Jump to content

Spindry69

Members
  • Posts

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Spindry69

  1. As much as I am enjoying CMSF and seeing it mature I can't help wishing there was more depth to it. The campaign feels like a lot of unrelated missions tacked together. Maybe I am dreaming but a campaign with real consequences after completing each mission would be gaming nirvana. Two examples spring to mind: Falcon 4 with it's real dynamic campaign and Steel Panthers where you nurse the same troops and equipment through multiple missions. Either of these two campaign mechanisms would be great and I dare say, earn the respect of PC game reviewers.

  2. Originally posted by dalem:

    It won't have random maps or player force picks, and it will still have the weird "almost-1:1" that seems to be accceptable these days.

    Short of a roofied-up Salma Hayek personally delivering it to my house in a towel, that's not gonna be enough "features" to make me want to plunk my money down.

    -dale

    No force picks?! "Cue bawling CMSF kid".
  3. I really enjoyed the CMx1 series but I don't miss We-go at all. I tried it once in CMSF and went straight back to real time. I really think it's advantages outweigh any disadvantages. Also iv'e seen a lot worse team AI in Armed Assult than CMSF, but thats another story.. I think Battlefront are on the right path here and I think time will show that.

  4. I am really enjoying CM:SF. I like the realistic feel to it in that you need to advance slowly and methodicaly with troops and vehicles supporting each other. One hasty order and you will probally have dead soldiers. It feels like the real deal or as real as I can imagine it fram watching video footage from Iraq. Good stuff and it will only get better!

×
×
  • Create New...