Some more ratings average 69% so far

[fritzthemoose]

Featured Articles - 13 On File Average Ratio: 69.0% - (61.8%)

Site Profile GameSpot

8/10/2007

4.5 out of 10

45.0%

Site Profile GameZone

8/2/2007

8 out of 10

80.0%

Site Profile Eurogamer

7/31/2007

5 out of 10

50.0%

Site Profile Worth Playing

7/29/2007

9.5 out of 10

95.0%

Site Profile Game Industry News

7/28/2007

3.5 out of 5

70.0%

Site Profile Jolt Online Gaming UK

7/27/2007

7.3 out of 10

73.0%

Site Profile Ace Gamez

7/19/2007

7 out of 10

70.0%

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/930381.asp

[track]

Sounds fair. Something that I would give. Between 6.5 and 7.

[Hukka]

I'd give it 7/10 now, but there is potential for a 9/10 rating.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by track:

Sounds fair. Something that I would give. Between 6.5 and 7.

they of course dont go into rt and wego, but judge it simply from what it is right now.

so yes in my opinion 6.5 to 7 is fair

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Hukka:

I'd give it 7/10 now, but there is potential for a 9/10 rating.

frankly i am not sure about the potential because at the moment it is not clear, at least not for me, how many of the problems are simply bugs that can be solved or design things that cannot be solved or at least not easily

Steve admitted in one post that some of the LOS LOF problems can be solved some not because of the abstraction in the engine. he did however not say which one are which.

it might be similar with other things but i have not found anything about it from BFC.

But lets stick with the LOS LOF thing. If they cannot solve the shooting through walls or solid ground or eg spotting through walls and solid ground there is no way they can get 9 in my opinion. If things like that can be solved then maybe.

[Truppenfuhrung]

Originally posted by fritzthemoose:

Steve admitted in one post that some of the LOS LOF problems can be solved some not because of the abstraction in the engine. he did however not say which one are which.

CMx1 LOS had more abstraction than Cmx2...

If CMx1 LOS was fine, CMx2 LOS should be top notch when the bug will be patch.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Truppenfuhrung:

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

Steve admitted in one post that some of the LOS LOF problems can be solved some not because of the abstraction in the engine. he did however not say which one are which.

CMx1 LOS had more abstraction than Cmx2...

If CMx1 LOS was fine, CMx2 LOS should be top notch when the bug will be patch. </font>

[Rob Ross]

Here's another:

CMSF gets 1.5 out of 5.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Here's another:

CMSF gets 1.5 out of 5.

where does this one come from?

[Rob Ross]

Originally posted by fritzthemoose:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Here's another:

CMSF gets 1.5 out of 5.

where does this one come from? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Here's another:

CMSF gets 1.5 out of 5.

There's an entire thread about the arsgeek review. It's a blog, but then, you've included some other blogs in your other review scores. I believe the owner posts here as Cavscout. The question is, are you going to include blog postings as legitimate reviews or not.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Rob Ross:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Here's another:

CMSF gets 1.5 out of 5.

where does this one come from? </font>

[Rob Ross]

Dunno Michael - it just came up as one of the first reviews in Google. I thought it was interesting, but personally take all review 'scores' with a bucket of salt. If anyone wants to argue against its validity then I won't be defending it.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Dunno Michael - it just came up as one of the first reviews in Google. I thought it was interesting, but personally take all review 'scores' with a bucket of salt. If anyone wants to argue against its validity then I won't be defending it.

yes but it gives u a trend and the trend goes into average 60% to 70% right now.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fritzthemoose:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Dunno Michael - it just came up as one of the first reviews in Google. I thought it was interesting, but personally take all review 'scores' with a bucket of salt. If anyone wants to argue against its validity then I won't be defending it.

yes but it gives u a trend and the trend goes into average 60% to 70% right now. </font>

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Dunno Michael - it just came up as one of the first reviews in Google. I thought it was interesting, but personally take all review 'scores' with a bucket of salt. If anyone wants to argue against its validity then I won't be defending it.

yes but it gives u a trend and the trend goes into average 60% to 70% right now. </font>

[fritzthemoose]

some more reviews

highest 80%

lowest 39%

average 64,1

http://www.pcgamesdatabase.de/gameinfo.php?game_id=2170&cat=zit&PHPSESSID=d2

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i don't think the game is nearly as bad as some make it sound. it has great potential even if it feels a bit strange at the moment. i bet the game plays a lot better by Christmas and if some of the CM fans won't buy it just yet, they will buy it later when it has matured enough.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i don't think the game is nearly as bad as some make it sound. it has great potential even if it feels a bit strange at the moment. i bet the game plays a lot better by Christmas and if some of the CM fans won't buy it just yet, they will buy it later when it has matured enough.

I guess that depends on what problems are just bugs and can be fixed and which ones are designrelated and cannot be fixed

[Meach]

I just want to try it for myself.

I get the "use original disc" bug and it is frustrating as hell. I was waiting an age on this it seems and now I have it I cannot even try it out.

After the massive disapointment that was ToW and now this I am quickly losing faith.

I know BFC are trying there best and I hope they can help me then I can see if the game is a 7/10 or not for myself.

[Sixxkiller]

Well I give it a 9,000,000 rating out of 10. What does that do to your 69% ratio?

Seriously, these reviewers will usually not re-rate the game after all the patches are in, so I never listen to what goes on in the reviews as much as I do from message boards. Most of the "reviewers; writers" are usually interested in different genres than wargamers anyway.

[imported_TREAD_HEAD]

4.5? at Gamespot? I think if you look at what is top rated at Gamespot, it is pretty clear that graphics, sound and easy learning curve always do well (although, CMx1 series did very well...). Many of the good wargames that I really like to play don't fall into that category. For a gamer who has only been exposed to the likes of CivIV as a wargame, I can see that CMSF would not be that fun.

Looking over Gamespots rating, here are a few other interesting ones:

Avalon Hill's swansong, Third Reich got a 3.7, and I just sold my copy on ebay for USD $80, so somebody must like it. I did, but liked the $80 dollars better...

GI Combat, got a 3.0, certainly not a great game, but good for a few hours of entertainment anyway. 3.0 is one step above drink coaster...and the game was not that bad...

Playboy Mansion got 6.5...who says box art doesn't make for a great game...

[Petrus58]

Does any of this really matter? Most 'general reviewers' haven't got a clue about games like this so what they say is largely irrelevant. This is a very small niche market we are talking about; I dont think that a few 'bad' reviews are going to make much difference

[Stryker]

Originally posted by TREAD_HEAD:

4.5? at Gamespot? I think if you look at what is top rated at Gamespot, it is pretty clear that graphics, sound and easy learning curve always do well (although, CMx1 series did very well...). Many of the good wargames that I really like to play don't fall into that category. For a gamer who has only been exposed to the likes of CivIV as a wargame, I can see that CMSF would not be that fun.

I don't agree with the very low Gamespot score either, but why immediately assume the reviewer has only played non-Wargames?

Not sure what "category" of wargames you are playing, but here's a quick check of some other Gamespot reviews:

8.4 Matrix Games: Battles in Normandy

7.0 ArmA

9.1 CM:BB

8.4 CM:AK

8.4 Gary Grigsby's: World at War

7.8 ToW

9.1 Close Combat

7.2 Strategic Command

4.5 CM:SF

edit: after waiting YEARS for computer 3rd Reich, I thought it was a huge failure (IMO). Nice job on getting $80 for it.

[thewood]

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.