Cubes Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 http://www.playerofgames.com/reviews/index.php?id=65&page=0 and http://www.gamerampage.com/reviews/cm2/review.html Geoff [ November 22, 2002, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Cubes ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Two good reviews although one had an odd comment about the follow vehicle command. Glad the game is appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 One of those reviews has the ugliest screenshot of the game I'd ever seen! We all know it's not that difficult to find a particular angle or view during a scenario that simply makes you go "Wow!" Some of those review screenshots look like they took a pervese pleasure in making the game look "ho-hum". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignus Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 I really don't think those reviews gave the proper justice that Combat Mission deserves. Reviewers ALWAYS comment on how the outdated graphics "have to go" etc. etc. in the constant slew of games they review. What they don't realize is that graphics are not AS important as gameplay itself. You can read this in any gaming magazine. It's been a popular argument for some time. It's like dating a chick with big breasts and an awesome figure, but she's a complete bitch inside. I'd much rather find a woman who is average to above average looking, but has a spectacular personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murpes Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by Ignus: slew of games they review. What they don't realize is that graphics are not AS important as gameplay itself. You can read this in any gaming magazine. It's been a popular argument for some time. People often say that, but I think very few people really mean it. Granted, good graphics can't mask a poor game, but poor graphics can hurt and otherwise great game. I remember reading an article in some magazine or web site, where a game reviewer finally admitted that the quality of graphics has bearing on the fun factor. I admired that he had the balls to publically admit who many of us secretly think. Every now and then I'll get an inkling to re-install some old game - one that I really loved playing at the time (mostly rpgs). Hey, it was a good game then, should be a good game now right? I'll be honest, often it's hard to get past the presentation. It takes a little bit more to get past my suspension of disbelief these days, especially now that I'm used to it. Perhaps these games are better served as good memories, I dunno, they looked fantastic at the time. Having said that, my experience with war gamers has been quite different ... they are quite tolerant of un-flashy graphics. I mean, I say that but it seems that ones that barrier is crossed - from icon to 3D models - graphics become pretty important. At least that would partial explanation for the mod community. But the Combat Mission games, like it or not, are very much cross-over games and as such the graphics are going to be held against mainstream titles. While the graphics in CM are very good, there's some GREAT looking games out there. I can't think of a another contempoary 3D engine that uses sprites the way CM does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 What they don't realize is that graphics are not AS important as gameplay itself. Deus Ex vs. Metal Gear Solid 2 System Shock 2 vs. Code Veronica Better gameplay always wins out against better graphics in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murpes Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by Nippy: Deus Ex vs. Metal Gear Solid 2 System Shock 2 vs. Code Veronica Nippy, have you looked at Arx Fatalis yet? Arx Fatalis Website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 I was visiting one of my nephews recently and he had some high-end combat shooter game running. Yes, the figures moved more realistically and the landscape had more of a movie set look, but once you got past the surface stuff the gameplay experience was as thin as tissuepaper. CM could've followed their competition by slashing depth and breadth in favor of a few flashy units. Let's say... Do a very flashy the T34-76, KV-1 Model 1940, PzIV, Panther, Tiger, maybe halftrack but nothing else. THEN it would be on par with other games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Good review, the latter one, but something got by the ditor(s): "Airplanes have been re-worked, there is now a ammo setting in Quick Battles, wind and wind direction can now be set, rivers will freeze over even if no snow is present but its cold enough, buildings show graphical damage now at 40% health, there are new terrain types, vehicles now have an off road ability, and just a ton more features." 40% HEALTH? NOW have an of road ability, umm, has that not always been the case? Maybe better modeld off road capability is better. I like this line: "...damn this game could really use a "fire on this target only and nothing else you dumb bastard" command." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts