Jump to content

Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy has been reviewed by The Wargamer!!


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

...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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...