Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Berli, I understand if you think the TacAI sucks.

For long time players like Berli and Ezra and myself, I hope it is clear that CMSF simply needs bug fixes, improved TacAI/self preservation behavior, and quality LOS routines for it to deliver what the design promises.

Is that what we got with 1.01? No, I don't think so.

Is it what we will get with 1.04, and the WW2 game?

I think so. Some patience is needed with BFC.

But the point is that reviewers don't review potential. Will BFC fix it? Probably given their track record. Do reviewers care? Nope. Is the review unfair? Nope.

[bartleby]

I don't know why some people feel the need to express their disappointment so loudly and aggressively. Seems sort of perverse to me. I think it would be nice if everyone tried to ask himself what he hoped to accomplish before pressing post.

It's not the end of the world, the game will be patched and almost every issue will be sorted out. If the only thing people had to complain about was the lack of old-style WeGo, nobody would be telling BFC to do some "soul-searching" or telling them how to run their business (a strangely presumptuous suggestion, as it is). It's a natural reaction after a long anticipation, sure, but it's an overreaction. I hope everyone can keep some class.

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

But the point is that reviewers don't review potential. Will BFC fix it? Probably given their track record. Do reviewers care? Nope. Is the review unfair? Nope.

Then the question becomes "is reviewing unfair" instead of "is [this] review unfair" - and I think the answer is yes. Especially with games, where patching is so expected and easy. What would it mean for film criticism if new cuts were released every few weeks? Reviewing once and forgetting about is a negative influence on gaming, in my opinion. It supports the graphical planned obsolescence that's currently turning most games into engine demos. It's also a strange throwback to print media considering how much game reviewing is done on the internet.

[ August 12, 2007, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: bartleby ]

[Panzer76]

I guess some of us must just face the facts. Some things will be fixed, and some is part of their game design, and thus will not change. As Steve said, if the fetures that are game breakers are in the last catagory, this game might not be for us. Seems I end in that one (I enjoy playing vs humans, and no WEGO in TCP/IP is a game breaker for me).

Oh well, there are other developers out there. Just hard to accept it and let my fav franchise turn into.. this...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

Sandy-

What if the game is selling like hotcakes though?

-dale

That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Sandy-

What if the game is selling like hotcakes though?

-dale

That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target. </font>

[Schwarze]

Originally posted by Angryson:

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

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

Sandy-

What if the game is selling like hotcakes though?

-dale

That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target. </font>

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Sandy-

What if the game is selling like hotcakes though?

-dale

That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Angryson:

KID

Yeah. Kid. You act like one. Every time you post. Your combat experience hasn't enabled you to provide thoughtful, insightful commentary to the forum. Your only contribution to the other thread was to angrily reply "bite me" when someone tried to point out you had missed the entire point of the conversation.

Your combat experience only matters to anyone here if you're able to parlay it into something more interesting to say than a comparison of dick sizes. I will stipulate that yours is bigger than mine. What does that leave you to say, then?

[Hertston]

Originally posted by bartleby:

Then the question becomes "is reviewing unfair" instead of "is [this] review unfair" - and I think the answer is yes. Especially with games, where patching is so expected and easy. What would it mean for film criticism if new cuts were released every few weeks? Reviewing once and forgetting about is a negative influence on gaming, in my opinion. It supports the graphical planned obsolescence that's currently turning most games into engine demos. It's also a strange throwback to print media considering how much game reviewing is done on the internet.

Maybe that is the question, but I don't see how it can be answered. Reviewers can only review what they given to review (or pick up off the shelf), and in this case that was 1.0. patching is indeed expected (that doesn't mean it always happens), but it's hardly fair to suggest reviewers revisit their reviews every time a patch is released, or even revisit it at all. There are always new games. I think all we can do as consumers is bare likely future improvement and support in mind as part of the purchase decision.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.

I don't agree that's the case. BF were obviously at least considering cross-over into the mainstream market, but I don't think that was the principal objective. The problem was that delivering (what I "get" to be) the game as envisioned was simply too onerous a task. Had BF done so, I think even the 'grog' diehards would have come on board very quickly.

Most of the problems with CMSF are common to virtually every RT game I've ever played, to some degree or another, and design teams blessed with far more personnel and larger budgets have failed to solve them. With a grog-RT crossover over, the same faults are just rather move obvious. You lose the 'grog' discussion not so much because the grogs have gone as that at this stage of the game's development the grog issues are relatively trivial compared with basic gameplay issues. If/when those are sorted, the grog stuff will return.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

KID

Yeah. Kid. You act like one.</font>

[scottie]

4.5 christ that is harsh ... give it a bit of time to get used to the new interface.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hertston:

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

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.

I don't agree that's the case. BF were obviously at least considering cross-over into the mainstream market, but I don't think that was the principal objective. The problem was that delivering (what I "get" to be) the game as envisioned was simply too onerous a task. Had BF done so, I think even the 'grog' diehards would have come on board very quickly.

Most of the problems with CMSF are common to virtually every RT game I've ever played, to some degree or another, and design teams blessed with far more personnel and larger budgets have failed to solve them. With a grog-RT crossover over, the same faults are just rather move obvious. You lose the 'grog' discussion not so much because the grogs have gone as that at this stage of the game's development the grog issues are relatively trivial compared with basic gameplay issues. If/when those are sorted, the grog stuff will return. </font>

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

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

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

KID

Yeah. Kid. You act like one.</font>

[Janster]

Bah, I bought the game, and after a few days of trying to play it, I gave up and shelved it.

I feel that when a game makes that impression, it needs HELP.

I'm a fan of these types of games, but not even I can see the fun factor here sorry.

I will try it once with every new patch, but its most likly gonna die a slow shelfdeath

It's a shame they didn't stick to what they were good at .

Janster

[SgtMuhammed]

Guys, I still just don't buy the whole "BFC is selling out to the 'clickfest/realtime' crowd." Even with the improvements in 1.02 this game is nowhere close to other RTS games like C&C or Warcraft. Because of the need to babysit all your units to make sure that they don't charge machineguns like a bunch of Marines* I really have no interest in the RT style and have stuck to entirely turn based. Plus I only really like big battles which are a pain in RT, for me at least.

For me the only thing different is that now I can watch the turn resolution instead of the replay. I most often skip the playback as I am usually focused on the most important point during the resolution phase and only need to look at everyone else if something catches me by surprise. I never felt that the CMx1 interface was suited for RT and I still feel the same about CMx2.

Where I believe they have sold out is in the eyecandy department. No I don't mean to say that the game is exceptionally pretty but I think they gave in to all the clamoring about 1 to 1 representation of infantry without really being able to deal with the implications.

In the old system a company battle gave you less than 20 units that you needed to have act in realistic manor. In a company battle in SF you have around 140 individuals that you need to act in a realistic manor. Right now they only do so in one aspect, they can get shot. With the old system your squad entered the room and began clearing, now parts of your squad enter a room and get shot while waiting for the rest of the squad to enter the room and begin clearing.

With the old system of abstractions a squad could enter a building without being forced to go to a door, although they did there too, because it can be abstracted that they are using windows and such. Now with everyone on the battlefield either units use a simple algorithim to locate the entry point, ie. the door, or they are aware, all of them, of the construction of each building.

Unfortunately none of us has the computing power necessary to have hundreds of little soldiers acting in according with the plan but also according to how they percieve the battlefield.

As you can see I think there are fundamental problems with the game but I just can't see them as being cause by "selling out" to real time. I like the game and I expect it to get better but I feel that much of the criticism has been off target.

*You know I love you guys.

[KNac]

All the chatting about BF changing their audience, grogs or not, etc. P

Please, for real, consider what you saying for a moment, have you ever played a RTS or a FPS? Do you really know how these play? In any way can CMSF be compared to these in difficulty and game mechanics.

If you think these kind of games (which I play and have fun with time to time, and I'm not inferior to any of the "grogs" some of them allways talk with that sufficiency and superiority considering the rest of human beings like inferior forms of life) have many similarities to CMSF (if not all) and will appeal their audience, other than are played in real time, you are definitively too much biased.

Indeed, if you think that audiency will come and play and automatcly fall in love with the game w/o observing some of the current flaws, bugs and unfinished features, you are a smartass. Cause some of them, like odd AI behaviour, pathfinding LOF issues etc. don't need you to be a grog or specially intelligent to observe. Yes, some 15 year old kids would enjoy the game eventhough and maybe would act in a fanboish manner about it. But again, I see all the flaws and can enjoy the game, soemtimes the ccurrent flaws ruin it, but I'm not specting the game to fail just to whine about it, I try to enjoy what I've and will wait to enjoy it even more in the future.

There is some serious negativism and "the world is falling apart" attitude, and what I ask myslef is what you get following this attitude.

[KNac]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Guys, I still just don't buy the whole "BFC is selling out to the 'clickfest/realtime' crowd." Even with the improvements in 1.02 this game is nowhere close to other RTS games like C&C or Warcraft. Because of the need to babysit all your units to make sure that they don't charge machineguns like a bunch of Marines* I really have no interest in the RT style and have stuck to entirely turn based. Plus I only really like big battles which are a pain in RT, for me at least.

For me the only thing different is that now I can watch the turn resolution instead of the replay. I most often skip the playback as I am usually focused on the most important point during the resolution phase and only need to look at everyone else if something catches me by surprise. I never felt that the CMx1 interface was suited for RT and I still feel the same about CMx2.

Where I believe they have sold out is in the eyecandy department. No I don't mean to say that the game is exceptionally pretty but I think they gave in to all the clamoring about 1 to 1 representation of infantry without really being able to deal with the implications.

In the old system a company battle gave you less than 20 units that you needed to have act in realistic manor. In a company battle in SF you have around 140 individuals that you need to act in a realistic manor. Right now they only do so in one aspect, they can get shot. With the old system your squad entered the room and began clearing, now parts of your squad enter a room and get shot while waiting for the rest of the squad to enter the room and begin clearing.

With the old system of abstractions a squad could enter a building without being forced to go to a door, although they did there too, because it can be abstracted that they are using windows and such. Now with everyone on the battlefield either units use a simple algorithim to locate the entry point, ie. the door, or they are aware, all of them, of the construction of each building.

Unfortunately none of us has the computing power necessary to have hundreds of little soldiers acting in according with the plan but also according to how they percieve the battlefield.

As you can see I think there are fundamental problems with the game but I just can't see them as being cause by "selling out" to real time. I like the game and I expect it to get better but I feel that much of the criticism has been off target.

*You know I love you guys.

Agreed completly.

[Sirocco]

I don't think for a moment that BFC are looking to pitch their games at a different market. Will CMSF pull in RT people who wouldn't have touched WEGO? Of course it will.

But if BFC were to release CMx2WW2 in twelve months time with the engine improvements we're promised the reaction here would be markedly different.

[thewood]

Sirocco, that is an excellent point. I still don't understand Syria from a market perspective, unless the market is something other than BFC's traditional market.

[panzermartin]

Yeah, CMSF is a C&C clone..please this is laughable. I dont even think that the game is in a form that you can judge its gameplay. There is little gameplay right now with all the bugs and incomplete features. It seems to me more hardcore than CMx1. There is some mystery though with the armor penetration model, almost all rounds seem to explode on tanks, even non damaging ones. Do the apfds rounds explode on impact? where are the broken shells and ricochets?(miss that Daaang sound )

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Interesting response, thanks. But if the mix of posters is such that "serious" topics get invaded by those who simply can't relate to them or are ill equipped to participate and actually start actively shouting down those who wish to discuss them (see the Uncanny Valley thread), you start to get a core fanbase that may even vocally dissuade "realism" or for that matter, simple discussions of it. Does the RT interface kind of encourage that approach?

No, I don't think it does, at least beyond the short-term. It's certainly not inherent to an RT approach, if it's implemented properly.

I suspect the core fanbase will remain much as it has been, and that most additions will gravitate towards the 'realism' if not 'grog' point of view. To be honest I just don't think anybody without those inclinations will be playing for very long; there are better games out there for them. It's just a case of waiting for things to settle down. That said, it is important to recognise that some new to CM with this game do and will have important insights as to how the game can be improved.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Michael Dorosh posted,

“That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.

You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.”

That made me laugh … as Grogs go I doubt any here could equal me… including Michael. I was working out armour penetration equations twenty years ago and getting them right… I know the archives of Tank Museum better than their curator . And can do the same for any era of armour. Have a collection of over five thousand photos from the Eastern Front and hundreds of books/manuals on the subject. But no matter….

And I love the game… CMSF is all I wished for . A more detailed CMX1…perfect!

However, it was released prematurely… there are too many bugs. But Steve has now been upfront about that and why it happened. It will be fixed.

CMX1 will go down as the greatest series of wargames ever, because they were so ground breaking. But happily fro me… CMX2 is a far better engine.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I don't think for a moment that BFC are looking to pitch their games at a different market. Will CMSF pull in RT people who wouldn't have touched WEGO? Of course it will.

But if BFC were to release CMx2WW2 in twelve months time with the engine improvements we're promised the reaction here would be markedly different.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a "sell-out", but you admit yourself the pitch is to a different group of gamers now. I suppose I am guilty of associating RT with less mature gamers, which isn't necessarily true. I just wonder what long term effects that might have on the franchise as a whole. Ruminating, is all.

[thewood]

One of things I am still perplexed over is the fact that the interior of vehicles are modelled in such detail, yet BFC says they had to leave many things out to satisfy financial and contractual committments. Why spend so much time on the interior of a Stryker, when that Stryker can't find its ass with a flashlight and two hands.

Once again, the same complaint I had about TOW.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by thewood:

One of things I am still preplexed over is the fact that the interior of vehicles are modelled in such detail, yet BFC says they had to leave many things out to satisfy financial and contractual committments. Why spend so much time on the interior of a Stryker, when that Stryker can't find its ass with a flashlight and two hands.

Once again, the same complaint I had about TOW.

That's apples and oranges, though, isn't it? I thought Dan was the 3D modeller and Charles the guy coding what the models do. If you have the time to make the models, go for it. They look great.