Eurogamer Review

[MarkEzra]

Desert Fox: One must really wear thick pink fanboy glasses to look over all the shortcommings the release version of CM:SF is suffering from.

Two things: (a) I have had none of difficulties as reviewed. None, Nada, Zip. Players (not the reviewer) have found issues that need correcting, preferences that need to be considered, and out-right bugs in game play. All under BFC review. As you say, "Time will tell"

( "One must really wear thick pink fanboy glasses to look over all the shortcommings the release version of CM:SF is suffering from."

Just because I'm from Hollywood does NOT mean I wear Pink Glasses. However I am a big fan of CM. I really don't think that disqualifies me from having an opinion. Or is that "Only time will tell", too?

[Bahger]

Originally posted by The DesertFox:

He reviewed the release version (boxed) you can get off the shelf from every supermarket in germany for 34.99 EUR. This version is bugware in its worst incarnation. Even the v1.01 patch he also mentions in his review can´t hide the fact that this code suffers from multiple glaring errors and serious bugs as you can read on this board and elsewere.

He obviously wasn´t aware of the hardware issues this piece of bananaware is suffering from. If he would have known about the ATI/VISTA bug he hardly would have found a 5/10 appropriate, more likely a 2/10 would fit to this piece of shameware in its current state.

I can´t understand how someone like BTS can release such an unfinished product to the public and still believe they don´t loose any credibility in the customer-base by doing so. One must really wear thick pink fanboy glasses to look over all the shortcommings the release version of CM:SF is suffering from.

Look, you're right, it's beyond a "matter of opinion" that the game is in a lamentable state. On top of the lobotomised AI and pathfinding I do not understand, for example, how they could not have known that the group select "box" function and the adjust fire commands are useless (for those with Ati cards, I believe).

However (and this is a big however): We have to be respectful and constructive in our criticism. CM is not a corporate product. It's the product of hobbyists and enthusiasts whose motives are honorable and their dedication genuine. Now, I happen to believe that they may have made certain commercial calculations that, on top of the bugs and a standard of AI that is just not equal to the task of replicating the mobility and precision of modern-day urban combat, have put the game in a rather precarious place at the moment. I do not understand how Paradox was allowed to go out with an essentially Beta version of the game, or why the devs seemed genuinely to believe that version 1.01 was in a fit state for release.

However, one thing you cannot accuse these guys of is cynicism. They are hobbyists, enthusiasts and good guys and there is no other game out there with CMSF's level of ambition or purity of purpose. Now, I believe that somehow their reach far exceeded their grasp with this version of the game but if we can communicate our support for the devs alongside our candid views on the extent to which it is broken, there will be a much better chance that the team will approach the next patch in the spirit of optimism.

I have to say, I have never (i) spent $70 on such a dysfunctional piece of software yet (ii) I have never regretted it less because I'm looking at my payment as a contribution to further research and development work. I think BFC will come through. Let's hope.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The DesertFox:

One must really wear thick pink fanboy glasses to look over all the shortcommings the release version of CM:SF is suffering from.

Or else we're simply in the majority who have no outstanding technical issues and aren't letting them cloud our judgement. </font>

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Desert Fox: One must really wear thick pink fanboy glasses to look over all the shortcommings the release version of CM:SF is suffering from.

That's exactly the way that I always felt about BO, BB and CMAK. The SF system is excellent. Technically speaking, it marks a huge upgrade over it's dated cousins.

That's not to say that the older games didn't have some enormous strengths, foremost among these, perhaps, was their extraordiary level of content. CMSF is a little "thin" in this area, at least when compared to it's ancestors.

I don't know how or when BF will address the content issue, but I fear that folks will always draw unflattering comparisons in this regard given the apparent disparity between the two families of product.

PoE

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

What should I have said about it?! Does it not speak for itself?

You might have made some sort of attempt to appear discriminatory instead of alarmist. If you're not going to provide thoughtful commentary on what you think is signficant or why, then don't get upset when someone has to step in and do it for you.

The only significant part of the review you mentioned was the rating. It's significant in that it is far lower than any other rating yet received. My comments zeroed in on that aspect, and the context of the review just leads me to conclude its not all that big a deal. DesertFox raises an excellent point though; we all have our biases and certainly those with tech problems are probably more apt to condemn the game than others. See Steve's comments on testing hardware configurations though; expecting out-of-the-box perfection on the hundreds (thousands?) or possible hardware configurations now available in the average consumer market (worldwide, as that is the market now) is simply not an achievable goal. Commitment to resolving those issues that are later identified is - and BF.C has done that.

There was shock and horror when a wrench was found behind an instrument panel on the Apollo 1 spacecraft after the fatal fire that killed three American astronauts. At the enquiry it was noted - even in such a situation, far more important than some video game - that 100% perfection is not an attainable goal.

So in all honesty, Thomm, given that we're talking about matters of opinion, no, a rating of 1.5 out of 5, or 8 out of 8 most certainly does not speak for itself. Those who accused Jaguar's perfect score of being biased did so on account of the fact he had scenarios published in the game. Should we be less discerning of a low score given by a poster here who admits to having had technical issues? I wasn't even looking at that myself, but you raise an interesting point. Again - what does the context of the review mean to you? Apparently little. Others are more discriminating. Which is good; like I say - lots of opinions out there and over time, we'll see some of the heavy hitters weigh in - hopefully keeping in mind the evolutionary nature of game development and releases in today's market.

[Reckall]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You might have made some sort of attempt to appear discriminatory instead of alarmist. If you're not going to provide thoughtful commentary on what you think is signficant or why, then don't get upset when someone has to step in and do it for you.

There are so many conceptual errors in your approach to that review that it would need not a post but a paper to detail them all. Basically:

1. You have repeatedly admitted that you didn't read the review - but you still express a general judgement about it, based on the context (it is on a blog), the low mark, and the fact that it is the first review for the guy that wrote it. None of these bases are valid.

The context: there are good blogs and bad review sites. There are good fanzines and bad professional magazines. At the end of the day, only a detailed checking of the factual contents of the review with the reality of the reviewed product can determine the quality of the former. You failed to do that.

The reviewer: it is his first review (for that site). So what? "Duel" was the first movie for a dude named Steven Spielberg. Again, only a factual analysis of the contents of the review vs. the reality of the reviewed product can give us a measure of the quality of the review. You failed to do that.

The low mark: you are a beta-tester for CM:SF, so I really hope that you will read the reasons behind the low mark, that you will retain the ones that you feel that are valid, and that you will try to address them in future patches. Instead, you do not even seem interested in understanding the *why* behind the low mark - substituting it with with your (respectable but still only personal and unsubstantiated) "feelings" ("vanity piece"... "first review...")

2. You are a beta-tester for CM:SF, under an NDA. Sorry, but dismissing a bad review without being factual is conflict-of-interest at is basic level. Everybody is entitled to defend his work - factually. Should the reviewer write "you cannot play with Syrians in CM:SF - this sucks!" you have all the rights to point out that this is not true. About grayer areas you could explain why your "vision" of the game was different from the one expected by the reviewer. But, in order to do this, you still have to know *what* the reviewer wrote and *why*. Instead you choose to attack the piece and the reviewer "on general terms". This behavior only gives points to the reviewer, since everybody just wonders: "If the content of the review is bad, why isn't he attacking *that*? Couldn't it be because he has no actual ammo against the facts presented in the piece?" This, especially, in a situation where basically everybody is agreeing with the review in the first place.

Which leads to:

3. It is nice to read how everybody is working hard on CM:SF so to polish it and give us an improved product in a week /a month /an year... which leads to the question "why it wasn't published next week / month / year, then?" Were I a "beta-tester" for CM:SF, one of the buggiest games I have seen, not only I would keep very quiet about my role, but also I wouldn't go around to teach others how to do their jobs.

I really hope that your efforts at beta-testing will show more sense that your efforts at "reviewing the reviewers".

Vince

P.S. Oh, BTW, I'm a professional reviewer for gaming magazines, here in Italy, since 1989. I gave 9/10 to CMBO version 1.0 when it was published seven years ago. I'm waiting for patch 1.02 before writing the review of CM:SF. This is all the slack I'll give to the game.

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000099

Incidentally, Steve's latest comments on some of the technical issues. Interesting points about video cards and how sometimes they are the ones causing the problems - not the software. Some of us recall the fog issue in CM:BO; it was an issue for me with my laptop, fortunately I only used it while on the road and the fog issue wasn't a huge deal to me.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Reckall:

You have repeatedly admitted that you didn't read the review - but you still express a general judgement about it, based on the context (it is on a blog), the low mark, and the fact that it is the first review for the guy that wrote it. None of these bases are valid.

That's up to individual interpretation. To wit:

The context: there are good blogs and bad review sites. There are good fanzines and bad professional magazines. At the end of the day, only a detailed checking of the factual contents of the review with the reality of the reviewed product can determine the quality of the former. You failed to do that.

I certainly invite people like Thomm, to whom this review matters, to do exactly that.

The reviewer: it is his first review (for that site). So what? "Duel" was the first movie for a dude named Steven Spielberg. Again, only a factual analysis of the contents of the review vs. the reality of the reviewed product can give us a measure of the quality of the review. You failed to do that.

I stipulated that the review might be the most on target review ever written. My comments were on how much weight to give to it based on its context. If some guy in the Walmart parking lot without any shoes on tells me that the air conditioner I am wheeling to my car has serious design flaws, it would mean significantly less to me than hearing it from a close friend. Regardless of any technical data they were able to reel off.

The low mark: you are a beta-tester for CM:SF, so I really hope that you will read the reasons behind the low mark, that you will retain the ones that you feel that are valid, and that you will try to address them in future patches.

Instead, you do not even seem interested in understanding the *why* behind the low mark - substituting it with with your (respectable but still only personal and unsubstantiated) "feelings" ("vanity piece"... "first review...")

I agree with you; as stated, I don't speak for BF.C or in any official capacity. If battlefront wants to respond to the review in an official manner, they will. Check Steve's threads on the V1.02 patch for upcoming fixes. User feedback was essential to this process, and I have indicated that, though you are correct, I should have been more clear on it up front.

You are a beta-tester for CM:SF, under an NDA. Sorry, but dismissing a bad review without being factual is conflict-of-interest at is basic level. Everybody is entitled to defend his work - factually.

I'm not dismissing the contents of the review or even the reviewer; I'm pointing out that one bad review never killed anybody, and in this case, the worst of the reviews is on a little-visited site posted by someone who has identified himself as someone who bought the game and was frustrated by technical problems. My comments were aimed at the context of the review, not the review itself.

Should the reviewer write "you cannot play with Syrians in CM:SF - this sucks!" you have all the rights to point out that this is not true. About grayer areas you could explain why your "vision" of the game was different from the one expected by the reviewer. But, in order to do this, you still have to know *what* the reviewer wrote and *why*. Instead you choose to attack the piece and the reviewer "on general terms". This behavior only gives points to the reviewer, since everybody just wonders: "If the content of the review is bad, why isn't he attacking *that*? Couldn't it be because he has no actual ammo against the facts presented in the piece?" This, especially, in a situation where basically everybody is agreeing with the review in the first place.

I have no interest in discussing the review itself; mainly because I don't think it is important enough to bother with. If others want to discuss it, I'd find that interesting and might participate if I felt I had anything to contribute. I just don't see it as worth my effort given the low traffic that site gets.

3. It is nice to read how everybody is working hard on CM:SF so to polish it and give us an improved product in a week /a month /an year... which leads to the question "why it wasn't published next week / month / year, then?" Were I a "beta-tester" for CM:SF, one of the buggiest games I have seen, not only I would keep very quiet about my role, but also I wouldn't go around to teach others how to do their jobs.

I haven't said anything about my role, nor have I told anyone how to do their jobs, so I'm not sure what this is in reference to.

I really hope that your efforts at beta-testing will show more sense that your efforts at "reviewing the reviewers".

Vince

P.S. Oh, BTW, I'm a professional reviewer for gaming magazines, here in Italy, since 1989. I gave 9/10 to CMBO version 1.0 when it was published seven years ago. I'm waiting for patch 1.02 before writing the review of CM:SF. This is all the slack I'll give to the game.

I'll be interested in reading your review. I really do think that the nature of games these days is evolutionary - an advantage of the internet, not a drawback. As games evolve, so must reviewers - you're clearly adapting well. I approve. And I hope you'll like what you see.

[ August 02, 2007, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[adminttd]

oh oh oh why is everyone complaining, ITS JUST a game,,, look software is made by humans and humans are not perfect, so it has errors... live with it and just have fun playing this MEGA cool game...

let me correct this in human language heh

i think only that this person that wrote the article did not have a good day perhaps

peace to ya all and happy hunting.

[ August 02, 2007, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: adminttd ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by adminttd:

oh oh oh why is everyone complaining, ITS JUST a game,,, look software is made by humans so it has errors... live with it and just have fun playing this MEGA cool game pff think that guy from this article did not have a good dick suck lol

peace to ya all and happy hunting.

May I have permission to post that in my blog?

[Matthias]

to be honest, that review is what i was thinking too.

[Thomm]

Dorosh-man!

I am a little bit drunk right now, so I am keepin' it short (only a little bit drunk, mind you!).

When I played my second scenario ever in CM:SF (the download version) I thought to myself: OMG what have they done!

I found what (at that moment) I considered game breaking bugs, like my precious squads circling the target buildings only to be killed to the last man, or going down to the ground when ordered to jump on another roof. I said game breaking because I perceived the shortcomings of the game to keep me from winning!

If, at that time, I played only the demo and not the full game I preordered, and if I was a newcomer, I would have bailed out right there!

Now, that I read the manual, played the game for approx. 8 hours, and found a challenging battle to sink my teeth into, I begin to feel just how good the game is.

BUT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT TO LATE for the average gamer!

So, summing up:

* I think the controls must be changed.

* I think that the review was spot-on!

* I think that the game rocks.

* I think that the demo should have been released after the second patch.

What else?

Hmmm, if I play the game for the first time ever and I find several issues that I consider game-breaking (like: squads unnecessarily moving into plain sight of the enemy (to be avoided by placing additional waypoints at doors, nobody told me so!), squads being shot through solid walls, vehicles passing through each other, ...) I cannot help but think that I am abused as a beta-tester!

That was my initial feeling with CM:SF!

Remember: "OMG what have they done!"

I kept playing, of course, because there is just so much to discover, and, of course, I start to like what I am seeing (disclaimer: I am talking real-time only, cannot comment on the issues of the We-Goers). There is still some stuff in it that seriously sucks, like the walls that do not act like one, but I learned to work around them in the mean time.

(Boy that post is redundant)

In closing, I would kindly ask you, MD, to reconsider the way you deal with criticism that is not even directed directly at you, but at BFC. I am sure that, being a beta tester, you have a strong affiliation with the product, but on the other hand, you should consider that, due to that affiliation, your posts and your attitude could backfire on BFC!! The game has issues, so much is for sure (did you see the gun elevation/shooting through terrain screenshot in another thread ... OMG). Downplaying them and trying to ridicule reviewers who point them out is not the way to go!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

So much for keepin' it short!

Something else: Please do not ever make fun of Squad Assault again! CM:SF certainly does some things better, but not to an extent that you can still ridicule SA.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Rastakyle]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

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

I love "out of eight"

Yeah! Out of Eight rulzzzz!!!!!111!! [/QB]</font>

[Noiseman]

Wow! What a train wreck of a thread but - I - just - can't - look - away... :eek:

Michael man, take some well intentioned advice and do yourself a favor, just take a break from posting. You're a good guy and your heart is in the right place, but you're definitely suffering from Gen. Frank Savage Syndrome (overidentification with the team or product [a little bone for fans of the movie Twelve O' Clock High ]). I haven't bought CMSF (I'm on Mac), and I offer it neither criticism or praise. As a neutral party let me just advise that you find yourself a Happy Place and go there because you're not doing anyone here any good. You're flailing.

Let Lt. Col. Gately take the mission (I loved that film).

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

oh oh oh why is everyone complaining, ITS JUST a game,,, look software is made by humans so it has errors... live with it and just have fun playing this MEGA cool game pff think that guy from this article did not have a good dick suck lol

peace to ya all and happy hunting.

May I have permission to post that in my blog? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Dorosh-man!

I am a little bit drunk right now, so I am keepin' it short (only a little bit drunk, mind you!).

When I played my second scenario ever in CM:SF (the download version) I thought to myself: OMG what have they done!

I found what (at that moment) I considered game breaking bugs, like my precious squads circling the target buildings only to be killed to the last man, or going down to the ground when ordered to jump on another roof. I said game breaking because I perceived the shortcomings of the game to keep me from winning!

If, at that time, I played only the demo and not the full game I preordered, and if I was a newcomer, I would have bailed out right there!

Now, that I read the manual, played the game for approx. 8 hours, and found a challenging battle to sink my teeth into, I begin to feel just how good the game is.

BUT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT TO LATE for the average gamer!

So, summing up:

* I think the controls must be changed.

* I think that the review was spot-on!

* I think that the game rocks.

* I think that the demo should have been released after the second patch.

What else?

Hmmm, if I play the game for the first time ever and I find several issues that I consider game-breaking (like: squads unnecessarily moving into plain sight of the enemy (to be avoided by placing additional waypoints at doors, nobody told me so!), squads being shot through solid walls, vehicles passing through each other, ...) I cannot help but think that I am abused as a beta-tester!

That was my initial feeling with CM:SF!

Remember: "OMG what have they done!"

I kept playing, of course, because there is just so much to discover, and, of course, I start to like what I am seeing (disclaimer: I am talking real-time only, cannot comment on the issues of the We-Goers). There is still some stuff in it that seriously sucks, like the walls that do not act like one, but I learned to work around them in the mean time.

(Boy that post is redundant)

In closing, I would kindly ask you, MD, to reconsider the way you deal with criticism that is not even directed directly at you, but at BFC. I am sure that, being a beta tester, you have a strong affiliation with the product, but on the other hand, you should consider that, due to that affiliation, your posts and your attitude could backfire on BFC!! The game has issues, so much is for sure (did you see the gun elevation/shooting through terrain screenshot in another thread ... OMG). Downplaying them and trying to ridicule reviewers who point them out is not the way to go!

Best regards,

Thomm

Huh? But my comments and this argument have nothing to do with criticism. I agree with many of the criticisms aired about the game. So do the developers. I was clarifying how much importance one should place on a poor review left on a vanity website. It's not my fault the rest of you can't stay on topic.

I disagree with you about the "average" gamer, too. It's a niche market to begin with - I think the "average" CM player will spend the necessary time to learning the game. I hated the CM:BO demo. The subject matter intrigued me so much, and by the time I got to it, the word of mouth was so good - this was well after the initial release - that I gave it a second chance, and was hooked. There's nothing to suggest CM:SF will be any different. It's sophisticated and engaging - you have to think to play it, and you learn it quickly but perhaps never master it (unlike, say, Medal of Honor or the like where you can memorize the levels on your first run through).

Don't forget to drink lots of water before bed; couple of aspirin will help too.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Don't forget to drink lots of water before bed; couple of aspirin will help too.

Aspirins? Water?

You kiddin' me? Just came back from a 1 hour run! Gotta burn some of that calories! Boy was the moon nice tonight over beautiful Donauinsel ...

In fact I am so full of endorphins right now that I give the topic a rest!

Best regards,

Thomm

[monkeezgob]

here we go again. Michael, how on earth can you know it's "a poor review" if you haven't read it.

Go back over the many pages in this thread and you'll see that plenty of people that have read it have called it a well written, articulate and fair account of where the game is right now. Of course, you can disagree with those conclusions if you've read the review, but dismissing it as 'poor' without reading it is ridiculous.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

here we go again. Michael, how on earth can you know it's "a poor review" if you haven't read it.

It's a poor review because he's already taken his position on the matter and he doesn't think he looks like an incredible ass for continuing to post his fanboi diatribe.

[Truppenfuhrung]

Personally, I'm very satisfied by the game. There are some problems that need to be address but nothing “major". Just like CMBB and CMAK, the game will be patch.

I play CMBB/CMAK for more than 4 years. I have taken habit about how I select the units and give orders. Now I have to replace those old habits because the interface of CMSF is different.

Different interface because the game is not much more "complex". I will not complain about that.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

Of course, you can disagree with those conclusions if you've read the review, but dismissing it as 'poor' without reading it is ridiculous.

I never dismissed it as poor nor did I disagree with the conclusions. Good God, you're thick. :eek:

Thomm - you did it manly way; I'm impressed. Good for you. I bet you don't have a lunchpail when you check back in tomorrow morning.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Ping.

Pong.

I love these old games. ;-D

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by Noiseman:

Wow! What a train wreck of a thread but - I - just - can't - look - away... :eek:

Michael man, take some well intentioned advice and do yourself a favor, just take a break from posting. You're a good guy and your heart is in the right place, but you're definitely suffering from Gen. Frank Savage Syndrome (overidentification with the team or product [a little bone for fans of the movie Twelve O' Clock High ]). I haven't bought CMSF (I'm on Mac), and I offer it neither criticism or praise. As a neutral party let me just advise that you find yourself a Happy Place and go there because you're not doing anyone here any good. You're flailing.

Let Lt. Col. Gately take the mission (I loved that film).

I'll have you know, Noiseman, Mr. Dorosh never "flails"...he simply "fans"...and I'll thank you to remember that....

[monkeezgob]