pditty8811 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy has been reviewed by The Wargamer!! Check it out: http://www.wargamer.com/article/3131/pc-game-review-combat-mission-battle-for-normandy What do you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridethe415 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I don't think the guy is a very good writer. I also don't think he spent a lot of time with the game. It takes a bit of time to learn the camera and use it quickly. Once you've nailed that it's no problem. As far as the graphics complaint, I have no real issues. Sure terrain could look better, but I'm playing it for the playability and the challenge of accomplishing missions. I love the structure of the game. +1 on the addiction though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 pretty fair assesement, altough I would disagree with a couple of things, these are mostly his opinions so fair enough. for example, the terrain IMO is fine, camera has no problem, and dont think the actual inland Normandy campaign has been overused at all (its mostly D-Day that is overused) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What dismal writing: littered with typos and ugly prose. I haven't read Wargamer in years and now I remember why... I first played CM:BO after reading about it in a column in PCGamer magazine (I believe it too was titled "the Wargamer" but I can't recall) and still remember finding the manual incomprehensible. I got lucky enough to play a game against Fionn but at fifteen didn't really have the patience for PBEM. (He rocked me, of course. I don't know where he went, I left the forums around 2006 and just bought CM:BN.) I played BB too. The Stalingrad maps were savage: I remember a Pavlov's house map in particular. I guess this wind up is a way of saying: a franchise this respected by gamers deserved a better review. The examination is cursory, the reviewer doesn't seem to appreciate properly the level of historical accuracy built into the mechanics; he also appears to ignore battlefront's trademark strength in ballistics modeling. I also disagree about the AI. Even on Iron the AI has real problems with advancing, planning a competent defense (I.e., abandoning positions and reforming behind secondary lines, or redeploying in response to a flank attack) and it rarely surprises an involved player. Maybe I need to switch to mp, however. Don't even get me started on this kid saying the Normandy setting is overplayed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I do have to agree with him that the UI is clunky, the load times are too slow, and the graphics not top of the line. On the other hand, the tac AI is the best I've seen, the modelling is great, and the physics exquisitely detailed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 ...And there really is no other game series out there that comes close (even AP), so no real comparisons based on the reasons why we have been playing this thing for what...? 12 years now... Quote: "It may even be boring or frustrating for the typical PC gamer..." Well yes, obviously considering the typical computer game these days and who their market is. The discussion following the article pretty mch pointed out the same flaws in the article and the less than great quality of The Wargamer reviews in general. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Agreed that it isn't a very well written review, but I think most of his points are good. Only positive I would disagree with is the AI. I don't think he played enough or he would have witnessed at least one suicidal march of an entire company in a killzone. I disagree that Normandy is played out though. D-Day is, but the rest of the conflict, especially concerning the non-US forces, is usually skimped over. The complaints are all valid IMO. The default terrain is a frankly hideous, almost cartoon shade of solid green. Mods help but even then it turns into smudges when you zoom out. Loading times are 2-3 times longer than CMSF, don't know what the deal is there. Camera is still way too slow. Playing Empire or Shogun Total War for a couple hours and then switching to CMBN will make you think time itself is about to grind to a halt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I remember a Pavlov's house map in particular. Smiles... Haven't thought about that one in quite a while. Brutal. But on the other hand, the review was a definite yawner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Willett Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I agree it appears obviously Curtis did not play the game much before making his review. We all have struggled with our mice learning how to move about the map etc when first playing the game. I am sad to see that Curtis did not tip his hat to Battlefield for designing another game that encourages and allows modders to take their games to a higher "true realistic level" while the big companies that are glutting the on-line multi-player market like EA and Activison are dumping shoot-em-up games on the majority calling them "realistic". The only "modders" we see on the EA and Activision sites are "hackers" and they have plagued those games since their inception unfortunately! So, for true realism I'll sit back and enjoy our BF games and keep downloading the great mods from our elite talented fans! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I think the terrain issue was with 8x8m height-map, not so much the visuals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Agreed that it isn't a very well written review, but I think most of his points are good. Only positive I would disagree with is the AI. I don't think he played enough or he would have witnessed at least one suicidal march of an entire company in a killzone. I disagree that Normandy is played out though. D-Day is, but the rest of the conflict, especially concerning the non-US forces, is usually skimped over. The complaints are all valid IMO. The default terrain is a frankly hideous, almost cartoon shade of solid green. Mods help but even then it turns into smudges when you zoom out. Loading times are 2-3 times longer than CMSF, don't know what the deal is there. Camera is still way too slow. Playing Empire or Shogun Total War for a couple hours and then switching to CMBN will make you think time itself is about to grind to a halt. +1 -1 for normandy not being cliche by now. I am happy with normandy but would rather play Russia, Italy, Africa or early Poland/France/Norway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Why are we surprised that a mainstream review doesn't understand this very niche game system when it's obvious what 99% of the market plays, and that is the mainstream review bread and butter thru advertising. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I also don't think he spent a lot of time with the game. It takes a bit of time to learn the camera and use it quickly. When you compare CM to other games on the market, for example, RUSE 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSW Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Why are we surprised that a mainstream review doesn't understand this very niche game system when it's obvious what 99% of the market plays, and that is the mainstream review bread and butter thru advertising. Wargamer.com is not supposed to be mainstream ... At least it was not in the past. But I agree the review reads like from someone in a mainstream publication. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medex Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Well in the end he said he liked the game overall and will continue to play it. He sounds like the typical CM gamer who dislikes certain aspects of the game and likes others. He probably has a wish list as well. The review may be badly written and has some negative criticisms about the game but that wouldn't deter me from checking out the demo and making up my own mind about buying the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Why are we surprised that a mainstream review doesn't understand this very niche game system when it's obvious what 99% of the market plays, and that is the mainstream review bread and butter thru advertising. Is this some kind of involuntary reflex to any review that criticizes the game in any way? One might argue that the review isn't written very well and is rather short, but if a website that devotes a significant amount of it's content to hex-based wargames, historical articles, and even reviews historical literature, is too "mainstream" for you, then I just don't know what reality you are living in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 BTW, the new issue of Military History has a review of the game. It struck me as fair and reasonably complete for a one-column article. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ranger: You misunderstand, I don't dispute the criticisms, but the reviewer fails to understand/acknowledge the intent of the game which to attempt a fairly "realistic-feeling" game that requires a lot of patience and thought to play well. That is virtually the opposite of 99% of other entertainment games out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ranger: You misunderstand, I don't dispute the criticisms, but the reviewer fails to understand/acknowledge the intent of the game which to attempt a fairly "realistic-feeling" game that requires a lot of patience and thought to play well. That is virtually the opposite of 99% of other entertainment games out there. Fair enough I suppose, though I think you underestimate the number of other complex and "deep thought required" sorts of games out there that are quite popular. Look at how many people play EVE Online for instance. That game is essentially paying a monthly fee to be patient, but has tens of thousands of people online all the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I have to admit I haven't played a persistent online game ever. (My god, pay a monthly fee!!!?) America's Army was my only online experience and it burned me out fairly quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 And it only took them a mere 6 months to publish... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Now Moon, be fair. Obviously the lad's spell check was broken and he had to proof the whole thing by eye. That takes time, after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 And it only took them a mere 6 months to publish... Yea, and the review is horribly short - sort of like a Cliff Notes review of the game. I think I've composed sentences longer than his review. You'd think that after 6 months someone could put together a comprehensive review that really delves into the many features (or lack thereof) that a game has. On the plus side, it is a favorable review for CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I love CMBN. I actually struggle to go back to CMSF now, and that is saying something because I love the modern setting. HOWEVER, despite his review being badly written and clearly he hasn't delved that deep into the game (or he'd realise the AI is not clever, but scenario designers are), he is right about some things. The terrain (and stock audio) isn't that flash, and definitely was second fiddle to the unit graphics. It's also badly optimized and doesn't run well on my pretty much top of the line PC. The camera IS annoying and clunky to use. It DOES get tiring giving 50 billion move/pause orders because assault doesn't work properly. For some reason I find large formation battles more cumbersome than the original titles, might be to do with the laggy graphics, I am not sure. However, given the resources BFC have I think they've done a fantastic job overall, and most importantly, the game is fun. I also do kind of agree with the ETO being over-used. I'd love to see a Pacific theatre module/game from BFC. I think fighting to the death such as was in the Pacific Theatre would suit the AI a little better. I understand however that it's more Naval/Infantry focused instead of the nice set piece battles of Europe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It was a subpar review...hell...I wouldn't even call it a review. Absolute garbage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.