Eurogamer Review

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

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

As has been said before RTS is definitely the way BFC wants to go. I'm presuming it's to broaden the commercial appeal of the product.

Except by Battlefront themselves, which somehow seems relevant.

So try not to present speculation as fact. It's misleading and untruthful. </font>

[Paul AU]

If customer feedback has any effect (and ain't just considered "whining"): I agree with everything "Bahger" has said on this so far.

Also, someone said that many people were hoping for "CMx1 - with Extra Bits". Many people (well, me) did beg for that. Gee, that would have been sweet... CMx1 with any sort of strategic AI... with the scenario editing features CMSF has... with a campaign system, and about 12 of its broken or absent smaller features fixed. Maybe a Pacific Theatre...

BFC has said that's never going to happen. They know the market they are now chasing.

What a shame. That would have been so sweet.

Well, I'll stop my pointless whining for now (good though it felt).

I hope BFC takes Bahger's advice.

[Cavtroop]

Michael -

I'd think someone with as close ties to BF would be better spoken than you are. There are rules on this forum about swearing, but you seem to be above them.

If you can't tell, I wrote that review. I stand by everything I wrote. This game is a few patches away from being a good game. WEGO is an afterthought, or poorly thought out. If you take the time to read my review, you'll see the flaw I pointed out with WEGO and ambushes - you just can't do them properly. And I can't personally stand real-time - I like to review whats going on, what went on, what killed my stryker, etc. Its what the CM games are based on. Maybe thats the problem - this game shouldn't have been branded 'Combat Mission'?

And stooping to name-calling (arse-geek? how juvenile)? Very mature, I appreciate the feedback.

And I'll re-visit the review, when any patches come out that fix the AI pathfinding, beef up the WEGO (make it useful again), and fix the crashing.

But I thank all of the others feedback, its constructive, and I appreciate it.

[thewood]

Actually a pretty fair review. While somewhat negative, can't argue with the points made.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by thewood:

Actually a pretty fair review. While somewhat negative, can't argue with the points made.

I wasn't even trying to. Truth be told, I didn't read it. I mean - it's a blog. I rate them about as important as my sister's junior high school diary. The name alone defies anyone to take it seriously. Arse-geek? You can have the most lucid prose in the world prosecuting the most logical review in the history of modern man, and it just wouldn't mean a single thing to me. It's barely a step up from writing in your Facebook profile, isn't it?

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Arse-geek?

To a backwoods yokel, I'm sure this is funny. It's like that one time the teacher said Uranus. If you had half an education you would know ArsGeek would mean "The Art of Geek" in Latin, assuming the Romans knew what a geek was.

You stepped on your lower lip in the whole "who is Troy Goodfellow" debacle. Gee, I wonder who that guy is?

You again stepped on your lip in the absurd "interview" you hosted with Steve Grammont. I halfway expected you to propose marriage. In that same interview, you couldn't even properly pronounce "Les Grognards" even though you think you're a grog.

You are the ultimate fanboi. Give it a rest. The game is a mess and "King's New Clothes" routine has gotten pretty old.

[thewood]

Actually I generally take a well written review seriously if the author seems to have a clue and can communicate. Same as opinions on this board, just another opinion. I am sorry to see that you can't get past something as superficial as a name to see if the review is relevent. My opinion is that it is a pretty closed-minded way to approach information in any medium.

[Bahger]

Cavtroop, your review was right on the money. It was thoughtful, fair, well-researched and took no cheap shots at CMSF. The game is seriously broken in its current state but if anyone can fix it, it's Charles, Steve, Madmatt and everyone else at BFC. They are a great group and I remain optimistic.

The idea of a high-fidelity simulation of company-scale combat against a numerically superior enemy fighting on its own turf against an ultra mobile U.S. Stryker force with full support is such an exciting one and I really admire BFC for not copping out and placing the conflict in some imagined state ending in -stan. CMSF has so much going for it but its deficiencies cripple gameplay and immersion to a critical extent and I think the game is in triage at the moment. I believe that deep down the dev team knows this and that they will fix it. Frankly, I'd pay another $50 for Combat Mission: Shock Force with overhauled AI and pathfinding.

Thanks for the endorsement, Paul.

[ August 01, 2007, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Bahger ]

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bahger:

Frankly, I'd pay another $50 for Combat Mission: Shock Force with overhauled AI and pathfinding.

Seconded. I'd happily give up buying any of the couple other games I've planned to buy this year to be able to play CM:SF with overhauled TacAI and pathfinding.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[qb]Arse-geek?

To a backwoods yokel, I'm sure this is funny. It's like that one time the teacher said Uranus. If you had half an education you would know ArsGeek would mean "The Art of Geek" in Latin, assuming the Romans knew what a geek was.</font>

[thewood]

I assume the ars you were thinking of was arse.

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by thewood:

Actually I generally take a well written review seriously if the author seems to have a clue and can communicate. Same as opinions on this board, just another opinion. I am sorry to see that you can't get past something as superficial as a name to see if the review is relevent. My opinion is that it is a pretty closed-minded way to approach information in any medium.

Seconded. It seems arrogant and prejudiced in the extreme to dismiss an opinion, simply because of a site/blog name. Sorry Michael, but in its current state WEGO is poorly implemented in CM:SF.

[Grumbling Grognard]

I still get a grin when people try to say this game has WEGO and almost as big a kick when people have a hissy-fit that it does not have WEGO.

Replayable REALTIME that pauses at predetermined intervals is NOT the same as WEGO. It's not, nor ever will be WEGO and to pretend it is WEGO is just silly.

I vastly prefer WEGO, but this is a new game with a new engine get used to it. Get over it or sell your copy on eBay because no patch is going to change the core engine.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

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

Actually I generally take a well written review seriously if the author seems to have a clue and can communicate. Same as opinions on this board, just another opinion. I am sorry to see that you can't get past something as superficial as a name to see if the review is relevent. My opinion is that it is a pretty closed-minded way to approach information in any medium.

Seconded. It seems arrogant and prejudiced in the extreme to dismiss an opinion, simply because of a site/blog name. Sorry Michael, but in its current state WEGO is poorly implemented in CM:SF. </font>

[monkeezgob]

With respect Michael, and it has already been said by others, the review is thoughtful, detailed, well reserached and I think it's a fair account of the game's current state. It's clearly written by a fan of the series, I don't how anyone could charge it with being dishonest, sensationalist or craving attention. The review is just an opinion of the game that you don't happen to agree with.

[thewood]

Hey if David Duke wrote a review on CMSF and it was succint and accurate, Id listen to it and throw it into the pile for consideration.

btw, doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid opinion on something I am interested in (CMSF). But it has no more editorial coverage than these forums and yet many here seem to hang on the words posted.

btw, I'd like to know what exactly you are seeing as decficient in CMSF. Are you seeing excellent AI pathing, CM like threat assesments, walls blocking LOS/LOF, etc. I am just curious. You seem to be very good at reviewing the reviewers and you have good communications skills...so what's your opinion? Sorry for the ramble.

Here are a couple of reviews(don't know if they were posted before):

Worthplaying:

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=44744

From KampfGruppe - a CM club, KG_Scout wrote a very short one, almost just a comment. (I hope the context is OK, KampfGruppe is a German battle term, not related to Syria or the US.) Its actually in forums down the page some.

http://www.kampfgruppe.us/showthread.php?t=5869&page=2

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

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

As has been said before RTS is definitely the way BFC wants to go. I'm presuming it's to broaden the commercial appeal of the product.

Except by Battlefront themselves, which somehow seems relevant.

So try not to present speculation as fact. It's misleading and untruthful. </font>

[Rastakyle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Actually a pretty fair review. While somewhat negative, can't argue with the points made.

I wasn't even trying to. Truth be told, I didn't read it. I mean - it's a blog. I rate them about as important as my sister's junior high school diary. The name alone defies anyone to take it seriously. Arse-geek? You can have the most lucid prose in the world prosecuting the most logical review in the history of modern man, and it just wouldn't mean a single thing to me. It's barely a step up from writing in your Facebook profile, isn't it? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

With respect Michael, and it has already been said by others, the review is thoughtful, detailed, well reserached and I think it's a fair account of the game's current state. It's clearly written by a fan of the series, I don't how anyone could charge it with being dishonest, sensationalist or craving attention. The review is just an opinion of the game that you don't happen to agree with.

I haven't read it, so I can't disagree with it, hold an opinion on how well written it is, or call it dishonest. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I can certainly dismiss it as trivial based on its source, and would do so if it was a rave review, too.

[thewood]

So what is your threshold for editoial control since that seems to be the sticking point.

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

With respect Michael, and it has already been said by others, the review is thoughtful, detailed, well reserached and I think it's a fair account of the game's current state. It's clearly written by a fan of the series, I don't how anyone could charge it with being dishonest, sensationalist or craving attention. The review is just an opinion of the game that you don't happen to agree with.

I haven't read it, so I can't disagree with it, hold an opinion on how well written it is, or call it dishonest. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I can certainly dismiss it as trivial based on its source, and would do so if it was a rave review, too. </font>

[Rastakyle]

Why comment on something you haven't even read?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by thewood:

btw, I'd like to know what exactly you are seeing as decficient in CMSF. Are you seeing excellent AI pathing, CM like threat assesments, walls blocking LOS/LOF, etc. I am just curious. You seem to be very good at reviewing the reviewers and you have good communications skills...so what's your opinion? Sorry for the ramble.

I see the same things you guys see. I'm under an NDA and don't really want to bite the hand that feeds me, but I also have an inside look at all the talk about what needs to be addressed, and all the different ideas about how to do it. It makes me feel pretty confident. If I could have one wish come true with regards to the game, it would be that we could wave a magic wand and flash forward in time. In the meantime, you guys have to realize two things;

a) the developers have already delivered pretty significant advances over the previous engine - and the most mind blowing stuff unfortunately was done so well, they made it look effortless. Relative spotting and the new editor stand out especially for me, not to mention the 3D models in game - getting down low, it really looks a lot like Operation Flashpoint at times, and that says a lot. I mean, the damn wheels actually turn on the tanks.

the developers haven't gone anywhere. We testers are testing new ideas and bug fixes constantly. But the developers also believe that it's dangerous to make promises they can't keep. So you guys don't get updated every thirty seconds. You hear about the stuff when it's a reality. I think it's the right policy.

If I sound like a "fan-boy", well, that's why. I know what's going on behind Door Number Three and I like what I see. You guys will too.

[Rastakyle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

btw, I'd like to know what exactly you are seeing as decficient in CMSF. Are you seeing excellent AI pathing, CM like threat assesments, walls blocking LOS/LOF, etc. I am just curious. You seem to be very good at reviewing the reviewers and you have good communications skills...so what's your opinion? Sorry for the ramble.

I see the same things you guys see. I'm under an NDA and don't really want to bite the hand that feeds me, but I also have an inside look at all the talk about what needs to be addressed, and all the different ideas about how to do it. It makes me feel pretty confident. If I could have one wish come true with regards to the game, it would be that we could wave a magic wand and flash forward in time. In the meantime, you guys have to realize two things;

a) the developers have already delivered pretty significant advances over the previous engine - and the most mind blowing stuff unfortunately was done so well, they made it look effortless. Relative spotting and the new editor stand out especially for me, not to mention the 3D models in game - getting down low, it really looks a lot like Operation Flashpoint at times, and that says a lot. I mean, the damn wheels actually turn on the tanks.

the developers haven't gone anywhere. We testers are testing new ideas and bug fixes constantly. But the developers also believe that it's dangerous to make promises they can't keep. So you guys don't get updated every thirty seconds. You hear about the stuff when it's a reality. I think it's the right policy.

If I sound like a "fan-boy", well, that's why. I know what's going on behind Door Number Three and I like what I see. You guys will too. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rastakyle:

Why comment on something you haven't even read?

Someone expressed concern a page or so ago at how low the rating was. There has been concern expressed elsewhere on the forum that poor reviews will kill battlefront altogether. My response is - who cares? It's just some guy with a blog looking for some notoriety. "Hey, look at me - I rated CM:SF lower than anyone else!"