PC Gamer UK Review

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

It may be a better engine, but that doesn't make it a better design. The absence of anything resembling cmx1 QBs is a deal-breaker for me. Steve says they ain't coming back, so neither am I.

Slight clarification... I said that a CMx1 system is not in the cards for CMx2. However, I didn't say that a future CMx2 system would not "resemble" CMx1. I think it will, but of course the devil is always in the details and we aren't ready to discuss the details yet.

Shredder,

Let me get this straight: A game that has been in development for 4 years gets panned, but that's OK because there hasn't been any NEW perspective in 4 weeks since it's been released?

You missed the point. We already know what the issues are so repetition of them doesn't mean anything to us. To put it another way, today is an overcast and possibly rainy day where I live. 4 weeks of discussion about what the weather was on this day is rather unnecessary because it has no value in terms of talking about what the weather will be next month.

Arrogance? Denial?

Neither. As stated above, we already know what the problems are and someone posting a new rant, be it a customer or a reviewer, doesn't have much to contribute unless they've got a new angle. "Game released before it was ready" is not a new angle. "Big disappointment for people expecting CMx1 with prettier graphics" is also not a new angle.

Steve

[Nick Schieben]

Let's see... someone purchases CMSF and they're pissed off about something in it, perhaps due to it not meeting their expectations - but if what they're pissed off with doesn't give a "new angle" then they're not contributing. I thnk they already contributed when they put down their hard earned cash to assist with your efforts. Don't you?

You need to listen to your customers, and I, and likely several others (by what I'm reading around here, in certain reviews, and what I personally "got" from the demo), would have preferred you would have done a bit more of that earlier on, instead of having to be patronized by you now, as it were. And before you start - I did buy all of the original CM series and felt I got more than my money's worth except for CMAK. For several years I couldn't get my wargaming jollies from anything but CMBO and CMBB.

There - I've said it. If you don't like it you may ban me sir. I'm orrff...

Regards

[Battlefront.com]

Nick,

Let's see... someone purchases CMSF and they're pissed off about something in it, perhaps due to it not meeting their expectations - but if what they're pissed off with doesn't give a "new angle" then they're not contributing. I thnk they already contributed when they put down their hard earned cash to assist with your efforts. Don't you?

This is getting ridiculous. Talk about people not listening... sheesh... let me try again:

If a bunch of people tell us that they're pissed off that we released the game too early, what value does another person add to the discussion when he just repeats what is already known? Or put yet another way, 50 people look outside and tell me it looks like is going to rain, then a 51st person tells me it looks like it is going to rain. What possible benefit does it have to me to hear another one or two or 50 people tell me it looks like it is going to rain? It is already CLEARLY established that a fair number of people think it is going to rain. Hearing it again brings nothing new to the table, therefore by definition it doesn't mean anything.

You need to listen to your customers, and I, and likely several others (by what I'm reading around here, in certain reviews, and what I personally "got" from the demo), would have preferred you would have done a bit more of that earlier on, instead of having to be patronized by you now, as it were. And before you start - I did buy all of the original CM series and felt I got more than my money's worth except for CMAK. For several years I couldn't get my wargaming jollies from anything but CMBO and CMBB.

You are not being patronized, you are simply proving my point. Of what value is this rant of yours? We ALREADY KNOW the issues and have acknowledged them more times than I can count. So can you PLEASE tell me, of what value is it to you, the customer, to repeat something that has already been stated to be understood?

The important thing to do is to act on the information we have, which is what we are doing. The v1.02 patch came out within 2 weeks and had a large number of fixes that customers wanted fixed. They had their say, we heard them, we delivered a patch. Version 1.03 is the same way. We hear, we work, we produce. The system is working, so I don't understand the problem unless you think bitching is in and of itself constructive and likely to produce positive results. My experience, both here and in the rest of the real world, is that unconstructive complaining is a waste of time. Like the 5 minutes of my time I wasted explaining this point for something like the 1000th time.

There - I've said it. If you don't like it you may ban me sir. I'm orrff...

You'll have to do much better than that to get banned

Steve

[Mace]

Originally posted by shredder:

Let me get this straight: A game that has been in development for 4 years gets panned

The reviews are all over the place. The reviewers either hate it, love it or are some where in between.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionshockforce?q=combat%20mission

Seems to replicate the feelings in this forum. People either like it, hate it or are adopting 'a wait and see after a few patches' attitude.

[ August 26, 2007, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Mace ]

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Mace:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionshockforce?q=combat%20mission

I remember when Squad Assault got all the 'kind attention' that this board is capable of giving!

Well ...

CM:SF ... 63/100

Squad Assault: West Front (2003): ... 68/100

Squad Assault: Second Wave (2005): ... 65/100

And here is the competition:

Close Combat: Invasion Normandy (2000): ... 79/100

Combat Mission: Anthology (2004): ... 79/100

Combat Mission: Afrika Korps (2003): ... 81/100

Maybe the CM:SF scores will be revisited after the patches! It would be only fair, if there is enough improvement.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Lurker765]

Don't forget CMBB (2002) 89/100

CMBO scored even higher with the critics than CMBB.

I think people forget how well the critics loved the CMx1 series when it came out.

[Bradley Dick]

PC Gamer in the US was what initially turned me onto the Combat Mission series. It was an article that did a turn by turn account of a battle between two of their employees in CM:BB. Very entertaining read, really sold the series. PC Gamer always seemed to focus on games and modifications that you didn't hear about in most magazines. Their review however, is meaningless to me. This is just one of those games that I like, critics be damned.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Originally posted by Mace:

I remember when Squad Assault got all the 'kind attention' that this board is capable of giving!

Well ...

CM:SF ... 63/100

Squad Assault: West Front (2003): ... 68/100

Squad Assault: Second Wave (2005): ... 65/100

I wonder if DASman ran around the room shouting "we are number one!" when he heard the news.

[ribster]

Originally posted by Petrus58:

Wasn't it PC Zone? PC Gamer are usually pretty fair with their strategy/wargame reviews. PC Zone on the other hand a)rarely bother, and b)when they do, seem to use someone with the attention span of a gnat.

Nope, it was PC gamer, pushed through my door every month. Their biggest issue was the fact that the game was not finished, regardless of what hogwash someone tries to feed you. I dare say the issues will be fixed, but a not insignificant amount of damage has been done....

And Steve, are you suggesting for one minute that if one person complains that a game was released too early, you will do something about it? Even though 500 people might be entirely happy with it? Of course a 50th, 51st etc person makes a difference, especially when taken as a ratio of happy v pissed off customers.

Would be refreshing if you put your hands up and said, sorry guys, we screwed up, but we are putting it right (which I know you are).

[ August 27, 2007, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: ribster ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ribster,

And Steve, are you suggesting for one minute that if one person complains that a game was released too early, you will do something about it?

Yes, I would think that obvious to anybody that has been around as long as you have. We're perfectionists to the point that we fix things that we feel are broken even when nobody complains about them. So it doesn't take 500 people being abusive to get us working on a particular problem, it only takes one polite person to point out something we didn't know and we'll get right on it if we weren't already.

Would be refreshing if you put your hands up and said, sorry guys, we screwed up, but we are putting it right (which I know you are).

That's my point. I already have done that to a large degree, though you obviously missed it so I'll recap. The game went out the door earlier than we wanted, but later than our contract called for. There are things in need of repair, and we are now fixing them. We've barely slowed our work pace since the game came out because we know that you expect fixes and soon. The game has been out for just about 4 weeks now and most of the things that were "incomplete" are now fixed (you guys will get v1.03 very soon).

As for being sorry about it... sure we're sorry. Do you think we like being in this position? However, life isn't perfect and therefore we keep things in perspective. We're in this for the long haul and a couple of weeks of turmoil isn't the worst thing I can think of happening.

Having said all that, there are a lot of complaints about this or that design feature that we will continue to disagree on. Some people want nothing less than CMx1 warmed over. Not gonig to happen. Some people want RealTime ripped out because they don't like it. Not gonig to happen. Some people feel that we made a huge mistake doing subject matter they personally don't care for. So on and so forth.

There are, of course, legitimate issues with the way things are and how they can be improved. We do listen and improvements will happen. But these improvements won't be the result of rude and unproductive behavior, rather through rational discussion. The game is too new, the bugs not quite ironed out yet, so we'll have that discussion later on when people aren't so reactionary and aren't confused by technical issues that exist today but won't tomorrow.

Steve

[NoxSpartana]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Nick,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Let's see... someone purchases CMSF and they're pissed off about something in it, perhaps due to it not meeting their expectations - but if what they're pissed off with doesn't give a "new angle" then they're not contributing. I thnk they already contributed when they put down their hard earned cash to assist with your efforts. Don't you?

This is getting ridiculous. Talk about people not listening... sheesh... let me try again:

If a bunch of people tell us that they're pissed off that we released the game too early, what value does another person add to the discussion when he just repeats what is already known? Or put yet another way, 50 people look outside and tell me it looks like is going to rain, then a 51st person tells me it looks like it is going to rain. What possible benefit does it have to me to hear another one or two or 50 people tell me it looks like it is going to rain? It is already CLEARLY established that a fair number of people think it is going to rain. Hearing it again brings nothing new to the table, therefore by definition it doesn't mean anything.

You need to listen to your customers, and I, and likely several others (by what I'm reading around here, in certain reviews, and what I personally "got" from the demo), would have preferred you would have done a bit more of that earlier on, instead of having to be patronized by you now, as it were. And before you start - I did buy all of the original CM series and felt I got more than my money's worth except for CMAK. For several years I couldn't get my wargaming jollies from anything but CMBO and CMBB.

You are not being patronized, you are simply proving my point. Of what value is this rant of yours? We ALREADY KNOW the issues and have acknowledged them more times than I can count. So can you PLEASE tell me, of what value is it to you, the customer, to repeat something that has already been stated to be understood?

The important thing to do is to act on the information we have, which is what we are doing. The v1.02 patch came out within 2 weeks and had a large number of fixes that customers wanted fixed. They had their say, we heard them, we delivered a patch. Version 1.03 is the same way. We hear, we work, we produce. The system is working, so I don't understand the problem unless you think bitching is in and of itself constructive and likely to produce positive results. My experience, both here and in the rest of the real world, is that unconstructive complaining is a waste of time. Like the 5 minutes of my time I wasted explaining this point for something like the 1000th time.

There - I've said it. If you don't like it you may ban me sir. I'm orrff...

You'll have to do much better than that to get banned

Steve </font>

[lucero1148]

Well finally I've got cmsf going on my intel mac. Once I made the game run on a single processor its been a totally new experince and I think its pretty cool! I think if you all bought intel Macs then your problems will be solved.

haha!

and all best too,

Patrick

[ribster]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ribster,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And Steve, are you suggesting for one minute that if one person complains that a game was released too early, you will do something about it?

Yes, I would think that obvious to anybody that has been around as long as you have. We're perfectionists to the point that we fix things that we feel are broken even when nobody complains about them. So it doesn't take 500 people being abusive to get us working on a particular problem, it only takes one polite person to point out something we didn't know and we'll get right on it if we weren't already.

Would be refreshing if you put your hands up and said, sorry guys, we screwed up, but we are putting it right (which I know you are).

That's my point. I already have done that to a large degree, though you obviously missed it so I'll recap. The game went out the door earlier than we wanted, but later than our contract called for. There are things in need of repair, and we are now fixing them. We've barely slowed our work pace since the game came out because we know that you expect fixes and soon. The game has been out for just about 4 weeks now and most of the things that were "incomplete" are now fixed (you guys will get v1.03 very soon).

As for being sorry about it... sure we're sorry. Do you think we like being in this position? However, life isn't perfect and therefore we keep things in perspective. We're in this for the long haul and a couple of weeks of turmoil isn't the worst thing I can think of happening.

Having said all that, there are a lot of complaints about this or that design feature that we will continue to disagree on. Some people want nothing less than CMx1 warmed over. Not gonig to happen. Some people want RealTime ripped out because they don't like it. Not gonig to happen. Some people feel that we made a huge mistake doing subject matter they personally don't care for. So on and so forth.

There are, of course, legitimate issues with the way things are and how they can be improved. We do listen and improvements will happen. But these improvements won't be the result of rude and unproductive behavior, rather through rational discussion. The game is too new, the bugs not quite ironed out yet, so we'll have that discussion later on when people aren't so reactionary and aren't confused by technical issues that exist today but won't tomorrow.

Steve </font>

[Sig]

Originally posted by NoxSpartana:

(snip)

(...)I really respect what you guys are doing at Battlefront, but as a small independent developer you can't really afford to release games that require 6 patches to be playable,(...) (snip)

Hello.

Just to point out that for me it is playable and I enjoy it, so no blanket statement please. Different degrees of perception.

It does not mean that I don't expect or hope for improvements over time (and knowing BFC's history we will get them). 99%, if not all, of the games I played since my Amiga time have been at one moment or another patched and re-patched, sometimes very heavily. And I'm not even speaking about MMORPGs (massive multiplayer online role-playing games), which are continuously patched and modified. My point is: like it or not but todays games ARE following this path -> publish as polished as possible and then finish/improve/ via the patches. Even boardgames are doing it! This is why my Zen level is high .

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by NoxSpartana:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Nick,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Let's see... someone purchases CMSF and they're pissed off about something in it, perhaps due to it not meeting their expectations - but if what they're pissed off with doesn't give a "new angle" then they're not contributing. I thnk they already contributed when they put down their hard earned cash to assist with your efforts. Don't you?

This is getting ridiculous. Talk about people not listening... sheesh... let me try again:

If a bunch of people tell us that they're pissed off that we released the game too early, what value does another person add to the discussion when he just repeats what is already known? Or put yet another way, 50 people look outside and tell me it looks like is going to rain, then a 51st person tells me it looks like it is going to rain. What possible benefit does it have to me to hear another one or two or 50 people tell me it looks like it is going to rain? It is already CLEARLY established that a fair number of people think it is going to rain. Hearing it again brings nothing new to the table, therefore by definition it doesn't mean anything.

You need to listen to your customers, and I, and likely several others (by what I'm reading around here, in certain reviews, and what I personally "got" from the demo), would have preferred you would have done a bit more of that earlier on, instead of having to be patronized by you now, as it were. And before you start - I did buy all of the original CM series and felt I got more than my money's worth except for CMAK. For several years I couldn't get my wargaming jollies from anything but CMBO and CMBB.

You are not being patronized, you are simply proving my point. Of what value is this rant of yours? We ALREADY KNOW the issues and have acknowledged them more times than I can count. So can you PLEASE tell me, of what value is it to you, the customer, to repeat something that has already been stated to be understood?

The important thing to do is to act on the information we have, which is what we are doing. The v1.02 patch came out within 2 weeks and had a large number of fixes that customers wanted fixed. They had their say, we heard them, we delivered a patch. Version 1.03 is the same way. We hear, we work, we produce. The system is working, so I don't understand the problem unless you think bitching is in and of itself constructive and likely to produce positive results. My experience, both here and in the rest of the real world, is that unconstructive complaining is a waste of time. Like the 5 minutes of my time I wasted explaining this point for something like the 1000th time.

There - I've said it. If you don't like it you may ban me sir. I'm orrff...

You'll have to do much better than that to get banned

Steve </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

What I assume Steve meant is: Yeah, it was released early they owned up to as much. But they aren't going to tear their hair out (Madmatt certainly won't) but instead look forwards and fix it. No crying over spilt milk, if you will.

So when someone gleefully posts a poor review to score some points there won't be the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth at BFC HQ. Instead you'll hear the sound of things getting done. Just the way I like it. Not endless arguments about what went wrong. They know what went wrong, better then you or me. Because what does it all achieve? Nothing. Fixing will make most people happier then Steve throwing himself on his sword for the umpteenth time in yet another "look, look, another poor review, told ya!" thread.

[monkeezgob]

People don't post poor reviews to score points, they post poor reviews because the game's incomplete and unfinished. You can only review what you're given. Reviewers like games developers and publishers have deadlines. A review is all about a first impression. A games magazine doesn't care if your going to relesae a a dozen patches in the next 12 months to fix all the things that were highlighted in the review as a problem. What's the first impression? In the case of CM:SF it was very poor.

Will it adversely effect sales? Of course. The more casual RT player/gamer, whatever, who BFC are trying to attract now isn't going to be attarcted to something that might be suitably patched a year after it was released. A reputation for excellence takes a long time build and a short time to lose.

[[hirr]Leto]

Once again, I believe this needs a succinct summary:

1) Reviewers feel the game is incomplete.

2) The majority of players know the game is incomplete.

3) Other players are concentrating on what they will have when CMx2 engine is complete, ignoring its current incompleteness.

4) A mix of 2) and 3) are debating the subjectives around what was dropped from CMx1 to CMx2 (this is most often contentious).

5) BFC is sticking to their philosophy on gaming evolution, predicated on two issues 1) they cannot please everyone, 2) its hard to explain it, so just give it a chance, play it and see for yourself.

6) We now return to issues 1 and 2 with respect to the incompleteness of the game standing in the way of 5).

Please let me know if I'm close here.

Cheers!

Leto

[Rocky Balboa]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

Will it adversely effect sales? Of course. The more casual RT player/gamer, whatever, who BFC are trying to attract now isn't going to be attarcted to something that might be suitably patched a year after it was released. A reputation for excellence takes a long time build and a short time to lose.

No slam intended but even if CMSF had been released in "perfect condition", I doubt seriously if most casual RTS fans would give it a second look. This game is not a RTS like Warcraft, StarCraft, Batlle For Middle Earth or even Company of Heroes. CMSF is a detailed battlefield simulation with a RT element built in but that's were any resemblance stops.

[DannyJim]

I don't often post but here goes.

1. This simulation / game is immense fun to play / operate.

2. It clearly could be improved, as could 90% of the games I own.

3. BFC seem to be working on the major issues unlike others (ubisoft anyone?)

4. Let them deliver on their promises before we whine.

I'll shut up for a year or so now.

[WW2Wargamer]

Hi

Ive been around here for seven years. Every time a new Batlefront game came out there were some problems. SO WHAT! I gave them aprox $150 dollars and played CMBO,CMBB and CMAK for YEARS.Now thats value!!! I know this! They will FIX the problems as quickly as they can and i will play CMSF for a long time. I liked other games, for the 5 or 6 days i played them. But remember, once you finish there is no replay value.

Thanks and happy patch 103

[Battlefront.com]

NoxSpartana,

Well if only 5% of this forum had problems with the game, but the other 95% thought it was the most amazing thing ever released, would you work hard to fix it? If a presidential candidate's policies please 95% of the population, but the other 5% don't think they're good enough does he care?

Right, but what relevance does this have to this discussion? Clearly more than 5% are unhappy about the state of the game and that's why we haven't slacked off working since the game's release. So I'll say again... why difference does it make if someone else complains about the current or previous state of the game? Do you think it will make us work harder, less hard, or the same as we were working before the compounding complaint?

If on the other hand, the entire freaking fan base is complaining that they dished out their $50 for an unfinished, unpolished game then Battlefront will know that if it doesn't want to lose close to the entirety of their niche fan base [that gives them money] they either need to fix this game, or come out with a legendary follow up.

Again... you do not speak for "the entire freaking fan base", you only speak for yourself. And we are already fixing it. v1.02 got a bunch of things fixed, v1.03 fixes a lot more. In fact, I'd say that v1.03 is close to what the game should have been when we released a couple of weeks ago. You might still not like it, but that's a different matter all together.

You say you look "forwards" which is great, but when people dish out $50 they expect something finished, not something still in the pre-alpha stage.

Oh, I agree, which is why we didn't release the game 3 years ago when it was in a "pre-alpha stage". Having a game with only a terrain mesh with a CMAK texture set wouldn't have been a very interesting product for $50

I really respect what you guys are doing at Battlefront, but as a small independent developer you can't really afford to release games that require 6 patches to be playable, and I'm sure you're acutely aware of the fact that every 60% review (which is REALLY bad btw, I don't bother getting games which score less than 80% on average usually) costs you a LOT in sales.

Here we go again with people confusing their opinion with fact. Many people found the game playable even before we released the first patch (v1.02 in our eyes was the first). Now that v1.02 is out even more find it playable, but more yet will find things just ducky with v1.03 (in our eyes the second patch). This all within about a month of release. So no, we don't require people to wait several more months and many more patches to find the game playable... it clearly already is. You might not like it, but that isn't the same thing.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Ribster,

Steve, thanks for taking the time to reply, much appreciated. I do want to enjoy playing this as much as I have the other 3 games though. So, onwards and upwards I guess - see what the future brings.....

Thanks! That is good attitude and we hope that we can get the game to where you think of it as fondly as those that came before.

Sig,

Just to point out that for me it is playable and I enjoy it, so no blanket statement please. Different degrees of perception.

Yeah, that's what I keep telling people Unfortunately people often have problems seeing things from the perspective of others, some far more so than others. This is even more true when the views of that person are strongly held, subjective, and (worse) emotional. To such people if they hate it then everybody must hate it or they are stupid or otherwise corrupt, therefore lacking credibility.

Personally, if there were an Empathy Meter I would probably register off the scale. I'm someone that thinks even Fascists have some good points to make, as do hardline Communists. That doesn't mean I would want to live in a country ruled by Fascists or Communists, just that I am not willing to toss out whatever good they might do just because the bad is SO VERY BAD. This is how I view the customer reaction to CM:SF. We accept that there are problems and are fixing them to the degree we agree with them. Things like bad pathfinding, malfunctioning ATGM systems, soldiers that get stuck, etc... clearly these are problems and we need to fix them. But we aren't about to say the whole game sucks because of a few problems like this, nor are we going to say the whole game sucks because of some CMx1 feature or other is absent. So I can agree with someone like NoxSpartana in some ways (things need to be fixed) while disagreeing with him in other ways (that he speaks for everybody).

Elmar,

What I assume Steve meant is: Yeah, it was released early they owned up to as much. But they aren't going to tear their hair out (Madmatt certainly won't) but instead look forwards and fix it. No crying over spilt milk, if you will.

So when someone gleefully posts a poor review to score some points there won't be the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth at BFC HQ. Instead you'll hear the sound of things getting done. Just the way I like it. Not endless arguments about what went wrong. They know what went wrong, better then you or me. Because what does it all achieve? Nothing. Fixing will make most people happier then Steve throwing himself on his sword for the umpteenth time in yet another "look, look, another poor review, told ya!" thread.

Well put.

Steve

[ August 28, 2007, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Mishga]

I am having great fun with the game...yeah it has issues but they will be fixed...

Once I sussed out the AI and mapmaking I get plenty good QB's with aggressive AI.

My solution to the crawl of death was BTR-60 with a sensible dismount zone...not great but it meant the battles were better.

Like I said before...its only gonna get better.

[C'Rogers]

Things like bad pathfinding, malfunctioning ATGM systems, soldiers that get stuck, etc... clearly these are problems and we need to fix them.

I am curious once you get pass the "problem" stage and to the "improvement" stage, what kind of improvements can we expect to see. I know you had mentioned in the past improving quick battles and perhaps a pausable TC/IP mode. I see those as improvements, they shipped out the door working the way you had planned but can still be improved.

I was wondering if you guys have made a list over what such improvements will be, or whether it is a "fix problems first then we will worry about".