Darren J Pierson Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 The first one seems to have morphed into another thread. So, where we are again. http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,522049,00.html 9.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Sweet! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 And by that he means, totally cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren J Pierson Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 But apparently Gamespot did not make CMBB angry so that it would show its teeth. But it is just like the CMBB that Crerar had. Only he didn't have a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michlos Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Quote from Gamespot: "Barbarossa to Berlin raises the wargaming bar even higher with its pitch-perfect, ultra-polished improvements to an already great game." This is GOOD considering the fact that gamespot usually loathes anything that does not run the new Quake engine and features guts and gore all over the place. Another notch in BFC's already packed belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 You Battlefront guys certainly deserve the great ("superb" as GameSpot states :eek: ) review that GameSpot gave to CMBB. Congratulations. I have the game & will be playing it nearly full time until CM3 comes out. Cheers, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecumseh Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 who's this tom chick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Good review...and that's great for BTS. But they're also right about the Table of Contents in the back which for some unknown reason is called an Index. If I remember correctly, I volunteered my services to check this kind of stuff for free. I assumed that when I was told my services were not needed, that a professional was on the job. Apparently not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Guys, I tried with an alphabetical index. I really did. But what I got was dozens (literally!) of entries for catchwords like "infantry unit" or "ammo" or "scenario". In short, the usefulness of an index as a whole was in question. Instead, the index in the back follows the logical outline of the manual, being divided into a number of key sections which should make looking for a particular topic (topic, not catchwords) a lot easier. Since it seems that most people prefer an alphabetical index, I'll stick that back in if you want - for the next game or for the next print of CMBB manuals... Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by Michlos: Another notch in BFC's already packed belt If BFC gets too many more notches in that belt, their pants are going to fall down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I was sweating out to see what Gamespot would say. Glad to see they got someone who appreciates a good war game to review it. Everyone go there and review it yourself to get the numbers where they should be! 10.0! Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Congrats guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Finally, a review that makes sense....although it is a bit odd that a mainstream gaming site has anyone that is even remotely knowledgeable about wargames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickBlasta Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I was really suprised they didn't write it off because of its wargame nature, I am glad they got someone who likes the genre to review it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by Chad Harrison: Everyone go there and review it yourself to get the numbers where they should be! 10.0! Done- I'm #66 Didn't pull it up though... Here: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,522049,00.html Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by NickBlasta: I was really suprised they didn't write it off because of its wargame nature, I am glad they got someone who likes the genre to review it.They gave the first combat mission a 9.2 IIRC. They can be very hard there at times with reviews, but it was good to see a good review come out of this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren J Pierson Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 I have to give GameSpot credit. They usually take a good hard look at major games. IMHO, when GameSpot takes notice of a game from an online only publisher, it makes people take notice. I know I have purchased some online only published games due to their reviews. I don't like their main emphasis on action games, but they seem to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAT Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Since it seems that most people prefer an alphabetical index, I'll stick that back in if you want - for the next game or for the next print of CMBB manuals... Moon Yes, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I was a little surprised that the reviewer had all sorts of good things to say about the improvements in CMBB over CMBO, however he didn't really say a lot about the improvements in the infantry model other than a few words about the new commands and fitness and fatigue rules. I think the changes in MG fire and how units are pinned down by fire are actually the most important and best improvements vs CMBO. BTW, I really don't care if there is an index of any kind in the manual. It's not that big. I've written a game manual before and indexing is a pain the ass. You basically have to generate the index then decide what keywords to keep and whether or not to toss out multiple occurances manually then every time the manual is changed you have to go through the same process again. Moon is dead on when he says some terms show up dozens of times. A glossary and outline are probably all the the manual really needs. [ October 30, 2002, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: StellarRat ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 "However, Big Time Software still doesn't support a mouse wheel..." This is the only negative comment in the whole review, and I feel vindicated, because I've been begging for this feature on the beta forum for a good long while. Mouse wheel zoom! Put it in a patch! Mouse wheel zoom! Put it in a patch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by tecumseh: who's this tom chick?I've read his articles and reviews in various formats --- online and hard-copy --- for years. He seems to be something of a flight sim grog, but occasionally gets down in the mud with the wargame crowd. For the most part, I've found his reviews to be fair, accurate, and thorough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 What von Lucke said. I also have a PBEM game going with Tom right now. I found out something very interesting about that review while chatting, I'll see if I can get permission to share it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engel Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by deanco: Mouse wheel zoom! Put it in a patch! Mouse wheel zoom! Put it in a patch!Better camera interface would be nice, too... the current is a bit clunky and counterintuitive. Personally I've found the setup familiar from some 3D editors to be quite good: keys on left side move forward, backward and sideways, mouse w/right key pressed rotates and pitches. And using the wheel for zoom would be great, now I hardly use it (AltGr + 8 & 9 is a bit clumsy for something you'd have to do often). [ October 30, 2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Engel ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmbunnelle Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Congrats, guys! Gamespot reviews carry a lot of weight too, and I typically agree with their analysis. I don't agree with those who said that they always slam wargames. Quite the contrary. IIRC, good strategy titles are always examined against others in the genre. And fantastic "fringe" flight sims like IL-2 (9.2) are given good write-ups. They're one of the few sites that give good, extensive in-depth reviews of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 We don't want no stinkin mouse wheel zoom zoom. Tried that with other games and it just messes things up. There ain't nothing going on in CM that needs a mouse wheel zoom. That is for the mouse click warriors in RTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts