Joe Shaw Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Good points Rookie, I agree that the review read as if the game would be rated higher than 7. I also wish to thank Glenn for posting a response here as well as sending me a personal response that echoed his position. I think that what got our "dander" up was the comparison of this rather lukewarm rating (I don't say review because in general the review was good) with the others we've seen recently, a Top Choice, 5 of 5, Best Wargame Ever and so on. To suddenly see the same game rated as slightly above average was disconcerting. Opinions, like mileage, may vary of course. I firmly believe that we, as the CM community, should continue to spread the word and sing the praises of this great game and of BTS. We need to do in a mature and thoughful manner, but it's only by making CM's presence known that we increase our chances of more of the same ... and better. BTW, I think I made another sale last night, damn it's easy to be a great salesperson when you've got a great product Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn Rubenstein: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And in an RTS game this would be inexcusable as any form of online play would be left up in the air... Since in fact this is NOT an RTS but rather a turn based war game with fully functioning PBEM installed, this is much less of a sin than being one of the two main "con" talking points listed would lead a reader to believe. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then could you at least review the game as intended? IF the reviewer prizes graphics, then make him review the game with a modern video card... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTom Posted July 16, 2000 Share Posted July 16, 2000 Here is the email I posted to Glenn (and by the way I also appreciate his response to this forum): Glenn, While I believe the comments in Mark Walker's review of Combat Mission were generally fair, I believe the review was flawed in several respects. Most importantly, the review spends little time discussing the excellent combination of simultanteous turn-based movement plotting and real-time execution/playback. While I've enjoyed many RTS games such as TA, C&C, Starcraft, etc., and have played the demos for such new offerings as Ground Control and Earth 2150, I find Combat Mission very enjoyable for the fact that the game is really primarily turn-based. In fact, that's one reason I care little for the (current) lack of TCP/IP support. This game is *fabulous* for PBEM. I'm currently playing 5 games at once, it takes me about 5 minutes to figure out my move and send it back to each opponent. But, I can take my time and take as long as I want (in online play my opponent would get bored as I replay the "VCR" 3D playback multiple times, watching from different angles as my bazooka takes-out his Tiger while my infantry rushes past the Tiger faster than it can rotate it's turret). The RTS games are a major clickfest, you do your best to keep everything under control, but a lot of the "features" (unit experience, etc.) are difficult to capitalize on, there's just so much going on. And if something cool happens, but you weren't focused on that part of the battlefield, too bad, no replay. And what about morale? When one of my squads comes upon an unexpected machinegun nest, during playback I get to watch them come under fire, maybe hit the deck and fire back, maybe rush forward to cover, maybe panic and run while being cut-down... Yes, the graphics are not up to the current state of the art in terms of eye candy (although your reviewer apparently had the low-res smoke turned-on). But GAMEPLAY is fantastic. Overall I think the gameplay should have pulled the review rating higher. The ability to actually plan out a strategy, see the movement plots of all of your units on the map simultaneously, then hit "Go" and hope things work out like you planned...it's fantastic. Watching your 88mm antitank gun take a bead on that approaching Sherman, then get surprised by a squad of infantry appearing from the nearby woods, charging, lobbing grenades... I've played many turn-based wargames before (many PBEM) such as Steel Panthers and Panzer General, and while each has something to offer, Combat Mission takes what Steel Panthers delivered and takes it to a whole new level. It's revolutionary. The simultaneous plot then move removes a lot of "gamey" strategy options, and of course watching next to your artillery spotter on the hill as your rounds land on the church, blowing that d*mn sniper and the entire building to kingdom come in a spectacular explosion, well that has somewhat more emotional appeal than it did in Steel Panthers Anyway, I don't know if you print reader reviews or comments, you might want to consider it... Jim Lederer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muzzlehead Posted July 16, 2000 Share Posted July 16, 2000 Concerning the TCP/IP issue...... I wonder what the review of big House game Quake2 got from Gamecenter. Q2 was distributed at Christmas 97 without multi-player complete and took an additional 7 patches to get the commercial final product. It was not finished until July 98! Bottom Line Q2 was released to coincide with the Christmas 97 buying season. I know the Quake community was not "consulted" over a premature release, but I'm sure Activision, ID's distributor was consulted. I appreciate BTS's commitment to gaming for quality and fun and not for bottom line or cheesy "blood for the masses" graphics. They asked the community if they wanted the game by a certain date without TCP/IP and the response was YES. Am I confident they will provide the updated patch in a timely manner... YES. I am also confident they will provide extra goodies and further refinement of CMBO. Will I continue to rave about CMBO ... You Bet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted July 16, 2000 Author Share Posted July 16, 2000 Hmm... I thought this post had finally faded away... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Quote from Senior Editor Glenn, All in all, a 7 is not bad. Do I personally enjoy Earth 2150 or Ground Control more? Yes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This one little snippet of Glenn's response had me desist and forget about the whole thing. It wasn't worth the effort. Glenn's two games he used for comparrison were RTS offerings, no historical wargames at all. Does Glenn like playing Rising Sun, which Gamecenter awarded a 9 and editor's choice award? Does Glenn enjoy playing the RTS titles he mentioned more than Rising Sun? Guess that means the rating of Rising Sun is too high. I immediately realized that Gamecenter was evaluating CM from a different perspective. Judging CM on how it measured up to the model created by the C&C and WarCraft/StarCraft designs. CM doesn't fit very well in that regard. Its too different. There will be many more true wargaming reviews that will recognize what CM is all about. This little small 9mm review from Gamecenter won't even scratch the turret. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Man Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 Hmmm. The review is great, the score is not. The reviewer has two major problems with the game; TCP/IP and graphics. As for the first, I think we all know the answer, it’s on the way. As for graphics, may I suggest that the retail game adopt Madmatt’s graphic’s package. Last Friday I went home for a long weekend, and toted my Inspiron laptop along with me. The game installed and ran beautifully, but I noticed a severe problem with the graphics; Madmatt’s grass and tree patches were missing. MDMP’s grass is sooooo much better, and the patches of trees don’t look like mud. It may not be enough to garner another review point or two, but it sure improves the immersion factor. One problem, Matt. The patches of woods have a pink artifact at the NW and SE corners. They are like boundary points. I have a TNT2 graphics card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 The MAIN problem with the review was that for a reviewer who is reputed to care a LOT about graphics etc to review a game like CM on a Pentium 166 ( with crappy 3D card I'm sure) is sheer nonsense. If I tried to play Unreal Tournament on my old spare 166 I'd probably slam its graphics also. However, if I played it on my main system I'd commend its graphics.. End result IF the graphics are downsampled etc because the reviewer's machine is about 4 years behind the times it is pretty damned stupid to then slam the graphics.. The problem is mostly his computer as near as I can figure. Still, a mag which prefers, Bombing The Reich ( with its complete omission of several vital cities, bugs which made it impossible to play the campaign game past the first bombing mission, rivers in entirely the wrong places, locations of modern-day airfields instead of their WW2 locations), Close Combat 5 ( ah, with infamous Calliope rocket-firing Shermans which simply don't function in ANY WAY EVEN RESEMBLING how they are modelled, an AI which can't even drive down a straight road, weapons, TO&E and weapons and armour ratings so large I could evacuate Paulus' entire Sixth Army through them) clearly sets out its stall as not being a magazine which could be described as catering to serious wargamers. BTW I also think you rated AoA: WDK2 too lowly. That rather innovative initiative-based system is the BEST turn-based system for modelling city-fighting at the level of the individual soldier that I've ever seen. I bet your reviewer didn't even go into how revolutionary that was.. No doubt the graphics weren't up to par again... Like I said, not a trustworthy reviewer of serious wargames as near as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilD Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 I think the point of this thread is if you want to buy a good wargame dont look to gamecenter for advice. I personally bought the game because I saw the review at combatsim.com, those guys are usually very low-key in their reviews and Nelson was drooling over combat mission. I knew something good was in the air and hopped on over to Battlefront.com and the rest is history. I read the gamecenter review and, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, the game is a 7. Their most important criteria in games are Graphics, Multiplayer options, and being a good 'come home from work and relax game'. Many/most of us here may range from WWII aficionados(sp?) to die-hand-shouldnt-the-Tiger-have-105mm armour fanatics but 99% of the people in this world dont know what a Pz-IVH is, and to truly get the full effect from CM you have to have a decent understanding of the armies/hardware etc. Most of their clientele are not US. On those lines, one wonders if they might not be under the thumbs of the big game developers who would prefer a company like BTS not succeed. Perhaps paranoia, to quote someone who I can't remember 'Just because you are paranoid doesnt mean you aren't right'. Fionn's excellent observation that the game was reviewed on a p-166 4 meg card lends credence to this idea, I had overlooked that usually its noted in the review. Anyways if you want good advice, there may be better sites about but combatsim is pretty cool, they tend to focus on flight sims, which I havent played of late, but thats fine. I've been waiting for something as engaging as Battle of Britain. That was an all-time classic. Just flying around shooting down planes is fun, but BOB had an excellent campaign: "OK, now if I take out their radar towers with my stuka, next mission I can get in close and crater the airfields, then drive deep into Lancashire and whomp that factory etc." Now that was fun Perception is Reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard 101st Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 This is a common occuring theme, where nowdays a game is judged on its graphics, the better, the higher rating, and on whether it is a multi-player game or not. These 2 points didn't stop Diablo2 from having some reviewers peeing in there pants with love for this game, with outdated graphics and very bad internet play. I rarely trust reviews because of so many built in bias, and subjective feelings. That seems to be the case here. As for e-mailing him, why not, thats why his addy is displayed, if we don't fight for what we believe in, what do we fight for? I think his ego needs to be knocked down a tick. And oh, he is so wrong about this game. ------------------ -kill 'em all and let God sort them out- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BasilD: I read the gamecenter review and, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, the game is a 7. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And that's how a lot of buyers would feel about it too, probably. I passed the demo on to a friend of mine who, while no grognard and not interested in WW2 history, very much enjoyed Steel Panthers. I got his reaction to CM the other day... "I didn't think much of it", says he. I was amazed. He didn't like the 3D and thought the SP interface was less fiddly, for example, with regard to the placement of unit inside a building. I explained that the reason you had to be more exact about that in CM was that it had a bearing on what that unit could see outside the house, and how easy it would be to spot it from outside. But that just wasn't important to him. What surprised me was that this individual is a very intelligent chap with an very sharp strategic brain (very strong chess player too). Then I realised that none of this means that he has to like CM. If CM has a lot of features that he isn't looking for, and lack some that he wants (Panzer General style interface) then it really isn't such a great game...for him. When it comes to judging a game's quality, there are no absolutes; something that's easy to forget when you're drooling over your own favourite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 Blasphemer!!!!!!!! ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts