Metacritic reviews

[lordhedgwich]

I was looking on metacritic and i noticed all the cmx2 combat missions have pretty bad user reviews.. I just cant believe that people can think these games are bad. Or that "they are rts click fest" I think combat mission cmbn and fi are some of the most realalistic and fun game i have ever played. Some of the reviewers said that the new ones dont even come close to being as good as the old ones and i was wondering what your guys thoughts were on the matter

[SpeakEasy]

CMx2 = the only games I play. I think they're the best games out on the market for what I enjoy.

I think that this thread will get overwhelmingly positive reviews being as how you posted it on the battlefront forum. People wouldn't be on this forum if they did not enjoy the game.

[AstroCat]

Yeah... metacritic is a venting platform and the CM games are very much a niche so harshness is kind of to be expected. Look I too have my gripes and complaints about the CM games (graphics engine for one), but they will always have a special place in my gaming hobby scene no matter what other games I have going on. Other games come and go but CM is always there doing it's awesome funky thing.

Oh and I quickly tried to give a few reviews to try and balance things out a bit, most were just ratings and a couple written ones.

[Fuser]

Who cares what others may "think" about something you actually love,..

[Oddball_E8]

It's because people like this go there to vote:

People who have no concept of what a real strategy/tactical game is and think that Company of Heroes is a "heavy strategy game with deep layers of tactics"...

Basically the casual gamers (a term I usually hate to use, but I will in this case) who just want to play an easy game that lasts no more than 10 hours and holds their hands all the way from start to finish.

[Childress]

There's also a small but very proactive group of CM haters who go around sites like this just to poison the well. It's a curious phenomenon in the gaming business- to put it mildly.

[Fuser]

Very true Childress, CmBB frustrated, "stuck in the past" players abound,...

[Karabekian]

Youtube comment: "Simulation games, like Combat Mission generally gather the most intelligent, polite, and friendly gamers that exist.". Enough for me to keep reading this forum. And buy the games.

[altipueri]

The truth sometimes hurts.

CMx2 is more of a simulation and less of a game than CMx1.

I play both, plus Hearts of Iron, and AGeod games, often at the same time. In fact, even while posting this Canada has invaded Denmark trying to mess up my fourth Reich in HOI3 playing on my other PC as we speak. Well actually one of several PCs. You can't rule the world with just one PC these days you know.

[simmox]

the only negative comment ,if you can call it that,i sort of agree with is the outdated graphics.

of course it doesnt stop me playing at all,i mean,what else is there that even comes close.

i see our old mate is the first to write up a longwinded rant about poor ol BFC.still funny after all these years.some people just cant let go,man:)

[Redwolf]

Well one thing is for sure. Criticism here is never evaluated to see whether it has a point or not.

That's fine for you above who doesn't play anything else anyway. But CMx2 can come quite a bit as a shock to more general gamers and it's not "realism".

[JonS]

Well one thing is for sure: ...

... folk with a chips on their shoulders and axes to grind can always be relied on for hilariously wrongheaded furphies.

[db_zero]

Meh...the only critic that matters is me. If I like something thats good enough for me.

If you really want to start a war go on a gun forum and bring up the AK47 vs M16 or 45 ACP vs. 9mm debate. Now that I think about it I'll see if Metacritic rates it.

[The Steppenwulf]

]People who have no concept of what a real strategy/tactical game is and think that Company of Heroes is a "heavy strategy game with deep layers of tactics"...

Basically the casual gamers (a term I usually hate to use, but I will in this case) who just want to play an easy game that lasts no more than 10 hours and holds their hands all the way from start to finish.

*Cough, cough* - Don't get me wrong, I'd personally take CM over CoH anyday, but there's no doubting that CoH is indeed a very heavy strategy game with deep tactical layers. Moreover as a multplayer game (which CM isn't), it's easy to make an argument that it is tactically richer than CM because cooperative play adds so many more possibilities.

Thus, I think you are wrong on this count. However, the actual difference is that CM tries to present a tactically realistic computer wargame. CoH doesn't come close in that respect and naturally you would be quite correct to claim that legions of gamers out there lack a refined sense of discretion to be in any position to understand the difference. Neverthless, there are no doubt some that are aware of the difference but simply prefer the pacier and more 'exciting' gamplay that CoH offers.

'Computer wargames' do not have to be defined by the critera us 'grognards' might apply to the genre.

[lordhedgwich]

*Cough, cough* - Don't get me wrong, I'd personally take CM over CoH anyday, but there's no doubting that CoH is indeed a very heavy strategy game with deep tactical layers. Moreover as a multplayer game (which CM isn't), it's easy to make an argument that it is tactically richer than CM because cooperative play adds so many more possibilities.

Thus, I think you are wrong on this count. However, the actual difference is that CM tries to present a tactically realistic computer wargame. CoH doesn't come close in that respect and naturally you would be quite correct to claim that legions of gamers out there lack a refined sense of discretion to be in any position to understand the difference. Neverthless, there are no doubt some that are aware of the difference but simply prefer the pacier and more 'exciting' gamplay that CoH offers.

'Computer wargames' do not have to be defined by the critera us 'grognards' might apply to the genre.

Company of heroes really doesnt have any tactics is blob on blob and the most firepower wins, but i will agree their mp system crushes CM the whole no server browser and 1v1 things is dreadful. Also CMs graphics arnt terrible i mean some thing totally look like crap but the people and vehicles are amazing looking. I started playing CM late 2012 so im very late to the party but The things i saw in the game blew me away so i spent almost 50-60 hours on the demos alone learning how to play and watching hours of youtube videos and reading on the forums. Then i bought the game. Its not the only game i play i go on and off with it, but it is one of my fav games. I have put many hours into it and love it.

[Peregrine]

This has game has a fully playable demo. By far the best tool for evaluating purchases.

[The Steppenwulf]

Company of heroes really doesnt have any tactics is blob on blob and the most firepower wins,

Greater firepower is a principle of warfare so this make no real sense. But anyhow cover is represented and is scaled. Additionally, there is separation between HE munitions and AP - thus the 'paper and scissors' defintion you are painting simply isn't particularly helpful in the sense that is no more a feature of CoH than any other game and that applies exactly the same to CM and in RL.

[hobo]

From my perspective CM2 is a great if not best simulation ever, requires lots of thought to play it well, and can be very satisfying. It is not a lot of fun. The modern version of chess. I always thought the problem was lack of immersion that could be fixed with a good campaign system. However, my thinking has evolved as getting through a mid-sized game now takes hours of play which takes me over a week of real time. A good operational level campaign would take months if not years to complete. No longer so sure of the answer (though I still want a campaign). The graphics are more than good enough for me so I would not invest there. hmmm.

Even so, I will buy every game (I mean sim) that they produce.

[Destraex1]

I think you will find that the problem here is that not many who play this game are really gamers at all. I have noticed as per earlier in this thread that "this is the only game I play" is fairly typical of this crowd in general.

That is simply because it does not have the features that would make gamers that are realism nuts play it. That is a fully fleshed out suite of real time features and better performance on beastly machines. Plus perhaps at least for me the ability to coop.

Key combinations that are more standard. For instance ESC does not work for going back menus. All of that sort of thing.

This game is more niche because of that than it needs to be.

The game pretty much has everything I ever wanted in a tactical wargame. It just lacks performance and some real time trimmings.

P.S. But after all of this it could use a strat map

Seems about right to me without reading many of the comments... this game is not perfect, especially if seasoned gamers\wargamers are comparing it to other industry standards.

Judging by the reactions I am getting from some of the ww2 nuts I know and trying to get them to play. The game needs coop and optimisation before they will consider it.

In addition to this I actually recognise a fair few of the names from a number of sites commenting!

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy

[Childress]

So, tell us.... how you really feel about Real Time, Destraex1?

[Kenzie]

Interesting how Shock Force has such a low score on there.

I wonder how common it is for people to buy CM thinking it was like CoH or something and then regretting their purchase. The trailer for Fortress Italy makes it seem like pretty fast-paced action, yet the game is such an enormous time sink for me. If I want to get the most out of these games I can't play them in real time, and I'll end up spending like two hours on just one turn. It's like a long-term commitment to play these games, so I can see why so many don't like them.

Has anyone else here played Project Reality? It kinda reminds me of CM. Watching the

makes it seem pretty actioney, and it's a mod for Battlefield 2, a ridiculous fast-paced action game. When you actually try Project Reality though, it's a fairly hardcore wargame and it's an enormous time sink like CM. It could be an hour before I even get to the fighting, and when I do I can't quit because of all that time I've invested already and my squad is counting on me at the critical moment of the battle. Both CM and PR can actually be exhausting to play, and sometimes I don't want to play them because if I do, I'll probably be playing it all night and not get anything done. I can see why it's such a niche market.

[Redwolf]

... folk with a chips on their shoulders and axes to grind can always be relied on for hilariously wrongheaded furphies.

Then why can't you bring the review scores up?

[db_zero]

Shock Force when it first came out was a buggy mess so that may contribute to its score. The CM/SF series really shines in h2h and that may be a problem for Shock Force. Its not really fun to be the Syrians/Jihadis. They are really outclassed in so many way by the American/British/German forces. The complexity is also probably greater due to the advanced weaponry. What can be seen can be killed-and at great distance.

I haven't tried Shock Force h2h, but maybe I will. We'll have to see how Black Sea or whatever it is will turn out. Personally I'd like to see Korea done, but its probably not sexy enough to do. A Viet-Nam module would also be interesting.

It also appears most players h2h and otherwise are in North America and Europe. Its easier to find those who are willing and enthusiastic to play the German in WW2 than it is to play the Syrians/Jihadis in a modern game like SF.

As for CM vs Company of Hereos. I have both. I played the first CoH on to death. The Eastern Front on I've hardly touched. Its nothing against the second CoH, but I find h2h Combat Mission more challenging and entertaining. I've played CoH online and I found it to be nothing but a bunch of what seemed to be adolescent boys doing constant tank rushes and telling you how much you sucked because you don't click the mouse quickly enough and pump out units fast enough and do massive tank/infantry rushes fast enough. I just saw it as WW2 version of Starcraft.

I'd like to see Combat Mission have a h2h campaign. I will stop playing Combat Mission if I ever see life bars and the ability to plop down barracks and factories and start pumping out tanks and infantry like CoH.

One thing I really like about Combat Mission is the PBEM H2H system, I can play, put out a turn and then go to work or live a life. When I'm ready I can have a queue of turns to play and do them at my leisure. I don't have to dedicate a block of time to play. I don't really see the WEGO as completely unrealistic either. In real combat you can't just order units to do something and then change them on a dime and expect it to happen. There is a lot of friction, confusion and chaos.

[Destraex1]

So, tell us.... how you really feel about Real Time, Destraex1?

lol. No way. You don't want me to let loose.

[Kenzie]

Shock Force when it first came out was a buggy mess so that may contribute to its score. The CM/SF series really shines in h2h and that may be a problem for Shock Force. Its not really fun to be the Syrians/Jihadis. They are really outclassed in so many way by the American/British/German forces. The complexity is also probably greater due to the advanced weaponry. What can be seen can be killed-and at great distance.

I like to play as the Syrians/Jihadis. I guess that's why I liked Shock Force. I like the setting and can't wait till they return to it again.

Also, your post reminds me that I've still never really played CM H2H before. I've never played it with CMx2 at least. Now that I think of it, I vaguely remember playing a couple hotseat CMx1 games with my brother ages ago. I've never had anyone else to play with...

...anyone looking for an opponent by chance?