Gamespot loves CMBB/CMBO, hates GI COMBAT

[Commissar]

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2897501,00.html

". . . But G.I. Combat has none of Close Combat's innovation or bold design . . .

G.I. Combat's biggest shortcoming is that it has very little gameplay. Instead, it has a heap of confusion. Once you place your units for a battle and press the start button, you're on a confusing ride to the end of the time limit. You can give your squads and vehicles orders, but the game plays in relentless real time, and it doesn't give you enough information about what your men are doing, where they're going, or even what they are. The selection of orders you can give is limited, and they often get overridden by the tactical AI for reasons that aren't always clear. You can't always tell when a unit can see another unit. You can't easily tell when someone is under fire. Sometimes, you won't even be able to find a unit or squad. Once the firing starts, men start shouting and tracers dot the landscape. Sometimes something burns or gives off smoke. People die often. Tanks blow up. If you give enough movement orders, it's possible you might eventually grab a victory location. It might realistically model the chaos and confusion of a real-world skirmish, but it's hardly playable. G.I. Combat's interface is partly to blame. You can select only one vehicle or squad at a time, and your orders consist of a few broad instructions. The awkward camera control conspires with the awkward unit interaction to make it even harder to tell what's going on. If pausing didn't completely lock you out of the game, you might have had a chance to consider your situation better and occasionally find your men among the pixelated foliage. Instead, you just hang on and wait for the scenario to end. . . . .

. .. .Unfortunately, there's not much reason to play the missions, much less replay them. Freedom Games may be able to address some of G.I. Combat's problems with diligent patching. But in the meantime, there's really no reason to be playing this instead of the far superior Combat Mission, which inspired it. "

--OUCH! Is anybody really surprised by this review though? I didn't think so. The criticisms remind me of what BTS mentioned were the challanges of making a good tactical 3d wargame when they were working on CMBO. Looks like GIC team met the same challanges and flopped pretty hard.

[ November 13, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[CBase]

Surprised? No. Disappointed. Yes.

[Commissar]

[ November 13, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Hi Mom!

(Already two threads like this in the General Forum LOL!)

And yeah, I tend to agree with the review. Too bad, since we need all the choices we can get in this genre.

[HeadHunter]

I was kind of disappointed by the GI Comabt demo.

Even the "training" scenarios don't really seem to show you how to do something.

The game looks great, but it's equally important (if not moreso!) that it is easy and enjoyable to play.

Ah, well. Freedom's loss is BTS' gain - I was searching for a good WWII strategy game, I tried demos for the Close Combat Series, GI combat, etc. and the only ones I liked were the Combat Mission games. So instead of Freedom Games getting my money, BTS did

If they fix up GI Combat and it turns out to be an enjoyable game, well then I'll buy that too. But the demo didn't sell me on it like the CMBO and CMBB demos did!

[Madmatt]

Okay, shutting this down as there are several threads in the general forum about the same thing.

Madmatt