coe Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 http://gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,0-4442,00.html?st.gc.fe.rl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 *Trying to control raging CM fanaticism* 7 out of 10 seems a little low, considering the text of the review was very positive. Their only gripe seems to be the graphics (and they're not very critical) and the lack of TCP/IP. They finish the piece with this: "A big drawback, however, is that there isn't a live multiplayer option. The game supports play by email, and Battlefront.com claims that a TCP/IP update is in the works, but for now Combat Missioners will have to be satisfied playing their motherboard." Playing the motherboard? What about the email support you mentioned earlier IN THE SAME SENTENCE?? TCP/IP will be cool, but in a turn-based game how important is "live multiplayer?" ------------------ "You know our standing orders. Out of ammo become a bunker, out of commission become a pillbox, out of time... become heroes." - The Beast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Game center sucks. Thats the last site I go to for reviews. They compare everything to quake, half life and diablo. ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 I think that this review is actually an older one, and has been roundly criticized by folk on this board. Put it in perspective - CM's received an absolute ton of glowing reviews. One mediocre one isn't going to spoil the party. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Ok, it's been found and criticised before. basically here's all you need to know. 1. Reviewer criticises CM for poor graphics. 2. Reviewer admits playing CM on a Pentium I 166 ( A pentium ONE for f**k's sake) with a 4 MB graphics card. Of COURSE he thinks the graphics look ****. He's virtually playing it in software mode on the oldest computer CM can possibly be played on. THEN he has the temerity to complain the graphics aren't so hot? Gees, if he played Unreal Tournament the graphics'd suck too but it's not UT's fault. It is his fault for not upgrading during the past decade. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 I, and others, emailed the editor and he very kindly came on the board to explain his rationale. He also kindly responded to my email. For that I applaud him. He's WRONG of course Witness the PILE of awards you see every time you come to this board. That review is the exception that proves the rule. And the rule is that CM is one of the most honored and well received games ever. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWolfTrevize Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 Blech - Gamecenter blows. They rated Planescape: Torment an "8". Later, they give it RPG of the year. They rate Icewind Dale an "8", Diablo II an "8"...huh? Their reviews often make NO sense. CM is the best wargame I'VE ever played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts