8outof8 Video Commentary Review

[JRMC1879]

What real time game are you comparing it to?

But your entire argument around the camera controls is that it is unlike total war type games. That doesnt make the control in those better - it just makes them the ones you are used to. Personally I there are things I like about the camera controls in CM that other rts games dont have - and things that rts games have that cm doesnt. However I dont really play realtime in CM any more so I dont really notice it. But again - its all a question of resources. I personally cant remember the camera controls in CM1 being any different - but then again it didnt have realtime - perhaps that is the main difference and why you notice it more. Personally I freaking hate the camera controls in Total war.

[Destraex1]

JRMC that may well be what I am used to, company of heroes, wargame european escalation and sins of a solar empire were also mentioned. However in my eyes its a little like saying "you are just not used to using a model-T ford, thats all" and to that I would say "have you even flown a helecopter?".

The camera controls are certainly a lot more tollerable as another poster said when the game runs smoothly. But I still have to do a lot of adjusting instead of playing the game.

You should also consider that CMx2 does with a lot of keys in combination with the mouse what other games do solely with the mouse.

In other games the keyboard is left for non-camera related commands, so that the player controls the camera while working the keyboard for playing the game if needed at all. Otherwise you end up using all of your control working the camera into position and having to actually stop and re-adjust your hands to play the game.. this means if you need to adjust to a situation in real time its that much harder. Because instead of giving orders while moving the camera you end up moving the camera and stopping again to issue an order.

In this games case I love the model T-Ford because its also made of pure golden gameplay, subject matter and realism

[OrdeaL]

Well put Destraex1

[JaguarUSF]

Wow, that's a long thread for my video

To clarify one thing, it's not a review: I always post an impressions video while I am playing each new game I review, and in this case the video took an overly negative tone. The reason for this is that I felt most people who were going to watch the video were familiar with the CMx2 games (since they have been around for five years) and the general features, so I spent most of the time criticizing things I felt could/should have been improved since the inception of the new game engine in 2007; if I were to go back and re-record, I would spend more time highlighting the good aspects of the game (of which there are many) to balance out the criticism. As I will in my full written review.

[Childress]

if I were to go back and re-record, I would spend more time highlighting the good aspects of the game (of which there are many) to balance out the criticism. As I will in my full written review.

Well, given your judgment that CMFI *might* be worth $20 as an expansion pack, it doesn't seem likely that your review will end up stickied on this forum.

On the other hand I salute your gonads. Not only reviewing a game with such a polarized pedigree, packed with heated detractors and admirers, but actually getting down in the mud and wrestling with them on various fora. It's akin to strolling through Jurassic Park at midnight with a pet sheep on a leash.

[Battlefront.com]

I think glass half empty reviews/opinions are not worth much to the wargaming community. It's a half empty crowd in general and they'll come up with dozens of reasons why their ideas would make the game 1000 times better than it already is. I don't think people in the press need to mimic their audience in this respect.

And yeah, calling 1 year's work creating an entirely new theater and features as being maybe worth "$20" gets into an area I best not enter into in public. Because I will say some things which I won't regret, but probably still shouldn't say. Let's just leave it that such comments are as condescending as they are divorced from contextual relevance.

But again, as I said at the start, it doesn't affect our sales because (thankfully) people are more swayed by their own experiences than someone else's opinion. And the overwhelmingly positive reception of CMFI speaks louder than any one critic's voice.

Steve

[Dadekster88]

I thought the vid brought up some valid points and the reply to them by BF as being fair in return. I look forward to the written review as well as I find the reviews written there pretty spot on due to what I personally look for in games.

As far as camera controls, they all suck until I get used to them. Music and sound milage varies for me. Think it depends on what kind of day I am having tbh.

[Steiner14]

But again, as I said at the start, it doesn't affect our sales because (thankfully) people are more swayed by their own experiences than someone else's opinion. And the overwhelmingly positive reception of CMFI speaks louder than any one critic's voice.

Are you sure about that? I believe such stupid reviews, who do hide from the player the central aspects of software, must have an impact ESPECIALLY on the broad undecided mass:

Bah, a game where they don't even offer to shut off the music? Ten years behind! And playing per mail! How on earth could such a company offer the best tactical wargame on earth?

And they are not only not capable to offer a modern software, but even charge a full price for their yesterday-software? I'm not crazy to buy this.

If i wouldn't know CM, i probably would be kept away from a closer look because of this kind of strupid "reviews".

And now imagine, if wargame-reviewers are not capable to guide the focus on the important aspects for the tactical WARGAMER, how big is the damage, if RTS-junkies "review" your game for the broad mass?

I don't say, that CM will ever be attractive for the broad mass, but i know, that there are many youngsters out there, who would be interested to learn how real world tactics and the weapons really work and act together instead of a primitive shooter that is painted as tactical wargame.

I don't expect from the big magazines to judge the big successful titles and the companies that pay the advertisements, as childish and far from any reality. But that wargamers accept this broad disinformation, that Chuck Norris movies were simulating reality, IMO is huge burden for the wargaming community, because nobody who stands up against the collective dulling of people's minds in this regard.

[kulik]

It doesn't sounded too bad for me. The key point is that even if he was very critical he also seemed to enjoy the gameplay itself.

Important fact is that it's the computer wargaming genre that is years behind other computer games genres. From this viewpoint CMx2 games are the best out of the worst.

In my opinion Battlefront lacks a healthy competition, the development (of new features not theaters) takes ages and the pricing is really pushing it.

You are always whining that you are targeting a niche market but the frequency of sold material raised from CMSF development period significantly so why can you hire more people to help you make the games you do better? You lived through years without new releases and without any significant income (kudos to that, must have been really hard) and now here you are starting to pump out new releases, modules and newly upgrades (great idea BTW i always hated that CMBO was so outdated when new games came out) at quite high pace. Why don't you use the money to get some men so we can have tcp/ip WEGO, coop, fires, random map generators, operations and all the neat stuff in your game? You have to be beyond the sustainability issues if CMFI limited edition was sold out in matter of couple days...

[Rocky Balboa]

It doesn't sounded too bad for me. The key point is that even if he was very critical he also seemed to enjoy the gameplay itself.

Important fact is that it's the computer wargaming genre that is years behind other computer games genres. From this viewpoint CMx2 games are the best out of the worst.

In my opinion Battlefront lacks a healthy competition, the development (of new features not theaters) takes ages and the pricing is really pushing it.

You are always whining that you are targeting a niche market but the frequency of sold material raised from CMSF development period significantly so why can you hire more people to help you make the games you do better? You lived through years without new releases and without any significant income (kudos to that, must have been really hard) and now here you are starting to pump out new releases, modules and newly upgrades (great idea BTW i always hated that CMBO was so outdated when new games came out) at quite high pace. Why don't you use the money to get some men so we can have tcp/ip WEGO, coop, fires, random map generators, operations and all the neat stuff in your game? You have to be beyond the sustainability issues if CMFI limited edition was sold out in matter of couple days...

I've said it before but I suppose it bears repeating again, what BF decides to charge for their work is their business, what you decide to pay for it is yours.

Would more competition change things? Maybe, but currently I don't see any, not even close, and to be honest I haven't seen any since CMBO so I'm not holding my breath.

[JonS]

I thought the vid brought up some valid points

Apart from the stuff that was flat out wrong, yeah there were some valid points. But there's no balance, which is why it's getting a "glass half empty" response here.

I could probably write two pages - or produce a 30 minute video - on nothing but the design flaws of a apple, if I felt so motivated. Which wouldn't change the fact that I love a fresh, juicy, crisp apple. But you wouldn't know that I love apples - or all the great things about apples - if I don't mention it.

Synchronicity?

[xian]

Apart from the stuff that was flat out wrong, yeah there were some valid points. But there's no balance, which is why it's getting a "glass half empty" response here.

I could probably write two pages - or produce a 30 minute vieo - on nothing but the design flaws of a apple, if I felt so motivated. Which wouldn't change the fact that I love a fresh, juicy, crisp apple. But you wouldn't know that I love apples - or all the great things about apples - if I don't mention it.

I think most Windows users could write a good 2 pages on the flaws of an Apple.

[Sergei]

May that cursed Jobs rot in the Buddhist hell... they do have hell, right?

[Battlefront.com]

It doesn't sounded too bad for me. The key point is that even if he was very critical he also seemed to enjoy the gameplay itself.

Then he should make a point of it, directly. Otherwise it's just a "piss on piece". Anybody can make one of those, especially if it doesn't have to be accurate. I can take any game and tear it to pieces just by looking at YouTube videos. Like the ARMA 3 video I just watched with a plane making a landing and coming to a dead, non-destructive stop when it hit a tree. Or later when a AC-130 spawned on top of another one, which caused it to bounce in the air on it's nose. And this is a game with one of the largest budgets in the industry ($50 million?). What is the point of pointing out these flaws when the gameplay is what's important?

Important fact is that it's the computer wargaming genre that is years behind other computer games genres. From this viewpoint CMx2 games are the best out of the worst.

We waragmers tend to think that our genre is the best of all other genres. Which would make Combat Mission the best of the best

You are always whining that you are targeting a niche market but the frequency of sold material raised from CMSF development period significantly so why can you hire more people to help you make the games you do better?

We have. The thing is we have hired whom we can afford to hire. Which is why we're still in business.

You lived through years without new releases and without any significant income (kudos to that, must have been really hard)...

Until you've done it, you have noooo idea. Just saying.

Why don't you use the money to get some men so we can have tcp/ip WEGO, coop, fires, random map generators, operations and all the neat stuff in your game? You have to be beyond the sustainability issues if CMFI limited edition was sold out in matter of couple days...

It's nice that you think we're making money hand over fist, but I an assure you we aren't. We sell out of things because we know how many people are likely to purchase (we did underestimate Italy's appeal, though). Which means we don't waste money buying stuff we can't sell. That is just one example of us keeping our operations scaled to our audience's capabilities for providing money for those operations.

In short... we are in a pretty happy place. Not rolling around in money rich, but not wondering if we are going to be around next month. We like being sustainable.

Apart from the stuff that was flat out wrong, yeah there were some valid points. But there's no balance, which is why it's getting a "glass half empty" response here.

If a gamer (any genre) wants to see a glass half empty "review" he has to look no further than various Forums. He can read negative comments from millions of people all day long and will walk away wondering why anybody on Earth would bother posting about it, not to mention actually playing the game. If a reviewer is no better than that, then he's made himself useless to the gaming community he serves because he is, in effect, just another voice without anything special to say.

The old saying of "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" doesn't really apply. Critical comments are both expected and valuable to make. The modified saying, therefore, IMHO is "if you don't have anything objective to say, then what you're saying isn't worth anything at all".

Don't get me wrong... if a reviewer of a particular genre doesn't like the game his is reviewing, then he should be fairly critical. Knock it for failing to meet genre standards, criticize it for things which don't work as advertised, say it has nothing significant to offer... no problem. But judge it against its peers and make sure the audience understands where it sits in that context. Don't expect them to know.

Steve

[kulik]

I've said it before but I suppose it bears repeating again, what BF decides to charge for their work is their business, what you decide to pay for it is yours.

True, but if you really love tactical infantry focused wargaming you have somehow knife pressed against your neck. Of course you don't have to pay the 200$ for one game it but then its "Go back to 1996 and play Close Combat" for you.

BF thanks for the blow-by-blow response on my post. As i have no insight in your company operations i have to trust your word that you're not just trying to cut your pie for as least number of people and that you're not sitting on a big pile of money while writing this. :-)

[Battlefront.com]

True, but if you really love tactical infantry focused wargaming you have somehow knife pressed against your neck.

Not our fault nobody else either cares or has what it takes to offer a similar product at a cheaper price. Er, or at all

Of course you don't have to pay the 200$ for one game it but then its "Go back to 1996 and play Close Combat" for you.

Fortunately we don't charge $200 for "one" game Though there's nothing stopping us doing that if we wanted to. Years and years ago Steel Beasts went to Steel Beasts Pro at $120 or so pricetag. That was one way to approach the "big costs, small audience" problem facing the sim world. Fortunately for you guys, we don't think that's the right business model for us.

BF thanks for the blow-by-blow response on my post. As i have no insight in your company operations i have to trust your word that you're not just trying to cut your pie for as least number of people and that you're not sitting on a big pile of money while writing this. :-)

I wish it were otherwise. We've been busting our butts for this genre for most of our adult lives. Gone through some pretty lean times, some very good times too. But we simply have a good business to show for it. We're quite happy with that, despite some nOoB in primary school make an app that does something silly, like bark when you twist your iPad around, and winds up making a zillion bucks in 2 months, gets featured on CNN, and then goes out and buys an second hand island off of Ellison. Actually, it's kinda depressing sometimes to see what our talents could get us if we branched out a bit more. You're damned lucky none of us are motivated by money.

Steve

[kulik]

Again thanks for the reply.

Not our fault nobody else either cares or has what it takes to offer a similar product at a cheaper price. Er, or at all

I was just stating the state of affairs as they are i surely didn't wanted to imply that it's you who is holding that knife.

Fortunately we don't charge $200 for "one" game Though there's nothing stopping us doing that if we wanted to. Years and years ago Steel Beasts went to Steel Beasts Pro at $120 or so pricetag. That was one way to approach the "big costs, small audience" problem facing the sim world. Fortunately for you guys, we don't think that's the right business model for us.

That was a rough estimate for the upcoming eastern front game, 55$ base game with 4 modules each 35$. Didn't counted any upgrades as there is no official pricing for them.

I wish it were otherwise. We've been busting our butts for this genre for most of our adult lives. We've been busting our butts for this genre for most of our adult lives. Gone through some pretty lean times, some very good times too. But we simply have a good business to show for it. We're quite happy with that, despite some nOoB in primary school make an app that does something silly, like bark when you twist your iPad around, and winds up making a zillion bucks in 2 months, gets featured on CNN, and then goes out and buys an second hand island off of Ellison. Actually, it's kinda depressing sometimes to see what our talents could get us if we branched out a bit more. You're damned lucky none of us are motivated by money.

Steve

I think that most of us even if sometimes bitchy are really gratefull for the things you do and how you do them and most of the subtle hate is actually frustration that the game shapes in a different way that particular whiner is imagining his perfect game most of the time overreacting over flaws and lack of features thinking it will have more impact that way. ...in that way i percieve the "civilised" whiners with more respect as those brown-nosed fanboys.

You could of course go do something else but we're living in hard times and you have here a stable market, devoted customers and not a sign of competition that could disseise you from your position and if you can make a living out of it anyhing other seems quite risky.

[nachinus]

Regarding the knife in the neck: there IS competition, actually.

Matrixgames published Panzer Command: Ostfront by blackhand studios. Very comprehesive and ambitious in its focus, quite lacking in the visuals, but still a valid game apparently (I haven't played it). It is currently on sale in matrixgames website for 18 bucks. I may give it a try.

Graviteam, developer of a damn fine ww2 tank simulator, made a jump into the tactical simulation genre with the Achtung Panzer series, which is currently in its second iteration. I have the first one (Khrakov) and I'll eventualy buy the second (Operation Star plus DLC campaings) when it gets a discount. I really liked the first one, and I'd recomend it to any Combat Mission player used to real time. I didn't like the interface, and the way commands work is not very intuitive, so it's not easy to get into. But its a fine game specially if you're into the Eastern Front.

Still, I find Combat Mission x2 series much more rewarding. I found the command system easy to understand (although I miss the simplicity and usefulness of Close Combat's Hide command for ambushes), the infantry side is important and works well (which is usually a problem in this genre), and the campaigns created for the release plus those made aferwards by the community are compelling, immersive and grant plenty of hours of gameplay. Sure, it may look dated compared with the modern engine of Achtung Panzer, with physics, post processing effects, non-squared tiled map with curves which continues to the horizon, hit decals in vehicles, whith tracks and other damage visual effects. This is evident. But the gameplay is unmatched, period.

[Ron]

Wow, that's a long thread for my video

To clarify one thing, it's not a review: I always post an impressions video while I am playing each new game I review, and in this case the video took an overly negative tone. The reason for this is that I felt most people who were going to watch the video were familiar with the CMx2 games (since they have been around for five years) and the general features, so I spent most of the time criticizing things I felt could/should have been improved since the inception of the new game engine in 2007; if I were to go back and re-record, I would spend more time highlighting the good aspects of the game (of which there are many) to balance out the criticism. As I will in my full written review.

Nothing like a shot of controversy to generate some interest it seems.

However, looking at some of your recent reviews I question your integrity. Your criticisms on things that *should* have have been improved in Combat Mission, such as relative cost, game improvements, content etc, didn't prevent you recently from praising another innovative wargame where an easier and better case could have been made for such points. Even going so far as saying the high cost, at 1.5 x CMFI, was justified, and yet it still rated an 8/8 from you. Price alone, that's quite the stretch from calling CMFI a $20 expansion pack.

It seems your goal posts can be a moving target, and a wide one at that.

[kulik]

Nachinus:Not really i said "tactical infantry focused wargaming" both games you mentioned seems panzer oriented.

[Rocky Balboa]

Nothing like a shot of controversy to generate some interest it seems.

However, looking at some of your recent reviews I question your integrity. Your criticisms on things that *should* have have been improved in Combat Mission, such as relative cost, game improvements, content etc, didn't prevent you recently from praising another innovative wargame where an easier and better case could have been made for such points. Even going so far as saying the high cost, at 1.5 x CMFI, was justified, and yet it still rated an 8/8 from you. Price alone, that's quite the stretch from calling CMFI a $20 expansion pack.

It seems your goal posts can be a moving target, and a wide one at that.

+1 ... All rounds on target ... Fire for effect ....

[nachinus]

Nachinus:Not really i said "tactical infantry focused wargaming" both games you mentioned seems panzer oriented.

Lots of infantry in AP:K as well. They have 'realistic' OOBs, so the infantry/panzergrenadier platoon is the most common unit. Not sure about the matrixgames one, I never played it.

[Battlefront.com]

I was just stating the state of affairs as they are i surely didn't wanted to imply that it's you who is holding that knife.

Yup, understood. Just saying that we also would like some more competition (see below). There is a reason the market isn't flooded with wargames and serious sims (flight, tank, etc.) like it is flooded with FPS, RTS, RPGs, MOOs, card games, time wasting games, etc. The costs are high, customer expectations are even higher. Market size small.

That was a rough estimate for the upcoming eastern front game, 55$ base game with 4 modules each 35$. Didn't counted any upgrades as there is no official pricing for them.

That's a "Family", not a "game". This isn't splitting hairs, it's just a factual difference. What is the minimum someone MUST spend to enjoy playing CMx2? $45-$55. How long can the player enjoy this experience? Indefinitely. Are there people that only purchase just the Base Game? absolutely? Are there some who pick and choose which Modules they purchase? Absolutely. Some buy everything. But the only common element is the $45-$55 base game.

Compare this with Steel Beasts Pro. The minimum is $100 and it goes up from there.

Two sub points... we never have, and probably never will, offer 4x Modules for a single Family.

Official pricing is $10. Announced a few weeks ago.

I think that most of us even if sometimes bitchy are really gratefull for the things you do and how you do them and most of the subtle hate is actually frustration that the game shapes in a different way that particular whiner is imagining his perfect game...

Oh, for sure. If we didn't understand that we would have moved onto something a long time ago. We fully understand that most of the whining and complaining is more a reflection of the character of the person whining and complaining, not a true reflection of their opinion of the game. Even the ones with very "overt hate" sill preorder everything we put out. If we took people like that at their word we'd be the ones in need of a talk with a psychiatrist.

You could of course go do something else but we're living in hard times and you have here a stable market, devoted customers and not a sign of competition that could disseise you from your position and if you can make a living out of it anyhing other seems quite risky.

We do enjoy being a big fish in a small pond and understand that swimming in the ocean is a scary thing. But that doesn't mean we couldn't swim in a lake instead of a pond.

Regarding the knife in the neck: there IS competition, actually.

There are other options for wargamers, including FPS and RTS games. With the economic environment the way it is we are in competition with food, mortgages, fuel costs, etc.

We define competition as a game that would make someone who would be predisposed to purchase Combat Mission NOT buy Combat Mission in favor of something else. Not because of limited money or time, but because the other game offers a comparable/better game experience.

The other games you mentioned are certainly closer to the mark of competition than food or Meddle of Honor, no doubt, but we still think of them as not being direct competition. And you summed it up quite well...

Sure, it may look dated compared with the modern engine of Achtung Panzer, with physics, post processing effects, non-squared tiled map with curves which continues to the horizon, hit decals in vehicles, whith tracks and other damage visual effects. This is evident. But the gameplay is unmatched, period.

The day someone challenges us on the gameplay, that is the day we'll have real competition to contend with.

It seems your goal posts can be a moving target, and a wide one at that.

People do pick up on this. Which is why reviewers need to be consistent, even if it is consistently negative or consistently positive. Guessing which way the wind was blowing when the review was made isn't something readers like to do.

Steve

[kulik]

That's a "Family", not a "game". This isn't splitting hairs, it's just a factual difference. What is the minimum someone MUST spend to enjoy playing CMx2? $45-$55. How long can the player enjoy this experience? Indefinitely. Are there people that only purchase just the Base Game? absolutely? Are there some who pick and choose which Modules they purchase? Absolutely. Some buy everything. But the only common element is the $45-$55 base game.

Wait, so Eastern front is a family and these are games:

Bagration (Summer 1944 - Spring 1945)

Kursk (Summer 1943 - Spring 1944)

Case Blue (Summer 1942 - Spring 1943)

Barbarossa (Summer 1941 - Spring 1942)

and each of these will have separate modules (let's say each three modules)?

That would make it 4x55$+4x3x35= 640$ for someone who would want to enjoy the whole eastern front?

[Sirocco]

That's actually a reasonable review. With the caveat of a few mistakes and a rushed run through of a scenario.

The response to it is a common one when a less than glowing review is posted on the developers forum. Of course most posters here are very familiar with all the quirks etc. of the game engine, so issues highlighted are insignificant to them.

The underlying complaint is that the game engine hasn't moved on as much as it should have. While noting the reduced resources available the evolution of the engine is sluggish. For example, tool tips. The experienced CMx2 player might scoff at that, but for newcomers the interface is nt exactly optimal. I know, it's due to be overhauled, at some point further down the track, once we've bought all these titles in the meantime.

Personally, I haven't fired up CMBN for a very long time. It just feels too much like work. So much of the instant feedback from CMx1 has been removed. Now you have to go searching for information which used to be right there.

When CMSF was released we were told to "get used to it". That didn't make it less cumbersome. Whereas CMx1 was a joy to fire up and get into a battle, CMx2 is much more irksome.

It really would be terrific if instead of the really defensive tone there could be more of an open minded attitude to issues that really are a problem, whether the more experienced player would like to ackowledge it or not. A great many of the issues raised in the video would really help the CM series if they were dealt with, and dealt with in a more timely manner. And again, with all due respects to resources, comprehensive tool tips, as an extreme example, are not a huge drain on resources.