CMSF Marines review up at IGN

[Chelco]

See link below.

The few, the proud, the slightly improved

Cheers,

[Bahger]

Thanks. I suppose the title says it all, really, although the review is reasonably fair-minded.

Now that the series of patches have made the core playability of the game so much more viable, it's a pity that a busted campaign gives the critics another, perfectly legitimate, reason to wail on the product.

Those expecting Marines to offer the "perfect" iteration of CMSF will be disappointed, I guess. Personally, I have found 1.10 to be playable (and therefore enjoyable) to an extent that seemed inconceivable in earlier versions. Still, I'm not buying the Marines module until they fix the campaign. What is it about CMSF that constantly places the cart in front of the horse when it comes to Quality Control?

[teeps]

Fair points about the campaign I guess, but I don't think I would score the game so low. I have never had a problem with victory conditions, and it sounds more like the reviewer approached the game in a first-person shooter mentality from that point of view.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The reviewer did approach it from a fairly strong "Traditional RTS" viewpoint. The "Victory Trigger" that he kept expecting only occurs in the case of an enemy surrender in CMSF, which has been known for quite some time, so he obviously didn't do a whole lot of research. Furthermore, I liked his reference to 13-man Marine Platoons . . .

[stikkypixie]

He is right about the victory conditions though. I just finished a scenario in the regular campaign where I have seized all the objectives and secured the immediate surroundings. But because there were still enough Red forces hidden away in a corner of the map, the auto-surrender did not kick in. And if I had not clicked the cease-fire button, I would have been forced to wait an hour and a half. Sure I could do a full sweep of the map, but then what's the whole point of having objectives.

[Piecekeeper]

why even read reviews.....

[salwon]

It's certainly a fair "everyman" review, but it really should've been given to someone with more patience for the genre. Of course, then you run the risk of Dorosh reviewing it...

[CptWasp]

I think CMSF isn't a game for everyone, and I think -it wasn't intended to be- for everyone.

You can't review an RTS or an FPS if you're a pure-wargamer; you can't review CMSF if you aren't a wargamer

In my review CMSF was 8.9 with 1.08 patch; today it's real close to be a full 9. Let me see the next patch and the 1.11 campaign!

[Cpl Steiner]

Whilst the guy hasn't really done his research (13 man platoon etc) he has a few perfectly valid points. For one, the UI needs tweaking for the mainstream player to make it easier to control all those units. Modifier buttons (hold down "this" when double-clicking a unit and it selects only the men, hold down "this" and it selects only the vehicles) and group assignments (Control plus 1 makes all selected units part of "group 1") etc. are standard and helpful UI features these days and people expect them to be there. I think when BFC decided to go RT they should have basically copied all these bits feature for feature straight from a good RTS and not be so proud ("we don't make RTSs, we make strategy games"). If a feature has some merit, use it.

[jenrick]

I'm w/ Cpl Stiener, I enjoy CMSF in spite of the interface. Playing RT w/ the current interface gets interesting and playing WEGO for me is a frustrating exercise is getting my thoughts turned into some semblance of orders (which invariably I do incorrectly somwhere around the first mouse click). RT is basically an RTS (Real Time Strategy, it's in the name right? Maybe real time tactical RTT?) focused on the units in the fight rather then creating in supporting infrastructure. Why not use conventions already in place in RTS games that have had quiet a while now to refine them?

-Jenrick

[Field Marshal Blücher]

To be honest, what's the point of giving the same order to multiple units? I use it only very rarely, even when playing RT, because I seldom want them to move in formation . . .

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The review is broadly fair enough, but the scoring? Harsh!

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the text but I do think the score was weighted towards things which are more personal preference. The Objectives thing he harped on was a bit of a head scratcher for us. The game has been out for more than a year with the current Objectives system and man, I honestly can't think of anybody complaining about not knowing what their objectives are. They are spelled out in the Briefing which can be brought up at any time. Still, there is room for improvement... I just think it was a rather odd thing to make such a big part of the review.

The force destruction Objective is just that. If you don't take out all the enemy, or enough of it, then you haven't finished. There's no reason why Auto-Surrender should kick in and denny the player a chance to secure that Objective. Having said that, it's not good for a scenario designer to make a force destruction Objective that is not proportional to the forces he expects the player to find in a reasonable timeframe. So either scale down the % forces to destroy or make sure the player doesn't have to hunt around for them.

The criticism of the Campaign is valid, unfortunately. It's clear that we have to change the way Campaigns are constructed because it's impractical for us to test the thing as much as we need to and not have it delay the game's release by 1-2 months. In other words, the way things are now we'd have to freeze the code and then start testing the Campaign. That's really not the best way to go about it, so we're implementing some code changes to how Campaigns get created to remove some development bottlenecks and reduce some "gotchas" that result from having a dozen people working on a single Campaign.

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

That user review is harsh.

[Secondbrooks]

Scores are indeed harsh.

I get those "what is my mission again?" moments here and there. However i believe that mostly when i can't focus properly (tired, (too) drunk) and mission isn't the most self-explaining.

However CMx2 has clearly marked objectives and briefings are good... Well 'To ambush, or not to ambush'-mission is one which i still don't get. Why not to allow enough space for evading when it's clear in briefing that i have this option? I dont' remember are there same kind missions others, but that came into my mind. And it was BIG let down to me, as it was first mission i played in Marines.

[c3k]

Steve,

Great to hear you're reviewing the campaign process.

This game engine has amazing potential, which has only been partially realized. The only way that potential can be more fully realized is through the various battles and campaigns. I look forward to more high quality releases for new battles and campaigns (either at CMMODS or the suppository. Err, REpository).

Regards,

Ken

[Bigduke6]

I think you've got several factors at work that contributed to the score:

- The bar in terms of fun, coolness, novelty, and replayability set by CM1. That's a very high standard to meet, as as Steve has repeatedly pointed out, BFI no longer has any intention to do a massive once-in-three years kind of game like CMBB. So you're up against high expectations. For instance, had there been a decent quick battle function in CMSF, I guarantee you the replayability rating by IGN would have been higher. But as it is that's for a module somewhere down the line - and of course until that module comes out, replayability for CMSF pretty close to sucks when compared to the fantastic quick battle engine from CM1.

A linked issue is that because CM2 is so much more detailed than CM1, construction of scenarios is that much more complicated and time-consuming. One of the great selling points of CM1 was, and if memory serves IGN wrote this in their review, was that the supply of scenarios was effectively bottomless, as more gamers were building and posting scenarios faster than any one person could ever play them. Contrast this to CMSF, where you really have to search to find a new scenario once you run through the limited selection that ships with the game.

- The fact that the moment you go away from turn-based to continuous time, you are in the RTS playground and like it or not you are going to get judged by RTS standards, and user interface, eye-candy, and the ability of the game to draw the player in and hold his attention are big priorities in that sandbox.

- The general market disinterest in wargames, i.e., you are getting a niche product review for a mass market.

- A general increase to computer gamer expectations over time, in part because as time has passed like in most industries some of the big boys got bigger, and many of the small fry got pushed out. Meaning, in relative terms, there are fewer games produced by bigger companies for more money, meaning (it would seem to me) a higher level of polish to products industry-wide. The bugs that CMSF got released with in 2007 might well have been acceptable in 2000, but tempus fugit.

- This last is maybe just me, but I think the scenario BFI picked - modern US invasion of Syria - has some serious negative baggage to it. Proably the most difficult bit is that with forces accurately represented (generally) battles are necessarily lopsided, and now matter how you skew things most of the times it's some form of blue attacking red. Plus with one side having M1A2 and Javelin, and the other not, it's alot harder to build a nice balanced scenario than in CM1, where firepower and capacity was roughly similar, just the kit varied somewhat.

Then there is the issue that goofy A/I behavior that might be pardonable in a WW2 sim, is somehow less acceptable to alot of people when it's modern war. I just replayed Dorosh's High Altitude scenario, and a pair of Strykers, one by one, drove into the compound past a pair of BMPes waiting in ambush. The range was about 20 meters, the Syrians were sitting still, and there was no smoke or supression. The BMPs nonetheless failed to spot the Strykers for a good 10 - 30 seconds, allowing the Stykers to drive behind the BMPs one by one, where they sat until the BMPs woke up, traversed, and killed the Strykers.

If you contrast that kind of A/I behavior with something irritating from CMBB, for instance cowering Stalins, it is more or less the same issue (A/I identification and response to a target), but in CMSF because of its narrow scale, and clearer expectations by gamers as to what reasonable simulated behavior is, every little departure from "reality" is amplified to the gamer.

Take all that into account, and a 6.5 or so out of 10 for a niche product is a pretty fair rating from a mass market reviewer like IGN, which after reviews all kinds of RTS for a living, and by the way remembers full well how amazing CM1 was when it hit the market.

[moneymaxx]

Thanks Bigduke6 for the post, now I have to write less because I totally agree.

- This last is maybe just me, but I think the scenario BFI picked - modern US invasion of Syria - has some serious negative baggage to it. Proably the most difficult bit is that with forces accurately represented (generally) battles are necessarily lopsided, and now matter how you skew things most of the times it's some form of blue attacking red. Plus with one side having M1A2 and Javelin, and the other not, it's alot harder to build a nice balanced scenario than in CM1, where firepower and capacity was roughly similar, just the kit varied somewhat.

At least there are 2 now . The scenario limits the tactical choices, for red it's almost exclusively ambush, for blue a simple procedure is successful nearly all the time (equip every squad with javelins and put them on the roofs of the high buildings or hills, wait until all Syrian vehicles are killed and than mop up the rest). The resulting scenarios are "Black Hawk Down" type scenarios or some form of hammering the Syrians. That's fun for a while but gets boring very quickly.

If you contrast that kind of A/I behavior with something irritating from CMBB, for instance cowering Stalins, it is more or less the same issue (A/I identification and response to a target), but in CMSF because of its narrow scale, and clearer expectations by gamers as to what reasonable simulated behavior is, every little departure from "reality" is amplified to the gamer.

Good point!

The only thing I'd add to your post is that the reviewer is quite right about the pathfinding issue. Even after the 1.10 patch it's still bad and the "dance of death" problem has been around since CMx1!

Personally I think 6,5 is a fair score (My score would be 6, -2 for the setting, -1 pathfinding, -1 a mix of many small things like: UI, can't purchase units in QBs, graphics, firing through ceilings......).

[GSX]

Whilst the guy hasn't really done his research (13 man platoon etc) he has a few perfectly valid points. For one, the UI needs tweaking for the mainstream player to make it easier to control all those units. Modifier buttons (hold down "this" when double-clicking a unit and it selects only the men, hold down "this" and it selects only the vehicles) and group assignments (Control plus 1 makes all selected units part of "group 1") etc. are standard and helpful UI features these days and people expect them to be there. I think when BFC decided to go RT they should have basically copied all these bits feature for feature straight from a good RTS and not be so proud ("we don't make RTSs, we make strategy games"). If a feature has some merit, use it.

Agree with the above.

CMSF is a fun game, has some good things, some bad, its not perfect, but what game has ever been.

As long as you approach it as a game and dont try to think of it as a true simulation, you will enjoy it for the most part.

I think the review was fair and balanced. What you have to remember is that it wasnt a review aimed at those of us who have Cmed for years by a CM Grog. So given this, I dont think you can knock it. SF feels and plays like it was designed for RTS, so why not give it a more RTS like interface? His idea about grouping units may not be all that bad in certain circumstances.

[meade95]

I'm on board with most other comments on here - The review wasn't all that bad (in text) however, its score was much too low -

As an avid player of RTS/FPS on the more tactical / stragetic level (from HPS type simes, POA2 to OGR, original R6/RS) I think with the lastest 1.10 patch......

CMSF should be given an 8 out of 10 at this point.

The "objective" confusion I found odd as hell in the review.

[stikkypixie]

SF feels and plays like it was designed for RTS, so why not give it a more RTS like interface? His idea about grouping units may not be all that bad in certain circumstances.

I don't know, what is it about SF that find RTS-ee(?). I've never played an RTS that even remotely resembled SF.

[GSX]

I don't know, what is it about SF that find RTS-ee(?). I've never played an RTS that even remotely resembled SF.

Ah, maybe real time tactical then, not strategy. Sf is a cracking RT game when played at the lower scales, Platoon+. Maybe even company if the map is the right size.

It could do with some things that RT games have. Any of the following:

An automatic jump to an engaged unit, Ive seen that in RTS. It would get round the problem that you may be concentrating in one area and forget whats going on in others.

An overall strategic campaign map for the campaign where you can choose which branch youd like to follow on the scenario tree.

Assigning a number to a task group on larger maps. This would allow you to move a group of vehicles and Inf around to contact, say a couple of platoons and a few vehicles in each group.

A minimap showing the disposition of your forces which you can click on to jump to a platoon etc, this would aide your overall sight picture as a battlefield commander. This minimap exists now if you zoom out far enogh, so why not have it reproduced for RT games.

A true Mouse heavy management, clicking a unit or group of units brings up options for movement and fire etc.

Just some thoughts though...

[MikeyD]

"The "objective" confusion I found odd as hell in the review."

I had the same reaction, that seemed over-stressed. It felt like he was reviewing Mount Rushore and focusing on the quality of the asphalt paving in the parking lot instead of the granite carvings before him. Not to say he didn't seem to like the game, he just kept getting distracted away from the coolest bits.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree that the CMx1 to CMx2 comparison didn't seem to have much of a bearing on the review. I think it had more to do with some legitimate gripes mixed in with some pet peeves which I don't really understand. The Objectives thing is one and unit grouping is another because you can group units and issue them the same Commands. I do it all the time, in fact I would have preferred that the reviewer spent more time on the things we improved instead of what appears to be newbie mistakes incorrectly seen as game flaws.

Steve