monkeezgob
-
Posts
139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by monkeezgob
-
-
Click-fest is the way forward! Huzzah! The problem is that at the moment the tac AI is so damn poor you spend an inordinate amount of time baby sitting and micromanaging in RT and that it has a seriously detrimental effect on any strategy you might have planned.
Sandy, like you, I much prefer WEGO, but not in its current, sorry and broken state. At the moment its an ok computer game, but a poor wargame.
[ August 23, 2007, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: monkeezgob ]
-
There's a whole heap of bug fixing that must be done before they even start to think of working on an add-on module.
-
Got to agree with the general consensus. I think you'd be wasting your money.
-
The direction is real-time click fest with appalling AI. Hurrah! So much for superior wargaming.
-
That would definitley be on my shopping list, but I can't see it happening.
-
Click-fest is the way forward!
-
I think it's highly unlikely.
Apparently, click-fest is the way forward.
-
-
But he is right about the bonkers AI.
Look, why get so worked up about it. It's just his opinion, it won't torpedo the future of the game, so don't worry about it.
-
As far as I'm concerned, he hit the nail on the head with the review. The way people responded to it was disappointing, but not surprising. If a reviewer is not allowed to express a subjective opinion on a game then what on earth is the purpose of a review?Originally posted by Lurker765:Well...I was just going to do my post and leave. But I have to say that I am not Tom Chick, I have never been Tom Chick, I am not associated with him, I had never even heard of him until I read this thread. Please don't blame him for my post.
Bajeesus though. Saying someone was never insulted is strange since I just stumbled across this thread and found things like:
"First, I must say I am disappointed. That was the sort of juvenile, uniformed, whiney kind of review I would expect from a 16 year old, not something from a seasoned reviewer."
or
"As for Tom's hardware problems... who knows what they are. You'd be surprised at how many so-called professional reviewers didn't think to update their drivers "
etc
This thread can die again, but I wanted to make sure that Tom does not get smeared for my post.
Sorry about this. I will go away now. I understand this is a touchy subject and I did not mean to call your baby ugly.
-
Patches to enhance, yes, commended, patches to fix, expected, if not demanded. </font>Originally posted by Sirocco:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by monkeezgob:
Releasing patches to fix a product is to be commended
-
I don't think what has happened with CM:SF will prove to be a fatal blow. BFC know that they have a strong core customer base who stuck with them through the CMX1 titles and eagerly awaited every new patch.
They'll probably lose some customers who have come to them late and have been through the TOW fiasco and now this, or those who are disappointed at the apparent change in direction heralded by TOW and CM:SF. But on the whole I think BFc have a core customer base prepared to cut them a great deal of slack.
However, if the reviews have a long term impact it will probably be with the more casual gamer, which is precisely the audience this title was going to reel in.
Alternatively, the whole scenario could change if their next title is released in a more finished state and gets glowing reviews right out of the box.
[ August 17, 2007, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: monkeezgob ]
-
Have the reviews affected sales? Probably. However, the real time clickathon element will certainly ensure it sells better than previous titles.
Releasing patches to fix a product is to be commended and BFc could never be faulted for supporting the majority of the games they release, but a review is all about a first impression, not what it'll look like in a year or eighteen months time and I think they did themselves few favours with the state they released CM:SF in. Terrible first impression.
[ August 17, 2007, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: monkeezgob ]
-
Sports-sims aren't? </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by monkeezgob:
Let's face it, in the gaming market today, a turn based wargame is always going to be a niche product.
-
Nice post, but I think you're overcomplicating the situation.
The reason that both the Madden and Total War series still sell well despite basically delivering the same product with each new release is that they appeal to the click-fest crowd. In madden you can control individual players and the outcome depends on you ability as a button-masher. Ok, the Total war series has a strategicv element to it, but the battles are all played out in RT. Neither is a niche product like CMx1.
Piracy may have been a minor contributing factor, but I think the bottom line is that other than for the die-hard grogs amonst us, Cmx1 was always going to have a niche appeal, succesive titles depcited theatres of war that were not as popular as the western front and to a more casual gamer, there seemed to be no obvious development or overhaul of the game engine.
Let's face it, in the gaming market today, a turn based wargame is always going to be a niche product. Hence the decision by BFC to move in a different direction (RTS) to try to broaden its appeal and get some of the Madden, Total War click-fest crowd on board.
-
Interesting post. If 1:1 is the way to go to achieve greater complexity and this problematic phrase 'realism', then as well as the above I'd have thought that factors such as general intelligence and temprament would have to be modelled to a fairly complex degree for individuals. At the most basic level it would have to impact oh how a soldier recated under certain conditons and affected his ability to carry out, or give orders succesfully
-
Computer game or RTS game of the year - maybe. Wargame of the year? No chance!
-
Campaign missions are wayyyyy too easy. Enemy AI is positively passive. Predictible scripting just as bad as TOW and ruins any replayability. Not much of a tactical challenge.
-
I think, as Steve has said before, the sales of CMx1 titles went down with each new title release.
The change of direction and engine is clearly about broadening the appeal of what was previously a niche product to a younger crowd who may be turned off something classed as a 'wargame'.
That's ok, fine if you like it. Personally, I think CM:SF is an ok computer game, but a mediocre wargame.
-
Your problem Funkster is "you just don't get it".
-
(An excellent semi-review by him in that thread BTW)Originally posted by Pinetree:Ssnake of Esim games(Steel Beasts) has made an interesting point in this thread. He believes that..
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />..many areas of the engine clearly are rooted in WW2 - maps are generally too small, there are no metrics for collateral damage etc.
This is my feeling too. CMSF,IMHO, does feel a bit like a WW2 game with a modern twist. As much fun as it is, I think there should be some sort of penalty for flattening half the neighbourhood... </font>
-
I think Steve's point though is that it wasn't bringing the money in. CMX1 lost customers with every title. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN:
The old cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" springs to mind here from the posts I've read. I think people wanted/expected more of CMX1 with added improvements and why not give the customer more of the same if it brings the money in?
-
Chelm 1234,
It's nothing to do with the game, you just don't get it.
-
in its present state: NO
What would your reaction been if CM:SF was the first game published by BF?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I'd have tried the demo for a while then uninstalled it and forgotten all about it.