Metacritic reviews

[Destraex1]

Yes, but if they hadn't purchased all the products people would say "Oh, you haven't even bought it so you don't know what you're talking about" etc.

And, by the way - re another post above, what's a "furphie" ?

Is that an Americanism?

Well Grandad,..........

A furphie is a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable story. It's like getting information at a "water cooler" or "erroneous unofficial scuttlebutt".

So in Australia (I'm an Aussie) telling a few furphies is like spreading false rumours to get your way or worm your way in somewhere. Often thought of like harmless white lies and joked about.

A common usage would be "You must have told a few furphies to get that good job eh" as a sort of friendly teasing jibe.

Or perhaps a child telling "furphies" to his dad to get out of trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy

[Mord]

Vai että ystävällinen foorumi, hah. Täällä foorumilla löytyy niin paljon ylikasvaneita lapsia jotka saavat paskaraivarin jos joku edes vihjaa että heidän rakas pelisarjansa tai pelituottajansa eivät ole täydellisiä ja maailman parhaimpia.

+ = ?

Mord.

[sburke]

OMG an actual Mord sighting!

How goes it? Oh and nice imagery

[Michael Emrys]

Mord is getting stranger in his dotage.

Michael

[Other Means]

CM is a brilliant concept wrapped in a terrible interface.

We put up with the interface to get to the engine but if you don't know that engine is there, or don't appreciate what you're seeing, then it looks worse than most freeware games you'd get on an iPad because the information you need to understand what's going on is obscured.

Unfortunately there's a large proportion of the BFC fanbase that wants the game to present exactly what you'd see if you were in a balloon above the battle* and, as Steve is of a similar mind but not quite so fundamentalist, what we get is a completely unapproachable for the vast - and I mean at least 90% - number of potential players.

The marks it gets set against the devotion of its acolytes proves this - once you've struggled through to a H2H game, and have developed the habits and knowledge you need then it's amazing.

Before then...not so much. In other words, if you don't know what's going on in the game it's no fun playing it.

Tactical wargames have always been niche. Personally I reckon CM is good enough to appeal outside of that niche, but it's not getting the chance because of its iceberg nature, which is a damn shame.

*apart from the massive amount of AA tracer arcing towards you, natch.

[Michael Emrys]

...the information you need to understand what's going on is obscured.

Could you give some examples? What information that is needed to play is not available? And can we agree that being able to play does not automatically equate to being able to play well? It is well known that as the game presently exists the initial learning curve is dauntingly steep, and perhaps there are ways that that could and should be eased for new players. But I have the sense that you are talking about something more fundamental. Can you explain?

Michael

[lordhedgwich]

CM is a brilliant concept wrapped in a terrible interface.

We put up with the interface to get to the engine but if you don't know that engine is there, or don't appreciate what you're seeing, then it looks worse than most freeware games you'd get on an iPad because the information you need to understand what's going on is obscured.

Unfortunately there's a large proportion of the BFC fanbase that wants the game to present exactly what you'd see if you were in a balloon above the battle* and, as Steve is of a similar mind but not quite so fundamentalist, what we get is a completely unapproachable for the vast - and I mean at least 90% - number of potential players.

The marks it gets set against the devotion of its acolytes proves this - once you've struggled through to a H2H game, and have developed the habits and knowledge you need then it's amazing.

Before then...not so much. In other words, if you don't know what's going on in the game it's no fun playing it.

Tactical wargames have always been niche. Personally I reckon CM is good enough to appeal outside of that niche, but it's not getting the chance because of its iceberg nature, which is a damn shame.

*apart from the massive amount of AA tracer arcing towards you, natch.

I agree. I have shown CM to a 3-4 of my friends and they liked the idea behind the game and the detail but the main things that made them not want to buy are: Price lets face it CM is a bit on the exspensive side even CM Afghanistan is 35 dollars a game that old and with no addons or expansions is generally in the 10-15 dollar range by now. Another thing is the game not being on steam. Steam is so big and vast now that it seems odd to some to have a pc game and not put it on steam. And last thing was the amount of time they would have to spend trying to learn how to play

[AstroCat]

CM is a brilliant concept wrapped in a terrible interface.

We put up with the interface to get to the engine but if you don't know that engine is there, or don't appreciate what you're seeing, then it looks worse than most freeware games you'd get on an iPad because the information you need to understand what's going on is obscured.

Unfortunately there's a large proportion of the BFC fanbase that wants the game to present exactly what you'd see if you were in a balloon above the battle* and, as Steve is of a similar mind but not quite so fundamentalist, what we get is a completely unapproachable for the vast - and I mean at least 90% - number of potential players.

The marks it gets set against the devotion of its acolytes proves this - once you've struggled through to a H2H game, and have developed the habits and knowledge you need then it's amazing.

Before then...not so much. In other words, if you don't know what's going on in the game it's no fun playing it.

Tactical wargames have always been niche. Personally I reckon CM is good enough to appeal outside of that niche, but it's not getting the chance because of its iceberg nature, which is a damn shame.

*apart from the massive amount of AA tracer arcing towards you, natch.

I really do agree, it's so close with CMx2 but not there yet. It needs a major UI overhaul (this will help with immersion for many players), some serious in-game help for those who are not ww2/"genre" scholars and a big graphics engine "modernization". The core is amazing but it's still wrapped in a rather rough shell (comparatively speaking).

I am an absolute BF/CM supporter since CMBO and it feels like a tough love situation. Oh and I also totally agree Steam availability would really help CM's exposure.

[lordhedgwich]

I really do agree, it's so close with CMx2 but not there yet. It needs a major UI overhaul (this will help with immersion for many players), some serious in-game help for those who are not ww2/"genre" scholars and a big graphics engine "modernization". The core is amazing but it's still wrapped in a rather rough shell (comparatively speaking).

I am an absolute BF/CM supporter since CMBO and it feels like a tough love situation. Oh and I also totally agree Steam availability would really help CM's exposure.

yes I love CM If i had more money to spend on games i would buy all the CM games. But CM needs a server browser and new UI and STEAM! you just cant ignore steam in this day in age

[Other Means]

Could you give some examples? What information that is needed to play is not available? And can we agree that being able to play does not automatically equate to being able to play well? It is well known that as the game presently exists the initial learning curve is dauntingly steep, and perhaps there are ways that that could and should be eased for new players. But I have the sense that you are talking about something more fundamental. Can you explain?

Michael

The real fun of this game is that it's Kriegspiel - you've got to extrapolate the enemies plans from what you can see, BUT you don't see much. So what the player does see, needs to be explained for the noobs - otherwise, they won't get it and will move on.

We should expose, or abstract and expose, the underlying information that's powering the simulation, mostly by pop-up info under the cursor or by some kind of representative, attached icon. Stuff like:

• the firepower of the infantry formation selected
  
• the exposure of your men vs. enemies they can see
  
• the current morale state
  
• range of weapons - just the targeting line fading out is simple and gets the info over - a line from every man rather than the current composite one maybe?
  
• the penetration chance of a gun selected vs. armour under the mouse cursor
  
• the type of terrain going in to
  
• the path a unit is going to take - why can't we set a waypoint and have the suggested path drawn in real-time?
  
• the distance from, direction to and strength of command (command lines were brilliant for this)
  
• contextual spotting - "Tank Sargent!", "Enemy at 2 o'clock!"
  
• much, much more.
  

An awful lot of this stuff isn't present - it results from the physics in the engine. It was in CM1, the sim was powered from it, for CM2 (now) it's not there but for new users to understand how interesting it is, it will need to be approximated.

And can we agree that being able to play does not automatically equate to being able to play well?

Absolutely. I'm not talking about being able to pay well with this info, I'm talking about the user seeing that this stuff matters and that's what they're playing, not the muddy field with a few grey sound contacts that's in front of them, but a rich tactical layer that currently we know because we've played it enough to fill in the blanks.

That's what will give them the incentive to get better - because without knowing about this stuff it looks like a bad RTS game.

----

In addition to this, the game wrapper - menus, interface, etc. need some love. I'm picking stuff in a QB and even I know nowt about it. Again, the info is there but it has been low on the priority list for ever - so now we have to fight it to get to the game, again.

[JRMC1879]

When I come across a game I know nothing about Metacritic is one of the first places I check. Burying your head in the sand thinking it's irrelevant I think is doing CM and BF a disservice.

No matter how niche a game CM is BF is a business and needs to sell units. Plus expanding the player base is not a bad thing IMO.

-F

Its nothing to do with burying your head in the sand. Its whether what someone else thinks of something is the way you make your decisions - as much with films - I have seen a lot of garbage that others thought good and would have missed a lot of good if I took other peoples word for it is bad.

The simple fact is - whatever YOUR complaints about CM - or any of the others on metacritic - it still represents - for me - by a long country mile the single most value in any game I have ever bought. It is the one game that delivers an experience like no other and keeps me coming back time after time.

The point about other peoples opinion is that if I take the naysayers - I would have missed that - if I took the fanbois - I may have ended up with ****e - lucily I made my own mind up and hear I am.

[DavidFields]

The real fun of this game is that it's Kriegspiel - you've got to extrapolate the enemies plans from what you can see, BUT you don't see much. So what the player does see, needs to be explained for the noobs - otherwise, they won't get it and will move on.

We should expose, or abstract and expose, the underlying information that's powering the simulation, mostly by pop-up info under the cursor or by some kind of representative, attached icon. Stuff like:

• the firepower of the infantry formation selected
  
• the exposure of your men vs. enemies they can see
  
• the current morale state
  
• range of weapons - just the targeting line fading out is simple and gets the info over - a line from every man rather than the current composite one maybe?
  
• the penetration chance of a gun selected vs. armour under the mouse cursor
  
• the type of terrain going in to
  
• the path a unit is going to take - why can't we set a waypoint and have the suggested path drawn in real-time?
  
• the distance from, direction to and strength of command (command lines were brilliant for this)
  
• contextual spotting - "Tank Sargent!", "Enemy at 2 o'clock!"
  
• much, much more.
  

An awful lot of this stuff isn't present - it results from the physics in the engine. It was in CM1, the sim was powered from it, for CM2 (now) it's not there but for new users to understand how interesting it is, it will need to be approximated.

Absolutely. I'm not talking about being able to pay well with this info, I'm talking about the user seeing that this stuff matters and that's what they're playing, not the muddy field with a few grey sound contacts that's in front of them, but a rich tactical layer that currently we know because we've played it enough to fill in the blanks.

That's what will give them the incentive to get better - because without knowing about this stuff it looks like a bad RTS game.

----

In addition to this, the game wrapper - menus, interface, etc. need some love. I'm picking stuff in a QB and even I know nowt about it. Again, the info is there but it has been low on the priority list for ever - so now we have to fight it to get to the game, again.

Whether one agrees with this or not, it is, in my opinion a very intelligent critique.

I buy every module. Personally, the price is a non-issue to me. We are talking about pennies per hour of enjoyment.

The question is, how do we get the Assault Wave people into CM2?

Or not?

That game looks so ludicrous to me that maybe there is no bridging the gap. In which case, bravo for Battlefront reaching out to a demographic which can support the company.

The issue I have is that I think the gap could be bridged, but I don't see much effort to bridge it. But, willing to be shown wrong, show me wrong.

Is BFC, with CM2/3 going to target a certain demographic--former AH players, CM1 fans, and former military--and will that be enough (to get us to 1941 Russia ) ?

(I realize that "firepower" is not easy to calculate in CM1 terms, but there could be an approximation. And I really miss the armor penetration information. Will a 37.5mm gun on a certain Allied armor car probably penetrate the side of a PzIV, with the understanding that angle matters? -- important stuff, that the troops on the field likely knew.)

Perhaps there is a fee to be on Steam, which is too much for such a small game?

[Fenris]

The review score on a game's home page on Steam comes straight from Metacritic. So whether you like it or not it is a tool used by a lot of people to judge a product. The sites popularity is indicative of the influence what's written there has. Whether that's the way it should be or whether people should put stock in the comments posted there etc is moot. It's the way it currently is and if you care about CM it would be good to get on there and post it's praises.

IIRC BF has already said they wouldn't do Steam anyway.

-F

[altipueri]

No Steam no, please.

[Zenomorph]

I've played rts games with my nephews (Supreme Commander-type games) and they can be fun for what they are but it's strange to me that game after game in the rts genre are just variations on a theme. They might have fun unit types and/or great graphics but you're so busy pointing and clicking you don't have time to enjoy any of it.

It stuns me that in all these years no one's created a single game that marries the rts genre with a game like CMBN. It seems a massive hole in the market that's just been sitting there for years. Strangely enough my 17-yr-old nephews and their buddies agree. I've seen some of the boards for rts games where people ask if there's any way to turn them into a turn-based option because they'd like to, ya know, focus on actual tactics other than pointing and clicking. They're shouted down! People ask, "what's the fun in turn based?". That's bizarre to me. That's like asking what's the fun in chess. If you took chess (or even better: CMBN) and threw in some fun sci-fi type units I'm of the firm belief you'd have a mega-hit.

OK, I'm ranting. Haha. I don't get much free time and I love CMBN. But I kinda like my nephews too and just so wish there were a game we could both enjoy.

[Zenomorph]

Ugh. Should've thrown in on my above post that I started on the rts theme bc it annoys the bejeez out of me that the rts games often get rated so highly by the critics. The critics seem to love and adore high-end graphics more than actual game play. Gamespot shouldn't be called "Gamespot", it should be called "CoolGraphicsSpot".

[JonS]

Wee bit harsh Jon, wee bit harsh......

Perhaps, but only a wee bit.

[Michael Emrys]

The question is, how do we get the Assault Wave people into CM2?

IMHO the first question is, "Do we want to?" Don't misunderstand me, I don't begrudge BFC a single sale. But you know, sometimes inviting everybody in the county to the party just makes the party not worth attending. I have sad memories of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. It seemed like every runaway teenager in the country—and there were thousands—showed up expecting to be fed, housed, kept high, and entertained...all for free. It was a demographic disaster. Most of the people who had made the Haight-Ashbury a fascinating place pulled out and left for other parts. Sometimes "the more" is not "the merrier".

I think the present system works just fine. The people who will actually enjoy this game sooner or later learn about it, and it seems that a lot of them hear of it from friends whose judgement they trust, or at least are familiar with. This seems to work damn well. Could BFC profit from getting the word out a little more broadly? Well, maybe. But Steve has already commented on this and for the present it doesn't seem like a strategy that has worked all that well for them.

Bottom line: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Michael

[sburke]

Bottom line: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Michael

Bingo - BF seems to be financially healthy. Sales don't seem to be their issue, keeping up with demand might be.

[poesel]

• range of weapons - just the targeting line fading out is simple and gets the info over - a line from every man rather than the current composite one maybe?

That is IMHO quite a good idea - both of them.

Fading out the target line or simply cutting it off is an totally intuitive way of showing that you are at max range.

A line from every man sounds good but I'm not sure if it would work graphically. You would need to have much smaller lines and adapt that to number of men in the squad. Then you would somehow need to distinguish at least the different types of weapons (maybe colour coded?) so that its is clear that you are at the max range of the rifle but not the mortar for instance.

That would also be a neat solution for the 'second loader can see the target but gunner can't'-problem we have.

Hmm, the longer I think about the more I like it.

Now if you have one of those 20-men Italian squads and have LOS to an enemy you never know if more than 1 man can actually see them.

Good idea, Other Means!

[Other Means]

Bottom line: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Michael

Yeah, after all this approach has worked so well for so many industries. That's why British shipbuilding, American auto manufacturing and the PC industry bestride the world.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off out to hunt. The wife managed to find some tubers but we're all still on the edge of starvation and I need to run down an antelope.

[Ron]

We should expose, or abstract and expose, the underlying information that's powering the simulation, mostly by pop-up info under the cursor or by some kind of representative, attached icon. Stuff like...

I don't think this is that intelligent at all. You do realize I hope that many of the things you listed are diametrically opposed to the design intent of Combat Mission from the very beginning, yes even the first iteration whether some of that stuff was present or not? Agree or disagree, it's not that hard to see the path taken. That was why it was and is such a revolution for most.

My take - Whatever happened to learning by doing? Seriously. Is it BFC's fault that a generation has an attention span of 45s and can't be bothered? No, it's their loss and I don't just mean CM.

[c3k]

How much of that would be accomplished using the lowest difficulty setting?

[LongLeftFlank]

IMHO the first question is, "Do we want to?" Don't misunderstand me, I don't begrudge BFC a single sale. But you know, sometimes inviting everybody in the county to the party just makes the party not worth attending. I have sad memories of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. It seemed like every runaway teenager in the country—and there were thousands—showed up expecting to be fed, housed, kept high, and entertained...all for free. It was a demographic disaster. Most of the people who had made the Haight-Ashbury a fascinating place pulled out and left for other parts. Sometimes "the more" is not "the merrier".

Michael

And now Lou Reed is gone....

I was 5 during the Summer of Love, but knew a guy who claimed to have steered an aircraft carrier out the Golden Gate....tripping on acid.

[Other Means]

I don't think this is that intelligent at all. You do realize I hope that many of the things you listed are diametrically opposed to the design intent of Combat Mission from the very beginning, yes even the first iteration whether some of that stuff was present or not? Agree or disagree, it's not that hard to see the path taken. That was why it was and is such a revolution for most.

My take - Whatever happened to learning by doing? Seriously. Is it BFC's fault that a generation has an attention span of 45s and can't be bothered? No, it's their loss and I don't just mean CM.

It's not. The intent of CM is the make the best company-level combined arms tactical simulator, as stated multiple times by Steve.

There may be a wish to not present the information I've talked about but it's not the underlying aim of the product.

Plus this information not being there by the real-life nature of the sim means it would take resources to abstract and display.

Saying you shouldn't create a product that's approachable because look at these damn kids with their zero attention spans and their hippety-hoppedy-get-off-my-lawn helps no one. CM creates it's own world but has to exist in the real one and to do that successfully - meaning there's more resources to improve it further - we need to show what's great about it.

Otherwise, you get Metacritic scores like we have now and a small (shrinking? I don't know) population of players, simply because the joy of the game can't be grasped without playing it for a while.

I only played through my initial "meh" of BB because of my interest in WWII history and the sparkling reviews. BN et al doesn't have the latter of those drivers so is leaving a lot of players behind.