PC-Gamer Review

[Delta228]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I was on the PCGamer Website and i saw that they just posted their review of the Marines Module. It seems a little late for them to just post their review now, but oh well. They gave the stock CMSF a 7, so i guess this is an improvement.

Here is the link:

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/combat-mission-shock-force-marines/review/combat-mission-shock-force-marines/a-20090311141822772099/g-2009031112399272073

[Sixxkiller]

I will agree that his score is pretty good, I think this game is an 8-9.

Not sure if Marines isnt essential. There equipment isnt as good in most respects as the US Army so it gives you a necessity to play different at times. Plus any invasion and you can bet the Marines are going to be in the mix anyway. The Brits when they come out will give even more play style possibilities. The Brits are actually now my favorite to play also (Except for Bradleys ).

But I am super jealous of his rig. The graphic details are stunning in his screen shots. I really need to talk wife to be into a super computer). It did take him 6 months to rate it after release tho.

[theFightingSeabee]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the review. I may sound like a cheerleader, but it's a 9.7 until some other game comes out that is more realistic. With every module, it gets even better. Not an essential entry in the series? Ofcourse it's essential. The only people who could go without it are Army guys using it as a training tool.

[-Pv-]

Not much of a review. Likely only useful to CMSF players who haven't purchased Marines yet. I don't have a "super computer." It would only be average by today's gamer standards, yet I would compare the graphics I get with any screen shots I've seen so far.

-Pv-

[Sixxkiller]

Well any review that gives this game a good score is a good review. If he had said 6 I would have lobbed a grenade at him.

Seabee is right tho, every patch/module makes this game much better. Too bad we will have to wait till WWII for the modders to really go into overdrive. Lots of good stuff but not as much as any of the previous titles BFC did. But I am glad that this game has converted many people who werent happy at the release. Hopefully this score and the dozens of others will bring a few more into the fold.

[panzermartin]

The signs are good, after the disaster of V1.00. I think WW2 will re-establish the series in the pantheon of wargaming classics and achieve some really high scores like CMx1 did.

[Patrocles]

8/10 or 8/100?

dang, could the review have been any shorter and still be called a review? LOL

I would not have been surprised if the review was a 6 or 7, but 8 is darn good for this little game.

[thewood]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I was on the PCGamer Website and i saw that they just posted their review of the Marines Module. It seems a little late for them to just post their review now, but oh well. They gave the stock CMSF a 7, so i guess this is an improvement.

Here is the link:

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/combat-mission-shock-force-marines/review/combat-mission-shock-force-marines/a-20090311141822772099/g-2009031112399272073

Correction - he gave it a 6.

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/combat-mission-shock-force/review/combat-mission-shock-force/a-20070824142116490002/g-2007062112102529089/p-2

[bassplayer192837]

if you read the article he gave it an 8 and said that some of the things you wouldnt like is that the venue is still in future-Syria. I dont understand how thats bad?

[MikeyD]

The article seemed to me to contain back-handed compliments and "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" faulty premises. His complaint about near future Syria also grated on me. June 2008 isn't "near future" for one thing. And most computer games seem to take place in some absurd futuristic Terminatorland - so he's complaining about Syria?

[Pvt. Ryan]

I guess his complaint is that it is not WWII.

[Dietrich]

WW2 is a war/era people can still view through propagandistically rose-tinted glasses (especially if they live in the western world), whereas modern war is verschmutzt by words/concepts like "terrorist", "collateral damage", and "mutually assured destruction."

[Combatintman]

I've never really got the 'Syrian setting doesn't interest me' piece either - do some research on Iraq and set it there - the terrain editor gives you that flexibility. Similarly this one converts to the Afghan setting pretty easily as well. Its a more realistic scenario than the WWII Wehrmacht invading the US-type scenarios/campaign ideas that sometimes get an airing.

[theFightingSeabee]

You guys are all right. You're alright too, but that's a different story. I'm kinda upset now at PC Gamer, who I subscribed to for years. The review sucks and is incomplete.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't understand the whole "it's not WW2" thing either. Does it say WW2 on the box? Is there some international law which requires us to make WW2 games that we're unaware of? Is it true that games which aren't WW2 aren't of value to the people that like them? Why not do a review of Quake 4 and say "it was pretty good, but it would have been better if it were set in Normandy 1944!".

I can understand a gamer having a preference for a particular period of time, but a reviewer is not supposed to show his bias. The game he reviewed is not intended for people who like only WW2 games, so why mention it? It doesn't have dwarves or elves in it either, so why not say something about that? Or hitmen and fast cars driving through cities? I'm sure the Grand Theft Auto game fans would want to know that this isn't a game for them. The list of things which CM:SF isn't is, obviously, endless... so what's the point of cherry picking just one of them and try to make it seem like there is relevance to it?

Oh well... at least he didn't appear to take off points for not being WW2

Steve

[Smaragdadler]

CMSF is a wargame, not a game about elfes in terminatorland. It's important to know where a wargame's setting is, because if you don't know the "toys" you have to research it.

I think there are not too few people, who could start a ww2 wargame out of the box, because they know the stuff. But they won't take something which is not in the ww2 time frame, because that means they would have to invest time...

[Dietrich]

To be honest, I find scenarios set in Iraq to be more interesting, and Afghanistan-based scenarios are more compelling to me.

If I were younger and fitter and didn't have fairly flat feet, I would enlist with whichever branch of the US armed forces would most likey deploy my unit to Afghanistan. I'd be all too keen to stick it to those Taliban scum-o'-the-earth, who murder whoever they please, gruesomely disfigure young girls (by throwing acid on their faces if they think they're going to school), use young boys as sex slaves (and act contrary to the tenets of their own religion in other ways)...and yet people in many areas (in Afghanistan and Pakistan, at least) support them (at least tacitly) or simply don't oppose them! (On the other hand, if there were a "Christian" fundamentalist-extremist group in some backwater of the USA whose members iron-fistedly ruled entire counties and murdered whoever they viewed as a threat, I wouldn't be surprised if not a few others in the USA would support them, even while the police, FBI, CIA, and National Guard opened up a big ol' can of crackdow.)

Sorry for the rant (insofar as it could be interpreted as political). If any moderator feels I've gone too far, feel free to remove the offending portion of this post -- I'll understand and agree.

[Other Means]

This was 8/10 for a module. I think that's good news.

[Lurker765]

I don't understand the whole "it's not WW2" thing either. Does it say WW2 on the box? Is there some international law which requires us to make WW2 games that we're unaware of? Is it true that games which aren't WW2 aren't of value to the people that like them? Why not do a review of Quake 4 and say "it was pretty good, but it would have been better if it were set in Normandy 1944!".

I can understand a gamer having a preference for a particular period of time, but a reviewer is not supposed to show his bias. The game he reviewed is not intended for people who like only WW2 games, so why mention it? It doesn't have dwarves or elves in it either, so why not say something about that? Or hitmen and fast cars driving through cities? I'm sure the Grand Theft Auto game fans would want to know that this isn't a game for them. The list of things which CM:SF isn't is, obviously, endless... so what's the point of cherry picking just one of them and try to make it seem like there is relevance to it?

Oh well... at least he didn't appear to take off points for not being WW2

Steve

What makes you think he wants it to be WWII? I didn't see in the incredibly short review where he mentioned WWII at all? Perhaps he would have preferred a Fulda gap or US vs China or Iran or etc setting that isn't quite as lopsided and asymmetrical?

Did it say WWII on the review somewhere and I missed it?

I didn't like the review due to how short it was and it didn't really seem to cover many aspects of the game due to the brevity, much less facts that were wrong (12 months since release of CMSF is incorrect, right click orders menu, etc).

[japinard]

From a die-hard Battlefront supporter to someone who kinda disappeared when Shock Force came out, I can understand where a lot of people come from.

The current engagements in the Middle East are a sore spot with many people. Though things are more balanced you still don't have an apples-to-apples conflict like you had in WWII. Some people may like this, others don't. Distances are longer, scale is different, plus you don't have the typical battles and battlelines to dissect like Kursk or even the trench warfare of WWI. This is the same reason Vietnam will never be as popular of a gronard game as something set in WWI/WWII.

There are a lot of people just waiting for the next WWII from Battlefront to come back. After all, that's what brought people here in the first place and helped build the company. It's not a hate for the current game, but a desire for an improved BF CM:BB game that people "like" to identify with... and especially the ideal to change history (what if scenarios).

As for the review, terribly short with no meat to back the score in the least.

and Smaragdadler. It's not a time issue. It is a "What interests you?". For example here's what I prefer to spend my wargaming time on:

WWII >> WWI >> 1980's NATO/Soviet conflict >> Medieval Warfare >> Roman Era wars (including Carthage etc) >> Greek City-State Era Wars >> American Revolutionary War >> Napolenonic Wars >> Civil War >> Vietnam War >> current Middle East Conflict

[-Pv-]

Players who have invested in the game rarely agree with magazine reviews.

While there is no mention of WWII in the review, it appears there is an assumed opinion the reviewer would prefer that genre. Maybe because Battlefront made their name in the industry with WWII games? Although not spelled out, the only impression on the setting I got from the review is a Syria again oh hum, been there type of inference.

8 out of 10 sounds like the reviewer liked the game. I would link the 1st two of three dislike stars as repeating the same opinion twice. Syria oh hum.

As for myself, I bought it because Battlefront shows a deep commitment to distributing practical quality game play, though it tries my patience waiting for the long patch cycles. Also, I played M1 Tank Platoon night and day and was looking for a more modern graphics replacement for the type of play that old game offered.

"You'll love

* Tons of polish and fixes

* More friendly UI

* New 20-mission campaign

You'll hate

* Still lacks some variety

* Venue is still near-future Syria

* Not an essential entry in the series"

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

Did it say WWII on the review somewhere and I missed it?

Here is the quote:

The game still lacks some of the variety, charm and facilities of its three predecessors (we still pine for Panzers and random map skirmishes with bespoke forces) but now you can – most of the time – believe in the combat you’re choreographing.

It's a fairly minor quibble considering how short, and generally positive, the review is. But the above quote is kinda like saying "this is a great depiction of modern combat, which is what the game is designed to do, but it's still not WW2 which is what everybody really wants". It's an unnecessary, biased comment that doesn't have any relevance to the game he reviewed. As I said, why not say "it's a good game, but what people really want is more cowbell"

japinard,

Welcome back

There are a lot of people just waiting for the next WWII from Battlefront to come back.

Oh, no doubt about that. No problem with that either. But when Normandy comes out what would you say if a reviewer said "it's good, and all, but we really can't wait for Space Lobsters"? That's the difference between a customer and a reviewer... a reviewer is supposed to review what he has and not what he doesn't have. So while I understand a gamer saying something like "I really want panzers and not T-72s", it's not really appropriate for a reviewer to say it because it implies a judgement of value. To people who like modern warfare and are sick to death of WW2 games (and there are many gamers who have said exactly that on this Forum) it's a put down.

It's not a hate for the current game, but a desire for an improved BF CM:BB game that people "like" to identify with... and especially the ideal to change history (what if scenarios).

Heh... well, that's your opinion. Based on sales and discussions here, Normandy is what people are really looking forward to... not Eastern Front. But that's the great thing about what we do as a company... we don't cater to just ONE type of customer. We make wargames, not a specific type of wargame. Each release will appeal to a particular slice of the wargame market than others simply because no one game can possibly be all things to all people. Therefore, each game should be accepted for what it is attempting to portray, not what the next game or the game after that is destined to simulate.

Steve

[Bergerbitz]

Meh. The Review was heavy on the glibness (which is almost like saying "I was overwhelmed with indifference") and light on the information.

Hey, I pine for WWII action but CMSF scratches an itch I didn't know I had. Especially when I play as the Red forces -- putting the Yanks in their place in creative ways is quite...tasty.

[[hirr]Leto]

I didn't get a lot out of the game review. But what I did get was that if you do like SF, you will probably also like Marines... although there is not a lot of extra toys... the big slam on modules.

Modules should have lots more toys, features and units (I always compare the value of modules to the ASL series modules... a few improvements in the engine and a schwack of new shiny units that offer diversity and new tactical opportunities.

That it got an 8 out of 10 should be taken as a positive, especially as the reviewer phoned it in a bit and the context of what he wrote may have reflected a "7".

The WW2 bit... well, that has been discussed to death, and I agree with the reviewer (but I wear my bias on my sleeve: I'm looking forward to CM Normandy, and am ho hum about Syria as well).

Cheers!

Leto

[rune]

You'll hate

• Still lacks some variety
  
• Venue is still near-future Syria
  
• Not an essential entry in the series

So he does complain about it being Syria, and doesn't understanhd this is a new series. Shame on him for not doing his homework.

Rune