Eurogamer Review

[Bahger]

Originally posted by ASHBERY76:

Reviews like this are going to kill the company.

Oh I really hope not. This is a wonderful assembly of developers with a dedicated team of beta testers with genuine military experience and their product, while terribly flawed, shows real promise. The problem is this, in my opinion: They are all so familiar with the CM series that working around certain critical weaknesses of the game's tac-AI and pathfinding is like second nature.

Now I'm not saying you can't play like this (i.e. by integrating problem workarounds into gameplay), and maybe that's how I'd be playing if I'd progressed further through the CM series instead of enjoying the heck out of the first one for two years and then moving on.

However, there are two reasonable expectations of non CM die hards that are not being met: (i) People expect that innovations will be matched by a corresponding evolution in the basics. A lot of people will not be thrilled by a vastly improved arty model if a vehicle can still not be relied upon not to stray into a line of tracers for no reason and then dash towards the enemy FLOT like a suicide mission. (ii) MOUT and asymmetric warfare requires a particular combination of speed, mobility, swift deployment and superior battlefield situational awareness. It also requires, at least for offensive operations, that the player seize the initiative and retain it. Every one of these tactical considerations is undermined each time a vehicle breaks formation for no reason just before contact is initiated or a squad runs around a building getting picked off instead of entering it through the door that was plotted in its movement orders.

As I say, people immersed in the series might look at this as "the price of doing business" with CM, and if these one step forward, two steps back gameplay innovations had been applied to a game in the WW2 theater, one's ability to ignore their shortcomings would be much greater, as would be one's level of satisfaction with the game. But BFC has taken a big leap in relocating its theater to contemporary MOUT ops and the highly specialised nature of this type of warfare has had the unfortunate effect of showcasing every one of the game's enormous deficiencies in the worst possible way instead of camouflaging them within a theater, like WW2, where comms were weaker, vehicles slower, intel less omniscient and therefore the combat more chaotic. There is a surgical professionalism to modern MOUT operations as conducted by outnumbered U.S. quick-reaction forces and this is what is not integrated into CMSF's current gameplay because of its debilitating AI and pathfinding limitations.

Steve has been very articulate in my pathfinding protest threads and I'm both grateful for the interaction and thrilled with the potential of this game. However, through no fault of the dev team, the nature of the combat they are simulating has conspired with the specific nature of the game's weakest aspects (AI, pathfinding) to produce critical mass. These problems are systematic and their resolution is essential to the minimum acceptable level of gameplay in a sophisticated sim like this. The Eurogamer review is right on the money, sadly, and a massive effort will need to be made to patch the game to a point where it lives up to its basic concept. After that they can concentrate on getting it to live up to its potential. The game is very broken and I do hope they can fix it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

I have to admit that I felt the same way about the campaign. It does feel like a series of disconnected scenarios created by different authors. I don't have a good feeling for what effects my mission success has provided - I just move on to the next scenario. So far, I haven't even seen any continuity of units between scenarios - I always seem to get a fresh new force full of ammo, despite my previous losses.

I don't know if the campaign even tells me why we're in Syria - though I'm sure someone will tell me it's in the 200 page manual. Maybe I'll get to that one someday. But in terms of playing the game, the context and story just isn't there. I'm enjoying the scenarios, don't get me wrong. They just don't feel connected in any way.

I certainly would like to know what's going on elsewhere, and what impact those events will have on my situation. Even if I am just a grunt (Do you consider a battallion commander a grunt?), it would make the scenarios all the more enjoyable to have some sort of context to what I'm doing. Not just "We're taking the airport, because there are bad guys there. Hop to it."

As far as pacing goes - I assume he means in terms of difficulty. The 2nd mission is probably the most difficult of the bunch. There's no ramping up of forces, or ramping up of opposition. The couple of scenarios after the airport are absolute snoozers - I'd expect Syrian defenses to get stiffer as we approach the capital.

The continuity issue comes from having different Styrker companies rotated between missions, I believe. The player doesn't have control over which subunits are used in each scenario. But the units do carry over.

Scenarios were written by different authors; I think it was a plus to present more than one style of design and it shows through. That may mean a loss of sense of continuity, but different designers had different strengths which I think provide a nice mix of situations.

Ammo replenishment between battles is normal as the "break" between scenarios in real life terms is fairly substantial - plenty of time to re-equip. It's not like the old Operations where you hang on to the same ground eyeball to eyeball with the enemy.

[Panzer76]

The reviwer tells you how he feels there is a disconnect with what was advertised and what is actually included in the game. I dont see why thats such a hard concept to grasp.

BTW, MD, Im curious, is there *anyhing* that is bad in CMSF? Or perhaps, mediocre, in your eyes?

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Bahger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ASHBERY76:

Reviews like this are going to kill the company.

Oh I really hope not. This is a wonderful assembly of developers with a dedicated team of beta testers with genuine military experience and their product, while terribly flawed, shows real promise. The problem is this, in my opinion: They are all so familiar with the CM series that working around certain critical weaknesses of the game's tac-AI and pathfinding is like second nature.

Now I'm not saying you can't play like this (i.e. by integrating problem workarounds into gameplay), and maybe that's how I'd be playing if I'd progressed further through the CM series instead of enjoying the heck out of the first one for two years and then moving on.

However, there are two reasonable expectations of non CM die hards that are not being met: (i) People expect that innovations will be matched by a corresponding evolution in the basics. A lot of people will not be thrilled by a vastly improved arty model if a vehicle can still not be relied upon not to stray into a line of tracers for no reason and then dash towards the enemy FLOT like a suicide mission. (ii) MOUT and asymmetric warfare requires a particular combination of speed, mobility, swift deployment and superior battlefield situational awareness. It also requires, at least for offensive operations, that the player seize the initiative and retain it. Every one of these tactical considerations is undermined each time a vehicle breaks formation for no reason just before contact is initiated or a squad runs around a building getting picked off instead of entering it through the door that was plotted in its movement orders.

As I say, people immersed in the series might look at this as "the price of doing business" with CM, and if these one step forward, two steps back gameplay innovations had been applied to a game in the WW2 theater, one's ability to ignore their shortcomings would be much greater, as would be one's level of satisfaction with the game. But BFC has taken a big leap in relocating its theater to contemporary MOUT ops and the highly specialised nature of this type of warfare has had the unfortunate effect of showcasing every one of the game's enormous deficiencies in the worst possible way instead of camouflaging them within a theater, like WW2, where comms were weaker, vehicles slower, intel less omniscient and therefore the combat more chaotic. There is a surgical professionalism to modern MOUT operations as conducted by outnumbered U.S. quick-reaction forces and this is what is not integrated into CMSF's current gameplay because of its debilitating AI and pathfinding limitations.

Steve has been very articulate in my pathfinding protest threads and I'm both grateful for the interaction and thrilled with the potential of this game. However, through no fault of the dev team, the nature of the combat they are simulating has conspired with the specific nature of the game's weakest aspects (AI, pathfinding) to produce critical mass. These problems are systematic and their resolution is essential to the minimum acceptable level of gameplay in a sophisticated sim like this. The Eurogamer review is right on the money, sadly, and a massive effort will need to be made to patch the game to a point where it lives up to its basic concept. After that they can concentrate on getting it to live up to its potential. The game is very broken and I do hope they can fix it. </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

The reviwer tells you how he feels there is a disconnect with what was advertised and what is actually included in the game. I dont see why thats such a hard concept to grasp.

BTW, MD, Im curious, is there *anyhing* that is bad in CMSF? Or perhaps, mediocre, in your eyes?

Not really fair, IMO, to press a BFC-affiliated guy, even a tester, about less-than-stellar features.

That said, I thought the whole "campaign" feature was supposed to be immersive for the guys that wanted it, not a simple string of battles.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

The reviwer tells you how he feels there is a disconnect with what was advertised and what is actually included in the game. I dont see why thats such a hard concept to grasp.

Seriously, I have no idea what you're on about. The reviewer, in what is a generally well-written review, provided one paragraph on the campaign. I felt his comments were largely misleading and based on misperceptions. I've stated why I feel his comments are inaccurate. What exactly is it you are doing?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The continuity issue comes from having different Styrker companies rotated between missions, I believe. The player doesn't have control over which subunits are used in each scenario. But the units do carry over.

Scenarios were written by different authors; I think it was a plus to present more than one style of design and it shows through. That may mean a loss of sense of continuity, but different designers had different strengths which I think provide a nice mix of situations.

Ammo replenishment between battles is normal as the "break" between scenarios in real life terms is fairly substantial - plenty of time to re-equip. It's not like the old Operations where you hang on to the same ground eyeball to eyeball with the enemy.

Certainly. I think the point here is that what's included in the game is merely the bare minimum required to call it a "story-driven campaign." The bare minimum, in this case, got Battlefront a 5 out of 10. It makes sense, to me.

[Exel]

BFC really needs to work quick to improve the game, or CMSF will get chewed up just like that in all the upcoming reviews as well. Even if they do fix the game later on, most of the damage has already been done...

I understand that you can't make big changes in short time, but maybe it'd help to release intentions of planned improvements, so the gamers (and reviewers) would at least know which aspects of the game are going to be fixed.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

The reviwer tells you how he feels there is a disconnect with what was advertised and what is actually included in the game. I dont see why thats such a hard concept to grasp.

BTW, MD, Im curious, is there *anyhing* that is bad in CMSF? Or perhaps, mediocre, in your eyes?

Not really fair, IMO, to press a BFC-affiliated guy, even a tester, about less-than-stellar features.

</font>

[SgtMuhammed]

MD,

I just bought it. You need to contact Steve about your cut. (Seeing if you remember this joke from another thread.)

[Guderian]

Here is another review from a german game mag, if someone cares. They gave 79 out of 100.

gamestar review

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

Certainly. I think the point here is that what's included in the game is merely the bare minimum required to call it a "story-driven campaign." The bare minimum, in this case, got Battlefront a 5 out of 10. It makes sense, to me.

There is a difference between calling something the "bare minimum" and saying it doesn't do the job at all because it lacks things it should never have to begin with. Had the reviewer stated what you just did, I'd have no problem considering his comments about the campaign a fair assessment, as indeed yours are.

sgtgoody - good to hear; looking forward to seeing you in the training area...

[B00M$LANG]

Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

That pic of the 10-12 Strykers all mashed together is priceless

All I can say is that, to get something even close to that, the person had to have either a)done it entirely on purpose, or hasn't a clue on how to play the game or maneuver forces.

Take your pick, because I have a feeling both may be true...

[JOGR]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

That pic of the 10-12 Strykers all mashed together is priceless

All I can say is that, to get something even close to that, the person had to have either a)done it entirely on purpose, or hasn't a clue on how to play the game or maneuver forces.

Take your pick, because I have a feeling both may be true... </font>

[CaptainBly]

Lol never seen so many people make excuses for crap out of the box. There's no excuse it's a worthless pile of doo. Sorry, I don't go in for this makebelieve they will fix it junk. It should have been that way upon release. People that continue to buy crap like this out of the box really need some help. You might as well go buy a new car without an engine, that's how you do with software. lol

[Thunderbird]

Ok, you know we have reached critical mass when the fan boy's can only nitpick the reviewer on his critique of the campaign

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Thunderbird:

Ok, you know we have reached critical mass when the fan boy's can only nitpick the reviewer on his critique of the campaign

I'm not a "fan boy" I'm a contributor to the campaign in the form of scenarios and I was clarifying inaccurate comments in the review. Nothing more, nothing less. His opinion of the pathing, QBs, and whatever else is kind of irrelevant - seems everyone on the forum has an opinion on that these days. The campaign comments leaped out as being particularly inaccurate. That's all. *shrug* On the same order as the reviewer who felt that CM:SF was horrible because it didn't include helicopters. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What they shouldn't do is form their opinion on misinformation and then publish it as if it were fact.

[Blackmuzzle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What they shouldn't do is form their opinion on misinformation and then publish it as if it were fact.

They weren't. They published it as a review, which is ultimately the opinion of the reviewer. As such, they are as much entitled to their opinion as the users on this forum.

On that note, kudos to Battlefront for allowing (constructive) criticism on their forum. I'm sure we all remember certain companies who simply lock threads with uncomfortable opinions - or just disable entire forums when public opinion turns sour on them.

[mPisi]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

That pic of the 10-12 Strykers all mashed together is priceless

All I can say is that, to get something even close to that, the person had to have either a)done it entirely on purpose, or hasn't a clue on how to play the game or maneuver forces.

Take your pick, because I have a feeling both may be true... </font>

[monkeezgob]

Review seems pretty much spot on to me. Can't claim to be a big fan of RTS in CM:SF either - too much like a click fest (unless the UI is streamlined). But it seems for better or worse RTS is the way Steve wants to go. Shame, for me, it just makes the product less distinctive.

[McIvan]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

That pic of the 10-12 Strykers all mashed together is priceless

All I can say is that, to get something even close to that, the person had to have either a)done it entirely on purpose, or hasn't a clue on how to play the game or maneuver forces.

Take your pick, because I have a feeling both may be true... </font>

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

The reviwer tells you how he feels there is a disconnect with what was advertised and what is actually included in the game. I dont see why thats such a hard concept to grasp.

Seriously, I have no idea what you're on about. The reviewer, in what is a generally well-written review, provided one paragraph on the campaign. I felt his comments were largely misleading and based on misperceptions. I've stated why I feel his comments are inaccurate. What exactly is it you are doing? </font>

[Jev.Dk]

I havent bought or played the game, but read alot on these forums...

There is one thing I wonder about

What ever happend to "Its done when its done" policy?

[Fetchez la Vache]

I got just a mash of overlying units as shown in the reviewer's screenshot when trying to rush one of the entrances in the Airport scenario in the campaign. Didn't look very impressive to be honest. And then one of the MGS's managed to get 'stuck' in the base of the control tower.

Collision detection needs improving.

[Darren J Pierson]

I'll be curious to see how GameSpot handles SF. They were pretty supportive of the CMx1 series.