want to win by "out clicking" the other guy....I am too old to even try.

I love the artillery model, excellent job there! I like the graphics, looked nice...good enough for me...frankly I think the CM1 graphics ar fine. I never played the game due to graphics anyway. I want realism, I want to Command not micromanage my forces....come guys you can do better than this.

[ August 11, 2007, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Zemke ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Hi: Berli, Dale, et.al:

I think that CM:SF ability to model each projectile, model effect of each hit and miss, model each individual on the battlefield is a huge step forward. A lot of bull? Well opinions vary. I notice that nearly all negative comments on this forum always include some form "the game has potential" caveat. It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.

Yeah. Delivers it through solid objects, when the scenario designer tells it to, from the units the scenario designer or AI lets you have, apparently. I'm breathless.

-dale

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

I think that CM:SF ability to model each projectile, model effect of each hit and miss, model each individual on the battlefield is a huge step forward.

It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.

Modelling of single projectiles only makes sense, if the rest of the game is accurate to a certain level.

But projectiles flying through walls, through terrain is definately not accuracy wargamers want.

Have soldiers in a Stryker? Well drive the Stryker representation into the representation of the house and let the pixeltruppen safely move out of the vehicle. Accuracy?

You must be joking.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

I think that CM:SF ability to model each projectile, model effect of each hit and miss, model each individual on the battlefield is a huge step forward.

It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.

Modelling of single projectiles only makes sense, if the rest of the game is accurate to a certain level.

But projectiles flying through walls, through terrain is definately not accuracy wargamers want.

Have soldiers in a Stryker? Well drive the Stryker representation into the representation of the house and let the pixeltruppen safely move out of the vehicle. Accuracy?

You must be joking.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

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

I think that CM:SF ability to model each projectile, model effect of each hit and miss, model each individual on the battlefield is a huge step forward.

It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.

Modelling of single projectiles only makes sense, if the rest of the game is accurate to a certain level.

But projectiles flying through walls, through terrain is definately not accuracy wargamers want.

Have soldiers in a Stryker? Well drive the Stryker representation into the representation of the house and let the pixeltruppen safely move out of the vehicle. Accuracy?

You must be joking. </font>

[Mr Reality]

This is my first CM game, and i do feel that i've jumped in at the deep end.

The tutorial didn't realy help me, but playing the game for many hours now has improved me somewhat.

I thought the review was pretty much spot on. It also helped clear up a little misunderstanding i was having with the second mission of the campaign.

Unconventional enemies are invisible to the Yanks until they either flat-out attack or come so close to units that they apparently become suspicious enough to warrant a closer look. Of course, all you actually see are goons materializing out of nowhere with IEDs at the ready, which makes the whole concept seem like an AI cheat.

Having the uncons invisible, imho, is not fair.

I suddenly found myself surrounded by uncons which seemed to spawn in buildings. Now if there had of been civis/exclamation marks in those buildings my forces would of been more alerted to any possible danger. Just having them spawn is an AI cheat. That mission in particular should not have had any civilians in the area as it was only recently bombed.

I also agree somewhat with the graphics statement.

Battle landscapes are grainy and seem to float on top of a backdrop.

I'm not overly impressed with the landscapes, infact after having just replayed Comany of Heroes i was downright dissapointed. The vehicle details are admitedly very good but alas you have to be up real close to see this and as i zoom out i start seeing flickering textures, especially on the slat armoured strykers.

As the UI is quite daunting for newcomers to CM, i was atleast expecting to see a far better control panel implemented. Having to flick through the manual every so often just to see what the icon represents is offputting, when all was needed was a 'point mouse over icon and a box appears' would of helped.

Speaking from a first timer perspective i can see great potential for this game but as i'm unfamiliar with BFs ongoing support i don't know how much better it will get.

[Battlefront.com]

Sandy,

You and the other defenders of CM2 (in it's current state) just don't get it.

You keep saying "The reviews of CMBO were bad too" and "People didn't like CM1 when it first appeared"

Sorry - NO WAY!

Wait... are you saying that we didn't get bad reviews and have people on our Forums slamming us for not having hexes, not having IGOUGO, not having RealTime?

I loved CMBO when I discovered it, and could see genius and great design decisions from the start.

So the people that are saying the same things about CM:SF are what... brainless fanboys? See... this is my problem with posts like yours. You think only your opinion is valid. You loved CMx1 and therefore find the people who had a contrary opinion as invalid (or not existing at all, apparently!). Now you have a poor opinion of CM:SF and think that anybody that has a contrary opinion is invalid. For us, we ignored SOME criticism of CMx1 and stayed true to our vision. For CMx2 we are doing the same. Can't you see the hypocrisy in your statements and the lack of it in mine?

Now CMSF simply doesn't work as well (nor is it as much fun) as your earlier masterpieces - eg losing unit selection in QBs (for just one example) is critical...

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

There are design errors which you seemingly cannot recognise, and keep telling your customers that they are wrong...

Just like we told people looking at CMBO that they were wrong for wanting hexes and 2D, just like for people playing CMBB that they were wrong to oppose the improvements we made. The problem you are having is that in the past you agreed with our decisions, so you found them valid. Now you disagree with them, so you find them invalid. You fail to understand that if we listened to the complainers when we release CMBO you would have been very upset with us.

I've said it many, many times over and over again... we were prepared for CMx1 people to "not get it" just as we were prepared for ASL/SL, Steel Panthers, and others to "not get it" when we released CMBO.

Plenty of people and reviews are telling you that many CMSF decisions could be improved, but you just keep saying it was the like that before - sorry but it was NOT, it was love at first sight.

For you it was, for many it was not. This is the point I have to keep coming back to again and again and again. Do not be so arrogant as to presume that YOUR opinion matters more than everybody else's. To you obviously it does, but to us your opinion is just one of many.

Steve

[Sirocco]

I thought the review was harsh, in most part because it was raw, and honest, but also because the reviewer wasn't quite on top of the subject matter.

The inescapable truth, though, is that 1.0 went to Paradox; it's absurd to complain that the reviewer is looking at a copy that initial Paradox customers, paying customers, would also have.

I know this game will be patched, and that in six months it will be much the better for it. But what concerns me for the future is this whole they just didn't get it attitude. I hope with some sober reflection BFC will learn the fundemental lessons this episode has presented.

[panzermartin]

I dont get the click-fest complaints. You guys have never played any RTS havent you? How is CMSF a click fest when playing against the slow as hell AI? I tried multiplayer (not working properly though) and pace was perfectly normal with more thinking than moving the mouse. There is nothing wrong with RealTime, period. There are plenty of imperfections in CMSF but RealTime is the best thing that happened from CMx1 to CMx2. TacAi, LOS/LOF, spotting and unit reactions are not though.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Mr Reality:

Speaking from a first timer perspective i can see great potential for this game but as i'm unfamiliar with BFs ongoing support i don't know how much better it will get.

BFC's ongoing support has historically been fantastic. I literally don't know how I can impress that enough upon a newcomer. The designers, marketers, etc., are each on a virtual "first name basis" with you here on their boards. They don't sugarcoat but they do read, and they respond often.

-dale

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

You are an idiot. [/QB]</font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I've said it many, many times over and over again... we were prepared for CMx1 people to "not get it" just as we were prepared for ASL/SL, Steel Panthers, and others to "not get it" when we released CMBO.

And again I just have to point out that none of the ASL/SL or Steel Panthers people were already customers of yours. Doesn't invalidate your point, but to be fair, it does complete it.

-dale

[Sirocco]

I use RT, like it, and wouldn't go back to WEGO unless for PBEM. It's certainly not a clickfest; if you feel overwhelmed you're probably trying to micromanage more than is required. Having said that there hasn't been enough of an advance in the AI to make RT as fluid as it should be.

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by sandy:

[qb]

Steve you guys at Battlefront need to do some real soul searching and decide if Battlefront is going to build Wargames or Computer Games......I understand you have to make a living, just don't try and blow smoke up an old Wargamers ass and tell me this is a Combat Simulation, when it feels like Command and Conquer, except with more realistic armor penatration modeling...ok not really a fair statement, but CMSF is broke and you guys need to fix it. Wargamers want to win by out thinking their opponent, using better tactics, and fighting their force better than the other guy. I don't want to win by "out clicking" the other guy....I am too old to even try.

Spot on.

[Battlefront.com]

Zemke,

Steve you guys at Battlefront need to do some real soul searching and decide if Battlefront is going to build Wargames or Computer Games......I understand you have to make a living, just don't try and blow smoke up an old Wargamers ass and tell me this is a Combat Simulation, when it feels like Command and Conquer, except with more realistic armor penatration modeling...ok not really a fair statement, but CMSF is broke and you guys need to fix it. Wargamers want to win by out thinking their opponent, using better tactics, and fighting their force better than the other guy. I don't want to win by "out clicking" the other guy....I am too old to even try.

I don't even know where to start with this. OK, I do

I know more about both game engines than any customer ever could. I know, for a FACT that there is more simulation going on with more precision in CM:SF than there was even in CMAK. It is a fact. You're opinion, on the other hand, is just that... an opinion. Knowing what I know about both game engines I can very safely say that your opinion is demonstrably wrong. That doesn't mean you are wrong to dislike CM:SF, since that is an opinion that only you can decided upon.

As for not using strategy, tactics, whatever... you're fighting an uphill battle there as well. First of all, your accusation of "out clicking" can't possibly be aimed at WeGo, since speed of clicking has nothing to do with anything. So far I seen a lot of complaining about various features, but so far I haven't seen anybody make the case that they are winning CM (WeGo or RealTime) by simply driving their forces straight at the enemy in a brainless fashion. In fact, I'm seeing the opposite. People that try to do that get their arses handed to them.

One thing, though, is that the lethality of modern warfare does require a mental shift from WWII concepts. An Abrams is going to out fight and out last anything comparable you've ever seen in CMx1 games. That is just the way things are in real life. But as one recent poster mentioned, when he got 2 platoons of Abrams and 1 platoon of Bradleys he thought he would be invincible. A few turns later one platoon of Abrams were burning brightly. Why? Because he didn't click fast enough? No, because he didn't use good tactics.

Those in uniform and who have fought in Iraq seem to have a more favorable opinion of the game than those who haven't been there. I doubt that is because CM:SF is a brainless clickfest.

Does that mean we think CM:SF is perfect "as is"? No, not at all. We've released 1.02 within 2 weeks and it put in some user requested features. 1.03 will introduce more fixes and some feature requests as well. We look at this as evolutionary improvements, just like we saw the 12 patches we made for CMBO as evolutionary improvements. We certainly didn't get everything right first shot for CMBO either. I can't help it if some people have amnesia about that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

And again I just have to point out that none of the ASL/SL or Steel Panthers people were already customers of yours. Doesn't invalidate your point, but to be fair, it does complete it.

The issue is that before we started selling CMBO the only customers we had were for Charles' earlier 2D flight games. And yeah, some were quite disappointed with the shift towards 3D ground combat.

Thanks for the plug about our ongoing support. We do listen to our customers, we just can't act on everything they ask for. Sometimes because it would be harmful (remember my often used Homer Simpson car designer analogy), sometimes because it is technically impossible. But we do listen and we often act on what we read here.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I know more about both game engines than any customer ever could. I know, for a FACT that there is more simulation going on with more precision in CM:SF than there was even in CMAK. It is a fact.

Steve

But if the customer can't see it for himself, Steve, what difference does it make?

Either the game isn't delivering, or the customer doesn't know what to look for. Both are possibilities. That's the danger of computer software - we don't get to see what's under the hood, the way we know boxcars in Squad Leader are bad.

[KNac]

dalem, so what? if you like Coca-Cola you have to like the original, light, zero or whatever product they release?

I'm sorry, there is no other developer doing games like CM (x1 or x2)

P.S: panzermartian couldn't agree more with you, I don't think what's the problem with RT.

All the people claiming that CMSF is now an other "RTS clickfest" hasn't either played one of these ever or is just too angry to see the obvious differences.

I can play a battle in CMSF that last around 1 hour and a half using a company sized force and manage them more or less ok (will get better with time), and not having to be clickin or moving units every second. Seriously, indeed the action and pace seems more "real" to me. You DONT need to be in a hurry. Yes, soemtimes you will forget about that vehicle or squad and as currently the Ai is not that good and you have to babysit something weird will happen. But overall is right.

[ August 11, 2007, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]