CM 2 Article, with Screens

[Thomm]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

"reconstructing part of Stalingrad's sewer system to depict the underground fighting that took place there."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must take a lot of guts not to skip a feature that requires a second layer of possible pathways for the pathfinding AI. Not to mention the graphical representation. I hope they just "beam" squads behind enemy lines - same result, minimum effort.

On the other hand, the sewer network should be pretty easy to model as a network of essentially one-dimensional channels that converge at nodes under buildings. This network does not interact with the surface other than allowing squads to enter basements and vice versa. Combat is easy to resolve on a straight line. Spotting by sound is especially important under ground.

But should the AI use the sewer system on the offense? Is the capacity of the sewer system large enough to influence action on the surface? I have doubts!

Basements would be cool, though!

Regards,

Thomm

[Robert Mayer]

Actually, we hate the polybags too--we'd rather you be able to flip through the mag and see what's in it, because we think you'd be more likely to buy the issue that way. But as long as the CD is in there, it's a non-starter--too many of them are stolen as it is, I'm afraid.

For folks not in North America, take heart--you can increasingly find Computer Games Magazine at least overseas. We're even translated into Greek and Italian, and available locally, plus the English edition should be increasingly available wherever the Queen's tongue is spoken.

I know it sometimes seems like a lot to spend $8 or whatever on a mag, but think of it this way: you wouldn't want people to steal Combat Mission would you? If you can find a library that has our mag, read it there if you like, just please don't post stuff online--we'd like to continue to cover great games like CM/CM2, but we gotta eat as well

Robert Mayer

Managing Editor

Computer Games Magazine www.cgonline.com

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

I carry a pocket knife to my neighborhood Walden's store in order to deal with the reinforced super-plastic magazines foolishly attempt to use to stop me from wasting my money.

Guess I'm just a cheap bastard that way <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

khalyavshik

[Cos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

Just a short one-pager, but still interesting, of course, for us CM nuts [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no CM nuts here

[M Hofbauer]

FWIW - I have yet to see a computer mag that's worth the cellulose wasted to print it on. They usually consist of praise for advertiser's games, lack journalistic criticism, seem to play a game about 5 hours max. before they review it, and, especially, they wouldn't know an authenticism glitch if it had "ahistorical Bull****" written all over it. just my truckload of turkish lira, of course.

[Panzer Leader]

I don't take such a hard line attitude towards gaming mags. When I bought my first modern computer a few years back I also bought a years subscription to PC Gamer to help ease my way back into computers.

I found the articles to be generally objective, maybe slightly slanted here and there, but the reviews sections were almost always informative and accurate.

From the few issues of Computer Gaming World I have seen, they are also an upstanding mag. Do not be hard on them because you hate the state of the industry. They try to elevate the companies into better games, I'm sure.

[Cos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

FWIW - I have yet to see a computer mag that's worth the cellulose wasted to print it on. They usually consist of praise for advertiser's games, lack journalistic criticism, seem to play a game about 5 hours max. before they review it, and, especially, they wouldn't know an authenticism glitch if it had "ahistorical Bull****" written all over it. just my truckload of turkish lira, of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to knock your first point, but they are paid to review games, not be historians.

[M Hofbauer]

well have to admit that there are definitely worse gaming magazines than CGW or CGM. The reviews are not that great either but the personal comments at the end of CGW can be entertaining. They don't justify the whole mag though. The only thing you can really put some value on in those reviews are the screenshots - with the usual DD of course.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

CGW is normally sealed because of the inclusion of a demo disc. Make of that what you will And no, I'm not going to scan and post someone's copyrighted pictures. There's only one new pic anyway. The article is a little more informative, though: BTS is, it says, "creating new building architecture" for urban battles (yea!) and "reconstructing part of Stalingrad's sewer system to depict the underground fighting that took place there." It also mentions revised C&C, unit availability/rarity, and a new minimum resolution of 800x600 (and the dropping of support for Voodoo 1 cards). Just a short one-pager, but still interesting, of course, for us CM nuts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW the Sewer System will be WAY COOL!

that is IMHO, a very large breakthrough!

Sounds GREAT!

-tom w

[Stacheldraht]

Actually, some gaming mags are rather good, while some admittedly do stink. The tone and depth of content varies rather widely. I wouldn't lump them altogether, myself. There are some genuinely perceptive, interesting critics out there; you just need to search them out. But there seems to be rather little call for deep, extended criticism, sadly. Until gamers and game magazine buyers demand the sort of criticsm you see in the New York Times or whatever, you won't get it. Instead it will be more of the frequent "Game X puts the smackdown on the competition with its hot graphic goodness and multiplayer love."

[Robert Mayer]

Everyone is entitled to think what they will of game mags, of course, but I do take exception to the allegations that computer game magazines in general write their reviews to please advertisers. Not only is this untrue, and offensive to those of us who work in the business, it's simply untrue, and a little bit of research would reveal that. Looking at the three PC game mags in the US, you'll find that over the years there is no correlation between good reviews and advertisements. We've had companies that never advertised with us get all sorts of good reviews--and we've slammed the games of companies that bought big spreads. It's the same with other mags, too--the writers and editors have about zip to do with the ads. We just write about games.

As for the quality of magazine reviews (keep in mind of course that reviews are only one part of a mag), that's going to be judgement call usually. If you are focused on a particular genre, like flight sims or wargames, and want very long, deep reviews covering every system and subsystem in the game, none of the PC mags are going to meet your expectations. We don't have the room, for one thing--space is money in print. Secondly, our audience is much broader than just wargamers or just flight sim fans (or sports game fans or whatever). We are quite logically going to give the biggest feature space to games we think will appeal to more readers--hence our recent huge D&D feature, and this month's "Tweaking Windows for Games" extravaganza.

At most, a game review is going to get about two pages, which after pictures, layout, and sidebars is probably going to be maybe 1000-1200 words. We tend to think you can review any game well in that length, and we have occasionally upped the word count, but in general if you want 3000-5000 word reviews, you'll have to turn to the web where quality is much less consistent, but space constraints are practically non-existent. Of course, that presupposes you believe that a long review is inherently better than a short to medium-length review, which is a question that could be debated forever.

I suspect that a lot of the hostility to the gaming magazines here arises from a couple of factors. One, while many Combat Mission fans (like myself) also play other computer games, there are a lot it seems that view anything other than wargames or turn-based strategy games with great suspicion, even disdain. Because mags as a matter of course cover those "other" games--RPGs, shooters, racing games, sports titles, etc.--far more than wargames, there's a built-in resentment thing happening. Two, most of the gaming press is actually focused on consoles, and some of those mags are indeed way out there, and give a rather bad impression to more mature readers.

And on the question of reviewing historical veracity, it's not the expertise that's at issue, it's the focus of the review and the mag. No matter how knowledgeable the reviewer, we're not going to run a 4500 word dissetation on how this game or that doesn't model the penetration values of the 75L24 on the Pz. Kw. IV Ausf. D or whatever. It just ain't gonna happen, because 99% of our audience would be alienated.

What you might want to consider--just a suggestion--is how cool it is that three big general-purpose computer game mags take the time and effort to make sure niche games like CM get exposure, and how we as a whole try to incorporate wargamers into the broader community of computer gaming. Sure, you should always rely on specialty (mostly web-based) publications for specific coverage, but it's nice to see mags with 400,000+ circs featuring Combat Mission or HPS' games prominently, isn't it?

Robert Mayer

Managing Editor

Computer Games Magazine

[Panzer Leader]

Robert,

Thank you for that dignified dissertation on the field in which you work. I agree with you wholeheartedly on every point, and I am sure that the great majority of us CM lovers (excepting the grognards who hate everything) are totally delighted that you feature "our" game in your mag.

I have never cracked open an issue of "Playstation Magazine" and never plan on it. Maybe when my kids get old enough, they might, but I consider Computer Gaming Mags to be "adult" in their focus, and I recently read an editorial that stated the majority of your readers (subscribers?) fall into the 28 or older range. Is this correct?

So, how about YOU post us one little picture from your spread?

[Gremlin]

I'd like to add, that to the best of my knowledge, BTS didn't advertise in any of the three American PC gaming mags before or when glowing reviews of CM were printed in each of them. The gaming press most certainly reviews games regardless/independently of who buys advertising. The advertising and editorial departments are separate. If you see reviews of a game with a big advertising push, it's probably because many gamers have an interest in it. I've seen sites and magazines pan highly promoted games many, many times, so please don't imply that journalists are on the take or whatever.

I've done a lot of gaming journalism for quite some time, and I've _never_ seen any indication of sites or mags being swayed by advertising.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Mayer:

hence our recent huge D&D feature...

Robert Mayer

Managing Editor

Computer Games Magazine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad you brought this up. I really enjoyed reading that article as I played a lot of D & D when I was a kid and I always wondered who those two guys were who created the game and why they started it in the first place. Very interesting to read about all that happened behind the scenes while I was absorbed in the game (circa 1983).

I was actually surprised that any popular mag would do a big spread like that since it seems the kids these days wouldn't care about "the game that started it all." A job well done I must say.

[Commissar]

Any mag that bases its reviews on how much money the game developer bought in ad space wouldn't last very long. Like everything else, reputation is everything. Would you bother to buy a magazine that consistently gave reviews that were biased? Nobody else would either. Even if the reviewer isn't bought off, if he consistently gives reviews that are different from your own opinion, you don't bother reading his reviews anymore. For example, Combatsim had some pretty detailed reviews that were pretty much on the mark (at least to my taste). Hence, I take a review from them seriously. Cnet's Gamecenter and Avault had some reviews that I strongly disagree with, hence I don't really bother with reviews written by those reviewers. The same with mags.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I just thought I have found that computer games magazines “do” seem to try and give honest reviews. CM and Steel Beasts are the only two I currently play but I find games magazines are honest about whether or not a game would appeal to someone like me. Invariably they would not.

All the best,

Kip.

[BloodyBucket]

Got my copy in the mail, saw the pics, read the article. T-34 looks good. Article very good but too short. The part about sewers caught me by suprise.

I suggest buying the magazine, (it has previews of several military games) and then passing it on to a potential CM player. It is so much fun to watch them squirm after they are hooked!

[GriffinCheng+]

Rob,

I think there are no two views on this issue. It is just no way for printed game mags, now and may be forever, to bring full in-depth reviews on all-aspect of a game. One factor I would add is, for reader who want reviews to assist their buying decisions, the mag cannot be too late to post a review. OTOH, if a mag rushes to conclusions, the review is very likely to have omitted something.

If you are a casual player, the mags mentioned are pretty okay. But if you are a hardcore, that's why we have FAQs, fan sites and forums. (Any casual CM player out there, please raise your hand!)

Most long-standing mag are very sensitive to their reputations. I remember a tempest caused by the review of a 4X space strategy game written by the smae person who writes the strategy guide. That mag had to do a lot of damage control afterwards.

Back to lurking...

[istari]

Robert,

Thanks for the tactful reply regarding the gaming magazine business. To all the other critics out there, realize that all computer game mags are not the same. The publication that Mr Meyer works for, Computer Games, is consistently the most intellectual and analytical of all the game mags. IMHO, CGW has gone downhill considerably in recent years, although I agree that Jeff Green's humor is great stuff - never fails to bring a laugh. But for in-depth, thoughtful articles, Computer Games is the one to pick up.

And no, I have NO connection whatsoever to Robert or Computer Games magazine. Just thought I'd put some positives here among all the critiques.

Chris

[Holien]

Ahhh I love the power of the net and when I see discussions like this it makes me warm all over. (sad but true).

The ability to talk directly to the man at the top and see this from anywhere in the world.

This forum never ceases to amaze me. The knowledge gained from just browsing is fantastic.

As for the magazine I used to be able to get it in the UK but the coverage in stores is slim and I only want to buy issues when I know it contains material relevant to me.

I guess I will have to wait until it appears on the web.

The modelling of sewers intrigues me and I hope it can be done in a sensible way without detriment to the game. (On past performance I should have no doubts about BTS ability to deliver, but sometimes people can go off boil... )

Cheers everyone keep talking...

H

[anjin]

I'm not entirely sure I completely understand BTS's decision to give the info to the magazines first. Aren't we purchasers of CM the single most important group of potential customers for CM2? If I were running BTS's marketing department I would want to make sure, first and foremost, that every single person who bought CM would want to buy CM2. How many copies did the magazines buy that justifies them being at the head of the queue?

I do understand the need for publicity, but I don't think BTS has a more important target market than us right here. We know BTS underestimated the market for CM (evidenced by the stock-out situations that occured), so we must represent a fairly healthy sales potential for the new game. So, BTS, how about putting *us*, not the magazines, at the head of the queue for information releases?

[ParaBellum]

I just thought about the time I first heard something about a promising game concept called "Combat Mission".

I was spring 1999 and I was studying in China, in Beijing to be exact. In the "friendship store" I stumbled across a game mag called "Computer Gaming World". I bought it. Somewhere in the mag there was a short article about an upcoming wargame that uses 3D-graphics and a we-go turn based system.

I went to an internet cafe and searched the web 'till I found a site called "Battlefront.com".

Back to Germany I downloaded the demo and ordered the game a few weeks later.

I don't know what had happened if I hadn't bought that mag on that very special day...

[rune]

anjin,

Marketing department? Do you realize that BTS is a whopping 4 people? The way word got spread around was by users and by the game magazines. There is NO marketing department. I rather personally have Charles reply to an email for an article and go back to coding then to mention something here, then have to spend hours explaining and defending their ideas. Also, nothing is being mentioned, since it isn't finished coding, or tested yet. Why mention a feature that may not make the final cut? Imagine the uproar then.

All that being said...Madmatt who is one of the four, already has mentioned that when the time comes, he will post on his site screenshots and information. Just be patient, and information will come out.

Now back to researching the Eastern Front for me.

Rune

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Mayer:

Computer Games Magazine, July issue, has a preview as well, with screens too. Just to be fair .

BTW, scanning and posting is a gross violation of copyrights. It would most likely get deleted by the sysops here, one step ahead of the calls from the lawyers. This is too high a profile site, and too high a profile game, for a mag to ignore copyright infringements.

Yes, I work for Computer Games Mag .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a thing called fair use. If you paid for the original and you are duplicating the material for personal or private use then there is no violation.

With that said.. Posting a couple pcitures from the freakin' mag to a BBS so that people can atleast just SEE the picture is a long leap from Copyright violations. Especially if you acredit the source.

Going with your logic if I was having a discussion here with someone and I want to quote a history book I had I wouldn't be able to since it would be copyright infringment.

Get real.

Jeff

P.S. Oh and one more thing.. Did it ever occur to you that the people who see this thread and then see a picture or two might actually go out and *gasp* buy the magazine?

Oh yeah! and another thing.. If ya want to get all anal, technically the screen shot is NOT CGW's property. It is BTS's property since they took the picture form thier game and gave it to CGW to use in thier article.

Besides, trying to equate photo copyrights to screenshots is laughable at best.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]

[dima]

jshandorf is absolutely right !

And all this *hush* about CM2 on this board from BTS is one more proof - they don't give a damn about us! They are just another (soon to be) corporation.

Time to remove that "Manifesto" of yours, it is no longer valid.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: dima ]