Sytass Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Just read the online article of Germany's largest gaming mag, PC Games. Verdict: 73%. The reviewer admits that he enjoys the game (as he did the predecessor), and that he will be coming back to this one. He thinks, though, that most strategy gamers will not notice these details and will instead miss campaigns, a more intuitive interface or game help. Basically, he says it's a great game with a presentation not up to date anymore, and that the depth of the game will mostly be appreciated by hardcore strategy gamer, not the "average" strategy gamer. The score breakdown: Graphics: 56% Sound: 72% Controls: 69% Atmosphere: 11% (WTF??) Game Design: 65% Multiplayer: 79% This is the link: http://www.pcgames.de/?article_id=83911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Interesting. I wonder what Trotter will rate it in the US edition of PCGamer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Atmosphere: 11% (WTF??)As the article says "The missing auxiliary functions are surprised" So much for online translators. Actually, I think I could make out his point: Lack of context. If you're not something of grog the HUGE number of details can be something of a turn off. ("Do I choose infantry-type-I-can't-spell-#1 or infantry-type-I-can't-spell-#2... WFT?") Alternatly, If you're a certain type of gamer you don't give a damn what the difference is - you've got the stats, who cares? Or maybe you're eager to learn all this WWII stuff... but for everyone else all that contextless detail is wasted effort, at best. My conclusion?: Numerical ratings in reviews - esp. game or other interactive activites - stink. Even with my translator telling me "As battle steering wheels of the allied ones" the review was fairly informative - including the "atmosphere" point. I understood what the reviewer was getting at (I think), and could use that insight in making a purchase decision or discussing the game with others. The "11%" and all the other numbers, though, just beg the question "Why 11%.... why not 12%, why not 10%? Why is it 11%?" All you need to know is the answer to the question - the number itself is only usefull to the hopelessly anal, pre-80's androids with failing analog circuits, and clones of the reviewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geozero Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 It always cracks me up when I see a review based on a number stat, percentage or even 4 stars out of 5, etc. The editors or better yet the publishers of such articles should really publish what their method is to establish these numbers or stats. That way the reader or consumer has a better idea of how the review reflects their own purchasing decision, etc. I mean graphics 56%? WTF? Does this mean that the reviewer's PC had only 56% of the graphics card working? Did his system crash 56% of the time due to his graphics card. WTF, no W T F !!!!!!! I hate reviews, they are like a$$ hole$ - everyone has one and they all stink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 using Watson on the mac via babelfish: 30.09.2002 17:18 - Like already the predecessor links Combat mission 2 the tension of real time strategy plays with the tactical depth of the round colleagues. As battle steering wheels of the allied ones or Axis powers in the Second World War you order over infantry troops, cannons, tanks and other vehicles. In the I-cycle you give your order in all peace, lay movement paths out or to select goals. Afterwards the opponent, (via network, is alternatively human InterNet, Hotseat or E-Mail) or the computers, in turn. Given, the units these implement credit both parties their instructions in a real time film sequence automatically running off. The Clou: Because the generals act quasi at the same time and advance the soldiers at the same time, the engagements is never foreseeable, separates runs off each mark differently. If one adds in addition the unequalled reality proximity, which differentiates not only between "met" and "beside it", but factors such as impact angles, type of ammunition, armoring strength, armoring quality, firing traps and so on with includes, the result tension is pure. The 60 contained scenarios (together with generator and editor) and ten operations (a number of linked battles) place behind the complete range of the land battles at the east front from 1941 to 1945 with Soviet, German, Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Polish troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 He can always go back to red Alert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by Tarqulene: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Atmosphere: 11% (WTF??)As the article says "The missing auxiliary functions are surprised"</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by geozero: I mean graphics 56%? WTF? Does this mean that the reviewer's PC had only 56% of the graphics card working? Did his system crash 56% of the time due to his graphics card. WTF, no W T F !!!!!!!It just means he is rating what the graphics look like. 56% is in the upper region of the scale from 1 to a 100. And given that CMBB's graphics are essentially from a two or three year old graphics engine, that is probably a fair score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Farm Boy Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Fun: 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by Sytass: Graphics: 56%That's what you get for removing the shock waves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by geozero: [QB] The editors or better yet the publishers of such articles should really publish what their method is to establish these numbers or stats. That way the reader or consumer has a better idea of how the review reflects their own purchasing decision, etc. QB]I think they would if they knew themselves. It's all relative anyhow as one person's 5 star game would be another's 2 star game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 World of reviewrs, reviews and criticism is so much subjective that I don't care of their veredict. I prefer previews, without any score that describe the product in different areas, as objective as they can. Reviews are not fair usually (for good or for bad) as noone can give a perfect veredict, because we are humans. So I prefer to see how the game plays and what's about for myself (that's the pourpose of demos), and I haven't any problem until now, so screw up with reviewers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sytass Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 Yes, subjectivity is indeed a problem. I think this reviewer is to merit that he actually sat down to get into the game as he liked the first one. I think he toned the score down from his personal feeling towards how the average strategy gamer might evaluate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by Stoffel: He can always go back to red Alert No! You beat me to it! I swear that someday these review places are going to get someone who plays something besides RTS (Red Alert), and who doesnt think that Counter Strike is the most realistic game ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EightInchArty Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Finnish gaming magazine Pelit; 93% and recomendation. But then again; CMBO sold more here than Great Britain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I swear that someday these review places are going to get someone who plays something besides RTS (Red Alert), and who doesnt think that Counter Strike is the most realistic game ever!To quote what I wrote today in another thread: "....to my knowledge, as an industry veteran [i.e., professional gaming journalist], the major gaming sites and magazines all have editors and/or freelancers such as myself who are grogs, military buffs, wargamers and/or CM fans. (For example, I've written at least five professional articles about CMBO and CMBB, and more for fan sites like Manx's old Combat Missions.)" That is, all the big pro sites and magazines I know of, or have written for, have editors and use writers who specialize in a wide variety of genres across the different platforms. They sure as heck don't just have a couple guys sitting around playing Red Alert all day and nothing else If that were the case, they'd go out of business in a heartbeat because their gaming coverage would suck, no one would read them, and the advertisers (i.e., the main revenue source) would therefore take their money elsewhere. For that matter, I can't think of anyone who seriously thinks CS is the most realistic game ever (there's very little realistic about it, though it can be great fun) or who only plays RTS games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindfighter Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 I think they would if they knew themselves. It's all relative anyhow as one person's 5 star game would be another's 2 star game.[/QB]Yep. Thats why I often go to www.gonegold.com/gguide , they have a collection of verdicts and scores for many games. Very convenient - the objectivity naturally increases when you see many scores made by many different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 That review reminds me of the time I was walking through the National Gallery in Washington D.C. with my brother. We turn the corner and - GASP! Matisse, Manet, Monet, Renoir Cezanne... some of the world's greatest paintings all together in one room. My brother turns to me and says "Eh, I don't much like 'em." Sometimes all you can do is hang your head in disbelief. 69% controls? 72% sound? [ October 31, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts