kump Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 (addition - put in url to review) http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,0-4442,00.html Okay, noted that the reviewer at Gamecenter reviewed and rated CM a 7. Didn't say bad things, and was actually a pretty pleasant review. But wait, I've seen that reviewer's name before...yes, this is it. Aghhhh... Mark H. Walker. Mark H. Walker, reviewed Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge for Gamecenter in December of 1999 and gave it a rating of 9 and an Editor's Choice award! And this wasn't the first CC to get a 9 and Editor's Choice award. Okay, I won't say it was a tainted review. But lets just look at the "Strategy and War" games that got higher ratings than CM during the year 2000 only, just for perspective... Earth 2150 Ground Control (Award) Shogun SimCity 3000 Imperium Galactica II Allegiance (Award) Risk II Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim SimTheme Park Rising Sun (Award) Battlezone II 12 O'Clock High: Bombing the Reich and a couple from December... Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge (Award) Age of Wonders And those strategy titles that rated equal to CM? Star Trek: Armada Campaign 1776: The American Revolution Tzar: The Burden of the Crown Armies of Armageddon: WDK 2K Hmmm... Maybe I'm just a CM zombie and have lost my perspective. Maybe reviewers need to spend more time with titles too. Oh, and look at those screen shots of CM in the review. See the interface at the bottom of the screen? Ever see it that crunched up before? Means low resolution setting. Graphics not good enough huh? Got a suggestion to improve it, I do. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Very interesting Kump ... wonder if it would do any good if he were to get a few emails from strictly unbiased individuals with a contrasting point of view I mean only pleasant, adult emails, but with our history of campaigning, surely we could make them look again? Anyone got the URL handy? Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsinO Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Well, lets stop ranting here and ranting on those emails! Then kindly type in Mark H. Walker's email address and press SEND! Im sure hell have a change of heart if all of us give him a piece of our minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 From the review at http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,0-4442,00.html you can click on Mark Walker's name, but you will get what I believe is one of the editor's emails: glennr@cnet.com I've already sent an email, first addressing to Gamecenter, next to Mr. Walker. Get emailing folks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsinO Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Just emailed him - C'mon everyone get in the act, we haveto change that score! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Is it just me? This guys graphics seem bad in his screen shots. They seem way to bright. Also, in one of his screen shots you can see the "square" smoke. Someone needs to tell him to check his computers graphics before he passes judgement. In a nice way of course. I would do so. But my skills with spelling and the written word are very sub-par. Lorak ------------------ "someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati * http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 Okay, the email I gave is to the senior editor. Alright you CM fanatics, start firing... Glenn Rubenstein, Senior Editor Assigns and edits Gamecenter's computer game reviews glennr@cnet.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Let's just give it a break for once. What he said in the review was very positive and the only downpoints he mentioned were the lack of TCP/IP support and "Not up to par 3d Graphics". We can't go around like a bunch of raving lunatics (yelling at everyone who doesn't give Combat Mission a perfect score) and still expect to see respect from the wargaming community. Let the guy have his opinion for god's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 I don't know about the rest of you, but Gamecenter has NEVER been a real credible source for reviews on grog wargames. I am not sure those mainstreamers even now what a grognard is. They are ok in grading quake and the like but I'll stick to grog reviews on grog games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 I have to concur on Pillar with this. One thing to be mindful of, folks, is that Mark Walker is one of those reviewers that puts a lot of stake in graphics, even for historical wargames that have traditionally lagged on this behind most other computer/video game genres. He raked PzC Normandy '44 over the coals mainly over the graphics issue. And I don't expect that Mark is going to change his score based on gripes from us. That would force him to admit on his part a questionable review "skew", and he just ain't gonna eat crow in such a way. I just simply give little credence to Mark as a wargame reviewer as I would grant more instead to others like Bruce Geryk, Joe Kussey, or Greg Kasavin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 Pillar As originally posted, the review was acknowledged as saying some nice things. Its only the rating when compared to past reviewed Gamecenter strategy titles that comes into question, at least for some of us CM zombies. You are right, its only an opinion. But the single one man reviewer's opinion does not have to be the last word accepted. That is what feedback is all about. Gamecenter does read feedback on reviews. It helps the editor to decide who reviews what in the future. I can object to a review and have done just that, but it doesn't make me a lunatic, thank you very much. I can also wave a flag for other players to point out my objection, and if they agree, they can object too. Now they may be a bunch lunatics, I can't tell. Lets keep it in perspective, shall we? On both sides of the issue. I agree, don't go on Jihads, but don't sit idly by if something occurs that you object to and have a legal and politically correct way of voicing your opinion. The opposite is just to accept everything you read and keep your mouth shut. Sorry, I have a big mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 Spook, EXACTLY, and that is why a response to the senior editor who assigns who rates what may tend to keep Mark Walker off future wargaming titles and into FPS and RTS titles where he may feel more comfortable. Just an opinion... PS: Believe it or not, Gamecenter does want to review objectively and accurately as much as possible. Responses to reviews do count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In regards to the Combat Mission review... The next time you guys review a wargame, please try to get a wargamer to do the review. I am sure no RTS fan would give a damn about my opinion of the latest twitch game...so why does the reverse not apply?? At least get someone that has a decent PC. It is obvious from the screen shots that the PC used was close to the MINIMUM required to run the game...and considering the reviewer mentioned the sub-par graphics (compared to what other wargame btw) this is unforgivable. Lastly, TCP/IP will be released within 30-45 days. This is a fact. I have never seen customer service from a game company the likes of which I see EVERY day on the Battlefront web site. It is obviouls that the reviewer did not know the game, the genera or the company that produced it. Bottom line: this is a poor review. Don't believe me? Wait and see how many other magazines and sites give this game the wargame of the year award for 2000. You will eat your words on this one I guarantee it. Regretfully, R. Scott Clinton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, its the best I could do. Its late. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Hehe, Kump, take it easy pal. "Lunatics" was just an expression, I'm not insulting your mental stability. Sheesh, I like Combat Mission too man. Anyone has the freedom to disagree with a review. However, I don't think we should start trying to "rally the forum" and get everyone emailing on this. That's where I draw the line. "Get emailing folks" - kump "Alright you CM fanatics, start firing..." - kump "Just emailed him - C'mon everyone get in the act, we haveto change that score!" - OsinO Like I said in my previous post, if you "have a big mouth" and absolutely have to use it, don't expect to recieve much respect from others. "The right to an opinion" entails a right to each person. I'm not going to bug you, do what you will. My post was more directed at others reading the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Well, if e-mails are to be directed to Gamecenter instead of Mark Walker, I think that Scott Clinton's letter, provided as a copy above, is succinct and to the point. After checking on the Gamercenter review myself, I hadn't realized earlier that Mark Walker was playing CM on a P5-166. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 Pillar, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe, Kump, take it easy pal. "Lunatics" was just an expression, I'm not insulting your mental stability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh good. I thought you really knew me or something and I don't recall seeing you at the ward. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sheesh, I like Combat Mission too man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whew. That's good, cause I didn't want to kill you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone has the freedom to disagree with a review. However, I don't think we should start trying to "rally the forum" and get everyone emailing on this. That's where I draw the line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I see! Rallying is bad? Okay, I'm of a different opinion. Forums are where like minded folks visit and I assumed other like minded readers may agree with my assessment. However, everyone can make up their own minds and ignore any calls to rally. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Get emailing folks" - kump "Alright you CM fanatics, start firing..." - kump<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Those are beautiful quotes man, where did you get them? Brings tears to my eyes. The person being quoted is a pure genius with words, but probably a lunatic if you ask me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Just emailed him - C'mon everyone get in the act, we haveto change that score!" - OsinO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, now that quote I can agree with. Okay, can't change scores, but can make noise. But agree, jihads are bad. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like I said in my previous post, if you "have a big mouth" and absolutely have to use it, don't expect to recieve much respect from others. "The right to an opinion" entails a right to each person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, now we big mouth folks who use it have no respect? I knew it! I have always said I get no respect. My pearl back, voicing a complaint about people voicing complaints will lead to further complaints. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not going to bug you, do what you will. My post was more directed at others reading the thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh no! Too late! Understood your points. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Teg Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 After reading/rereading it, I don't believe it was fairly reviewed. To me the review seems rushed and uninformed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The bad: No TCP/IP support; 3D graphics aren't quite up to par<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>. If indeed the reviewer prizes graphical representation, he should have a system capable of running the game properly. Look at the screen shots. They look horrible. Obviously, he's running in a low resolution with a voodoo 2 (square smoke). This surely can't be fair to Combat Mission to display subpar screenshots because of a subpar system and then, claim the graphics are less than average which is ludicrous for a game of CM's scale. As for multi-player, the TCP/IP patch is a fact. I don't think he knows that there was a vote on this. The vote was release without and patch later. Walker does state, "... Battlefront.com claims that a TCP/IP update is in the works..." But that statement and the first sentence: "Every so often a game pops up that shows what a few coders armed with a vision can accomplish"... seem to convey a sense that the reviewer is uninformed that BTS are professional developers not amauters. Perhaps, I'm misinterupeting it, but seems biased because they are not a big named Electronic Arts or bending over to the power of retail distribution. Maybe I am wrong but that's the impression I get. With that aside, I think he misses some of the good, namely, the editor and fluid interface. The editor alone is tremendously impressive, but is only briefly mentioned. But I think CM's interface-I don't know if thats the right word to describe the way you can change views and move around the battlefield- is very strong. He may use words like "innovative", "simple", and "fun". But from the overall review and screenshots, an audience member could easily get the wrong impression. If CNET is a professional e-magazine, they should at least require the display proper screenshots. Oh, well at least it was reviewed. That alone could promote interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion --- I just wouldn't give too much credence to anyone that prefered Risk to CM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniperscope Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 sheeeeh! You cant go to bed around here or you miss the party. Ok just my 2 cents here, but I have to agree with Kump 100 percent. The review's rating is wrong, they fail to mention some very important items. I think as CM addicts that it is our sworn duty to inform gamecenter just how wrong their rating of CM is. and yes this post is a rant. And Yes! I am in rant mode this morning. sniperscope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Poor review in so many ways. Was it me, or did the reviewer not explain the turn-based system of the game at all? I know if I knew nothing about this game, this review would not explain much of anything. Also, he mentions that there are areas that hold the game back yet devotes very little of the text to discuss these. The only mention is in the "Cons" section of the heading and brief allusions to the lack of TCP and the dated graphics. Amateurish review if you ask me. Oh well, there are more than enough glowing reviews to offset this tepid little piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAZ_NZ Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A DECENT REVIEW. I THINK TO REVIEW A GAME PLAY THE DEMO. IF U LIKE IT GET IT. IF IT DOESNT HAVE A DEMO DONT BUY IT. TOO MANY PC MAGS CRAP ON WITH THERE GAME SCORES AND RATINGS. WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY ID RATHER PUT IT TOWARD A GAME. HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE REVIEWER LIKES OR KNOWS OR EVEN IF HES BEEN PAID OFF. SIMPLY PUT DONT BUY TRASHY MAGS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffRaider Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Mark H. Walker is an American badass, the likes of which you don't want to mess with--well, at least not when it comes to strategy and war games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You guys had better watch what you say. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Rubenstein Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 I appreciate the feedback we have gotten from everyone within the CM community about our review of the game, and wanted to address some of the gripes we have received. TCP/IP support--other RTS games have excellent online and Internet play. I think it is rather unique that the developers put it up to a vote to get the game out in the most timely manner possible, but it doesn't make up for the fact that it isn't there. We review games "as is" from the finished product. If they are selling this game, this is the game we review. If a new version is released, be it an update or sequel, we will review that as well. But, we cannot factor into the score "planned features." All in all, a 7 is not bad. Do I personally enjoy Earth 2150 or Ground Control more? Yes. Is Combat Mission a very good game? Yes. As the die hard CM enthusiasts, I understand and am impressed by the passion you have for the game, especially since a handful of you chose to write lengthy, intelligent emails with your viewpoints. Mark Walker is hard core fan of RTS and wargames. He has an extensive military background and is widely considered an expert amongst the wargaming community. In addition to writing reviews for a variety of publications, he has also written many books and consulted on a variety of projects. At Gamecenter, we are not afraid to call out a bad game. However, it seems that some people see a rating of anything a 7 or lower some sort of insult. A 5 is an average game, and a 6 or higher is something I would classify as a "buy" rating. We appreciate you all taking out the time to give us some feedback, and I encourage everyone to email me if they any questions or comments on this, or any other Gamecenter review. Best, Glenn Rubenstein Senior Editor, CNET Gamecenter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Beauty indeed is in the eye of the beholder. I wish Mark would get some glasses.... ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester/Designer Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookie Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Glenn, Kudos on indeed entering the Lions Den. Perhaps if Mark mentioned the fact TCP/IP was being planed in a soon to be released FREE Patch the feedback may not have been so swift and vigorous. And It read like a 8.5 review with a 7 tacked on.. Thanks for the feedback.. ------------------ -Rookie Cactus Air Force Homepage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts