Have the reviews dealt a fatal blow?

[TheNathan]

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I was curious as to what the forumgoers or Steve thinks of the current situation regarding the largely lukewarm reviews.

Will some reviews give a second opinion when the game is finished after whatever number of patches it takes? Or will these reviews essentially be there forever despite the improved quality of the game, to deter future mainstream/casual gamers from a potentially incredible gaming experience.

I know some people (Such as I) couldn't care less about reviews, as I frankly don't think many of them know what the hell they are talking about half the time. Take Brigade E5 for example, had some bugs and was poorly translated (This was fixed by the fans, btw) but the combat and feel of it was simply the best squad-based tactical wargame since Jagged Alliance 2.

So, has the game been hobbled by the reviews and will essentially stay very much niche, or will the bad reviews merely roll off the title leaving the game's credibility intact?

[KNac]

Someone said that the game has sold allready more than CMBO and CMBB combined, so guess... The impact of reviews is usually exagerated, it depends on what type of game and its target market how much effect it will have, but overall, it's not that hard, specially having demos for trial before buying.

I think is more harmfull that some bugs prevent people from playing, or make playability lower than should be. I'm not talking even about features that could be improved (TacAI, pathfinding...), but plain bugs. These are real stoppers.

Bugous releases are bad. Allways. Specially when the company is planning follow-ons, releasing expansion packs and new titles. Some new users who bought this game, which don't know about BF history, will be turned off by this first release. I hope though, that nowadays, with the Internet being an usual thing, people will check for patches and eventually will be hooked up by the game.

P.S: in very few exceptional cases games are re-reviewed. So don't count on it. For that to happen BF would have to market the game again with a different name and send it to reviewers. Hopefully, as the expansion packs will be marketed individually, in some sort of second stage of game state, when the first expansion pack is released, the game will be reviewed as a whole.

But then the problems will be other, I can see it happen: very few new content for its value, etc etc etc. Usual stuff.

[scottie]

im have been a CM fan from BO, BB, AK and when i saw that 4.5 out of 10 review i thought BF have got something wrong this time ... i had already purchased the game via Amazon however (£17 GBP this is including tax and delivery !) and probably still would ... still that 4.5 review must have made a difference if they are selling for that price.

[Canuck]

Originally posted by KNac:

Someone said that the game has sold allready more than CMBO and CMBB combined, so guess..

Link?? Sorry but I really have a hard time believing that this game has already sold more than two games combined over a period of three or four years.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Canuck:

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

Someone said that the game has sold allready more than CMBO and CMBB combined, so guess..

Link?? Sorry but I really have a hard time believing that this game has already sold more than two games combined over a period of three or four years. </font>

[monkeezgob]

Have the reviews affected sales? Probably. However, the real time clickathon element will certainly ensure it sells better than previous titles.

Releasing patches to fix a product is to be commended and BFc could never be faulted for supporting the majority of the games they release, but a review is all about a first impression, not what it'll look like in a year or eighteen months time and I think they did themselves few favours with the state they released CM:SF in. Terrible first impression.

[ August 17, 2007, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: monkeezgob ]

[scottie]

a bit more in the way of commerical pressure would have driven an early release now doubt ... i mean how long CMx2 engine in development / seems like ages to me ... if it was release before ready im pretty sure it wasnt the developers that wanted to do it ... will me the money mens / womens time table no doubt. I hate releasing my software at all as it know its full of bugs

[TheNathan]

This might be especially bad since isn't CMSF supposed to be Battlefront's bid for the mainstream market? From what I understand, reviews can heavily influence the mainstream market, and a deluge of negative reviews for what was essentially a pristine franchise means a generally bad opinion of the game in the mainstream, right?

This might be further worsened by the fact that the niche market, in this case wargamers, are driven primarily by credibility/word of mouth and then reviews. With this fiasco going on, it many wargamers seem to be wavering in their support for battlefront's recent product, thus damaging Battlefront's credibility somewhat.

I mean, as much as I'd like Battlefront to come out unscathed after all of this, I don't think it's going to happen as the first impression can be, and often is the most crucial one. It's very hard for anything to get off the ground, nevermind become popular, if the first steps have faltered.

[Hukka]

The fatal blow will come when Niko Nirvi from Pelit-magazine gives a low score. Then the whole Finnish market will suffer and as we know: half of the CMx1's were bought by Finnish people after Pelit praised them.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

Releasing patches to fix a product is to be commended

Patches to enhance, yes, commended, patches to fix, expected, if not demanded.

[monkeezgob]

I don't think what has happened with CM:SF will prove to be a fatal blow. BFC know that they have a strong core customer base who stuck with them through the CMX1 titles and eagerly awaited every new patch.

They'll probably lose some customers who have come to them late and have been through the TOW fiasco and now this, or those who are disappointed at the apparent change in direction heralded by TOW and CM:SF. But on the whole I think BFc have a core customer base prepared to cut them a great deal of slack.

However, if the reviews have a long term impact it will probably be with the more casual gamer, which is precisely the audience this title was going to reel in.

Alternatively, the whole scenario could change if their next title is released in a more finished state and gets glowing reviews right out of the box.

[ August 17, 2007, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: monkeezgob ]

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

Releasing patches to fix a product is to be commended

Patches to enhance, yes, commended, patches to fix, expected, if not demanded. </font>

[KNac]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

Alternatively, the whole scenario could change if their next title is released in a more finished state and gets glowing reviews right out of the box.

Yes, this is what I think. And should be next BFC movement. Returning of the "will be released when its done".

I don't know which was the agreegement and contractual obligations that BF took with Paradox, I don't know why Paradox would pressure to release the game (they have a long story of releasing unfinished stuff too, but patch it afterwards, funny enough lol), when it was independently produced, so don't know which extra impact would have in their pockets if not released earlier. An other reason may just be that BF crew needed to release the game because where running out of fund too. But with the current cash flow with this release, they should prevent releasing an unfinished game next time, what in definitive would mean better overall reviews.

I don't spect a lot of reviewers (mainstream specially) to give a good score to the game, cause they just "don't get it". Has happened again with CM or other well done wargames. This issue may be even worse now that seems that reviewers are each day more and more unproffessional, and base their reviews or purely subjective opinions and don't inform theirshelves at all. It's a shame, but it happens.

[TheNathan]

Which makes one wonder if the mainstream is becoming less and less accessible for games like CM due to decreasing standards among mainstream games and gamers, with reviewers and suits taking a front seat in driving the hand basket on it's way to hell.

Anyway, what is particularly troublesome is the prospect of future sales being hurt as a result of Battlefront taking a hit from a large portion of reviewers ripping the game apart. I understand there were always a few people who didn't get the game, but scores among credible review magazines and sites never dipped below 70%, and the vast majority were in the mid 80s and above. This is the first time where the majority of reviewers and fan opinions are in the negative.

As for the EA releasing buggy or unfinished games stuff, yes they can do that because they are a huge company which can sell in huge volume and takes hits due to the sheer amount of capital they have. Smaller companies can't afford to use this brute force strategy as their tools are quality and credibility, not sheer size.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

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

Someone said that the game has sold allready more than CMBO and CMBB combined, so guess..

Link?? Sorry but I really have a hard time believing that this game has already sold more than two games combined over a period of three or four years. </font>

[Philistine]

Originally posted by KNac:

{snip}I don't spect a lot of reviewers (mainstream specially) to give a good score to the game, cause they just "don't get it". Has happened again with CM or other well done wargames. {snip}

I keep seeing variations of the argument that CM:BO got dissed by reviewers, too when it came out.

I can't actually remember a bad review of it. From Gonegold.com (via internet archive) is this list of reviews:

The Adrenaline Vault (4.5/5) "For the longest time, traditional wargaming has been entrenched in a solid foundation of somewhat complex hex-based gameplay, primarily as a carryover from its mid-70's roots. Big Time Software has revised and revamped this classic style of play in such a manner as to appeal not only to the historically inclined genre fanatics, but to the neophytes who may have found the multiple hexes too daunting to approach. Additionally, the updated innovations brought to the table are considerable, and have opened the door for immense tactical potential. The combination of the "wego" system, the 3D landscape, the believable AI and the careful attention to realistic detail make for a powerful experience, one that I unequivocally recommend to anyone even remotely interested in WWII, historical combat, or tactical warfare. Combat Mission is a standard-setting wargame of the highest caliber, and is probably the most enjoyable tactically-focused game that I've had the pleasure of playing. It is, without question, a true classic"

Computer Games Online (5/5) "Combat Mission won?t drive other games off hard drives. Many older systems are good and comfortable, and cover more of World War Two. Yet, any new tactical game will now have to meet Combat Mission?s standards. The designers of those games may have an insurmountable task"

Ferrago.co.uk (87%) "one of the best turn-based strategic offerings available, and one of the most attractive, too. Not only does it succeed in presenting a historically intriguing ambience, it?ll keep you hooked with it?s vast array of maps, game options, etc. For those that can stomach the slow-pace of the genre as a whole, this will be ideal."

Final Heaven (95%) "If you are interested in wargames or any strategy you should get this game. If you think that they have done a good job but you don't really like wargames but would like to see them create another high quality game, buy this game"

Games Domain (gold) "Combat Mission is the best wargame I've played for some time. It reminds me of the days I spent playing the original Squad Leader, and miniature tabletop Wargame Research Group WWII battles. It's a sandbox game that will give anyone with a remote interest in wargames hours of entertainment. Like Panzer General, it's a game that sets new standards. It's not without its share of quirks, but unlike your fat tabby cat deciding to re-arrange your Squad Leader stacks overnight, none are showstoppers. Yes, the graphics engine has a couple of "holes", there's no overview screen, there's no long-term campaigns, and, for example, the AFV pathfinding could be improved when precise waypoints aren't given. Were this a game with a Blizzard-style budget, it would certainly look and be presented a lot better, but the crux of the game is the gameplay itself, which is where it shines"

Games Domain (5/5) "If you're even remotely interested in World War II, wargaming, or superb strategy games in general, buy this game - you won't regret it. It's a stunning achievement and easily one of the best games in any genre in recent years."

GamesFirst! (5/5) "I?m a wargamer from way back, so I was pleased but not surprised to be so taken with Combat Mission. But I knew it was something special when my non-wargaming friends (including my son and his mob) first gathered around to watch me play and then wanted to play it themselves. That never happened with Rising Sun, or even with Panzer General 3D. And apparently it?s not just my friends who like the game: BTS sold out of their two-month supply of Combat Mission in less than a week"

GameSpot (9.1/10) "Combat Mission is sure to appeal to anyone interested in serious military simulations, but even those just looking for a good World War II computer game should find that the game has a lot to offer. The point-and-click interface is just about as intuitive as possible, and there's an excellent tutorial scenario accompanied by a detailed, step-by-step walk-through in the manual. Combat Mission should appeal to anyone looking for a challenging strategy game, as well as anyone that is even remotely interested in the 20th century's biggest war. If you're interested in immersive strategic gameplay with a historical focus, but you've always thought wargames to be too complicated or too dry, then Combat Mission is for you"

GameStats (9.5/10) "Combat Mission is a stunning achievement that puts most other strategy games, wargame or otherwise, completely in the shade. With its hybrid turn system, 3D battlefields, smooth interface, historical accuracy, and vivid ambience, it's exceptionally rewarding"

GameZone (7.5/10) "For fans of the war genre, this program will provide hours of game play. The mission package, and options of playing for either side, makes it a solid performer in the strategy field. The graphical elements may not be quite as good as some games, but still provide a solid feel"

PC Gameworld (98%) "The Tiger Woods of war games. It whips the field and sets a new benchmark for the genre. A must buy"

PC Strategy Games (93%) "Brilliant concept, combining both RTS and turn-based elements to provide one of the most compelling wargames of recent years. A must have"

Player Of Games "If turn based strategy is your thing then this is a most. It leaves the competition miles behind at the moment. The game is fun so if this is going to be your first turn based strategy then you?ve made a really good decision. The graphics in the game aren?t state of the art; there is no need for them to be. It?s a game I thoroughly enjoy and so should most people."

Sharky Extreme (9/10) "The best thing I can say about Combat Mission is that it has wide appeal. The game is intuitive and the manual is accessible enough for casual players, non-wargamers, or gamers just interested in a WWII diversion. But it's also got more than enough meat for the serious wargame fanatics. It isn't dumbed down and corners don't feel cut, but it still doesn't overwhelm the neophyte needlessly. In short, Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord is probably the finest wargame I've ever played, and one I will continue to play into that noble genre's uncertain future"

SimHQ "If you like WW2 tactical level games, go out and get this. If you like real time strategy games like Close Combat, go out and get this. If you like turn based strategy games, go out and get this. Will simulation fans like this game? I think, for the most part, yes they will enjoy Combat Mission. There is a crossover effect here from wargames to simulations, something akin to what Rainbow 6 did for the simulator/first person shooter genre. The pace of the game is generally faster than in traditional turn based wargames, without the confusion that arises with some real time strategy games"

Strategy Gaming Online (9/10) "War gaming will never be the same after this game, so you might as well play the superb grandaddy of what will hopefully be the next big thing"

The Wargamer "It's a game for everybody with any interest in period ground warfare"

The lowest is 7.5/10, and that's pretty favorable in the text.

--Philistine

[Lurker765]

I would never have discovered CMx1 without the great reviews I read about it. At the time Big Time Software was tiny and didn't have much advertising. I can recall the GamesDomain preview was the one that actually got me to go visit the website pre-release and from that point on I was hooked.

The demo was fun, and lo those many years ago I was short on cash so I paid attention to reviews more than I do now and plunked down my money only after seeing (what I recall) to be glowing reviews.

I, too, do not recall any negative reviews. But, that was a long time ago it seems and memory is the first thing to go.

[Melnibone]

A long long time ago it was a list of reviews like that (on www.gamerankings.com) which first got me into CM. CM was ranked in the top 50 PC games of all time at that time - I was scanning the list and started investigating - and funnily enough met Lurker765 through the game when I moved up to human opponents

[KNac]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

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

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

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

Someone said that the game has sold allready more than CMBO and CMBB combined, so guess..

Link?? Sorry but I really have a hard time believing that this game has already sold more than two games combined over a period of three or four years. </font>

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by KNac:

No it wasn't Steve, or at least I haven't read from him. Was someone else, can't rememebr the thread but is in the first or second page (I thiink is one of the large ones). The one who said said he knew well.

What was said, was that CM:SF had outsold CM:BO at the same point in time. In other words, at 2 weeks (when the post was made) CM:SF had sold more copies than CM:BO had sold at 2 weeks after release.

It's an obscure reference to be sure. Probably no less obscure than the backseat drivers trying to steer BFC off a cliff though.

[KNac]

Ok thanks for clarifying it.

On a related note:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionshockforce

Reviews are not as harsh as users lol, if you think users who reviewed it a more mainstream oriented, you can make out an idea of how much this game was going to appeil mainstream players (as a lot of people has used as a fooled argument).

But ie. CMBB:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionbarbarossa/

got a very good score from reviewrs and players too.

[Lurker765]

Hi Melnibone,

Fancy meeting you here.

I did a quick search and it appears that CMAK did indeed receive lower reviews (still higher than CMSF), but I think that was mainly the 'dated engine' and 'more of the same' syndrome. Both CMBB and CMBO seem to have fared well with the reviewing community. As far as I can tell the old days were somewhat golden for the CMx1 brand in the world of critics.

[Lurker765]

How could CMSF not outsell CMBO in the first two weeks comparison?

Battlefront is now an established name with a horde of customers who love them who pre-ordered the game based on faith in the developers. How many preorders do you think CMBO got?

Plus, from what I recall CMBO was not sold retail, but CMSF has signed deals with distribution partners.

Battlefront also has had a ton of word of mouth sales on CMSF due to their larger footprint in the industry. I would imagine many people would buy the game anyway despite poor reviews. If CMBO had received those kind of reviews I doubt Battlefront would have survived to even make CMBB.

I think BFC is in a good position now where they have enough cash inflow to survive these hits. I want to see them make a game I enjoy playing. If this exact situation had occurred for CMBO they would indeed been in dire straits. Now, I don't predict doom and gloom for them, but I'm still undecided on fun and enjoyment for me until I see a finalized and patched game.

[Battlefront.com]

Reviews are important to us, but they don't make or break products like hardcore gamer's think. Some reviewers think they hold the power of life and death in their hands as well, so that can distort the picture somewhat.

How many of you guys remember the Sierra super-disaster product called Outpost (aka Outhouse). One of the most savaged games in all my years in this business. I just started working for one of their subsidiaries (Impressions) after it was released and was shocked to see the sales numbers. ONe of the best selling games Sierra ever had. And then they went and made Outpost 2, which the reviewers savaged before they even saw it based solely on the fact that Sierra had the balls to make a sequel to a game they felt was the worst thing ever made. Guess what? It sold a ton as well despite the reviews of the actual product being lukewarm.

Now... I am not saying we are happy with the release state of CM:SF and the reviews that came as a result of it. Very unfortunate. However, sales are indeed going well and (to clarify above points) have exceeded CMBO's sales for the same period. But we are not in this for the money so we've continued cranking on patches. CMx2 is a long term thing for us and so we will keep moving forward. That will require leaving some people behind.

As I've said many times before, we never fooled ourselves that we could retain all of core customers and also move the game out of its dated paradigm. Which frustrates those people to no end, obviously. Why? Because the only hope they have of getting what they want is to hope that CM:SF sells so badly that we'll have to retreat and go back to CMx1. What they fail to understand is a minor glitch in the Big Picture (remember, we are looking 3-5 years down the road) doesn't have us running scared. We already know we made the right decisions and therefore we aren't going back.

Steve

[Thomm]

Maybe I mistook it for this:

[...] I just checked and sales to Europe so far have been proportionally double that of any CMx1 game ever sold. So it would seem that the actual sales numbers contradict your position

From: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002600;p=3

I apologize, though it seems to point at the right trend!

Best regards,

Thomm