Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[SlapHappy]

I think BF has always made a point to develop games around engines they design themselves. That could be based on financial considerations or just because they don't want to be saddled with the limitations that a canned engine might place on the game itself.

I think that's great, but I can also see how it leads to extended development times and potential teething problems.

[track]

You reach a point at which the game could no longer be 'Combat Mission

Well look at CM:SF - pretty much anything can be called Combat Mission.

But such a game/simulation is not that far away anymore. Just wait and see.

[juhhe]

Hi Steve

On many occasion I see you accusing your customers commenting on basis of emotion. Like this

"Dorosh,

quote:

The problem is battling emotional responses with logic doesn't work either. Some people hate CM:SF... ticking off the reasons why they should "love it" doesn't do anything. "

And this is only one example, there were several cases. Only thing that I do not "get" is that in what way you can call valid comments about TACAI, pathing, LOS/LOF problems and problems caused by the 1:1 rep (I just hate the way my squad TRIES to take cover behind corner of a wall => heavy casualties) emotional?.

Please, take the game and play it in WEGO and see for yourself. This is not hard to do. There are several people reporting the same problems and still you argue that these are based on emotions. This I do not get. I do think that the one person that might take this a bit emotionally at this time is you Steve. I think that you could be a bit frustrated with so large part of your "fan" base bitching about the same things over and over again. I know I would be.

I myself would really like to LOVE the CMSF. I was waiting for this game for a long time. And very much due to WEGO game type. I do agree with the comments about CM to be about thinking man's wargame. FOR RTS there are cool games out (for example TOW, do you agree) so that is why I cannot understand your decision of splitting the precious development time into 2 different play styles. You could have just used that time into shaping the WEGO into something beautifull. But decision was yours and you made it and I respect that even I do not understand it completely.

Like I do not understand that how these problems could not be seen in beta testing. Only thing that I can come up with is that the beta testers focused on RTS part of which I know nothing. I have not tested the RT play style and propably wont even. For that I have other games.

I hope you do not take this as a whining. I just dont understand the point in arquing with your customers about things that you could easily see for yourself. I hope that this post doesn't seem to be too emotional.

I still am hoping for the game to be fixed with patches (I even trust on this) but I have a slight problem with the games being released "unfinished".

thanks

P.S. What happened to CM Campaigns, it doesnt seem to be mentioned on the "in development" part of your site ????.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by track:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You reach a point at which the game could no longer be 'Combat Mission

Well look at CM:SF - pretty much anything can be called Combat Mission.

But such a game/simulation is not that far away anymore. Just wait and see. </font>

[Krinks]

Originally posted by bartleby:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. [/QB]</font>

[thewood]

But using your movie analogy, your expectations were high based on past performance of Ridley Scott. I am in the same position with BFC. My understanding and expectations were that BFC had set themselves up to not rush a product out the door at the behest of a large distributer.

Now that the distributer is satisfied, BFC can get to work on the real game. In the mean time, everyone has wasted time, including BFC, on the friction you get with a release that isn't ready. Like I said before, its like I just found out there is no Santa. I thought BFC had set themselves up to be above the pressures to just get it out the door. Its not the first bubble burst in my life, just one I thought wouldn't happen as soon as it did.

[Aniruddha]

I find it really disappointing to see the current state of (war)games. I bought Armed Assault which was (and is) no where close towards being finished.

Now I see these awful reviews for CMSF and reading the comments these are correct. This short term thinking is hurting the developers and the Combat Mission franchise. I wonder why battlefront has allowed these all these crappy titles to be published in the first place.

[ August 12, 2007, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Aniruddha ]

[chelm1234]

My View

Owned and loved CMBO, CMBB and CMAK and still play them very regularly. Heck I've even turned some people onto the series who had never heard of it. It's beyond me how they never heard of them before.

I started watching the development of the new game with great anticipation since the announcment and figured as soon as it came out I would grab a copy. But before CMSF was released TOW was released and I bought without even trying the demo first. That was a mistake on my part and not a fault of BF. But that still doesn't make me feel better about my purchase. It bacame apparent very quickly that this was nothing more than a RTS game and nowhere near my beloved wargame. Scripted AI that follows a prescripted path that will be the same every time you startup the scenario. It also became very apparent that instead of using real tactics like turning a flank or denying your opponent the same tactic, you were instead solving a puzzle. I blew this off as just a fluke and as we speak TOW is in its death throws.

Fast forward, CMSF is released and believe it or not I tried the demo first and decided to read the few AAR's that were being posted. In my opinion it seems like TOW part II.

My experience with the demo didn't give me a good feeling at all about the game. First the training mission makes me think why isn't the red side designed to play, please don't tell me that the AI is completely scripted moves and the blue side has no scripting. Well that indeed was the issue.

So next I try the smashing steel scenario as the americans. I dont even move my M1's I let them sit right where they start along with all the Strykers. The enemy T80's and BMP's just drive right out into plan view one by one and get waxed by the M1's. So next I decide to play this as the other side. I tell all the cannon fodder that start the scenario in the town to hide and do nothing. The few BMP's that are in the town I have hidden behind the buildings but they soon are knocked out to my amazement by M1 rounds passing through the building. I know my T80's are no match for the M1's so I place them on the reverse slope of the hill facing towards the infantry I have hiding in the trench beside the grove of trees. Shortly after I set my first T80's up the Strykers come into plan view and are all destroyed. They didn't even try to run out of that situation, they just sat there and died. While this is going on T80's reinforcements are showing up and I place them along side the ones already on the hill. To my astonishment the M1's follow the same path as the Strykers before them. Heck they even manuvered around a little to get part the burning Strykers. But they shortly followed the fate of the Strykers. I was shocked and couldn't believe what I just witnessed. I then had to drive a few tanks to the top of the hill to dispatch the remaining Stryker that was still at the jump off point. Must of been the observer. He's got one heck of a report to send back before he follows the same fate. Why didn't the M!'s come up over the hill when it was painfully obviuos what was going on.

I then decided to read some of the AAR's that were being posted (Not Many) and they sounded very much like the TOW AAR's. Place this here to destroy that then move this here. It's puzzel solving not tactics that are being used.

I hope these problems can be fixed, but I'm not holding my breath either as I believe the problem is the scripting of the AI that leaves it no flexability to deal with changing situations. I think I'll hold onto my money for the time being.

PS. By the way anyone want an unopened copy of TOW. $20 sound fair.

[track]

Must be T-72 variants you are talking about, but yes it seems that map based pre-determined stuff is the way it is done. And that's why the battles always follow the same paths and quick battles generally do not work. Well how could they?

[Zemke]

Steve,

I have not given up on you guys, all I am saying is you released CMSF too soon as you have admitted, ok we are paying to Beta-Test, got that. The other point is RT vs WEGO. You guys made a decision to include RT to appeal to a larger market and other reasons, understand that. I don't have the game, yet so I really cannot judge, just played the Demo. I will buy the game, trust me, but I am not going to rush out and buy it till I see a few more patches. Like I said I am not going to pay to beta-test your product......but I have great respect for your previous products CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and trust you guys will do your best to make CMSF a better game. So I will give you guys some time to fix things proper then you can have my $50 bucks. Then I prey that the WWII one is good to go. Modern is ok, but personally I have lived it, and it doesn't hold the same "charm" as WWII. But that is old ground, and water under the bridge. I have stated before I have nothing but good wishes for what you are trying to do......I only hope the technical issues with this engine can be overcome to give the thinking tactician the abilty to give orders, without having to mico-manage / baby-sit units, perhaps impossible, but that is my hope.

Best wishes to Battlefront.....as Zemke waits.

[track]

I bought Armed Assault which was (and is) no where close towards being finished

There is one BIG difference OFP and Armed Assault are highly modable games from the start. I do not mean re-skins etc. they do not carry the flag for long if the base is not solid enough. Even the AI behavior can be accessed.

Still it is questionable that game companies have an increasing tendency to release half-ready games. I do not think that new gamers are attracted by this way. It will start to function against them at some point. But PC is a difficult platform to make games - just too many possible hard and software combinations out there!

[ August 12, 2007, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: track ]

[monkeezgob]

Chelm 1234,

It's nothing to do with the game, you just don't get it.

[chelm1234]

Originally posted by monkeezgob:

Chelm 1234,

It's nothing to do with the game, you just don't get it.

Damn, I figured maybe I was Napoleon reincarnated and the game just didn't know what to do against such a brilliant mind.

[track]

Well perhaps Stryker drivers are teached to give the enemy a freebie shot or two just for sportmanship and a fair fight?

[securityguard]

wow, a gamespot review i actually agree with!

[SKELLEN]

The old cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" springs to mind here from the posts I've read. I think people wanted/expected more of CMX1 with added improvements and why not give the customer more of the same if it brings the money in?

Obviously you have your own business model in mind and this is a brand new engine and all and I respect your decision to go the way you have with this game, but to say that "people don't get it" when so many have voiced their concerns on similar things makes me think they can't all be wrong.

It also shows some arrogance towards your customers I feel that if they "don't get it", then it's ok because you expected this from many people. How can it be ok to lose customers or potential customers when you obviously need as much support as possible and this game to sell.

I only wish I could test this game myself as I have a Mac but from what I've learned it seems that this game would have benefited greatly from a delay but I understand you didn't have much choice due to the distribution deal.

I want this game to be a success like most here and will continue to support you, however many customers I feel may be heading out the door to pastures new, and I sense you are letting them go too easily, please hold onto them BFC!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

The old cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" springs to mind here from the posts I've read. I think people wanted/expected more of CMX1 with added improvements and why not give the customer more of the same if it brings the money in?

I think Steve's point though is that it wasn't bringing the money in. CMX1 lost customers with every title.

[Roter Stern]

ohh noes!! this thread is almost at 300¹!!

¹<font size="1"> No relation to the movie or the graphical novel</font>

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

The old cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" springs to mind here from the posts I've read. I think people wanted/expected more of CMX1 with added improvements and why not give the customer more of the same if it brings the money in?

I think Steve's point though is that it wasn't bringing the money in. CMX1 lost customers with every title. </font>

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Feltan:

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

KID?

Yeah, I'm a 28 year old kid with more combat experience than you will ever have. Instead of manning a desk, dreaming about panzers and playing war with cardboard counters I'm actually out there firing rounds in anger at the enemies of my country... </font>

[track]

What more can be said? CM: Shock Force is a tremendous disappointment. There is still a great deal of promise here, Battlefront has already started whipping the game into shape through what will no doubt be a long succession of patches, and the diehard fan base will undoubtedly use the included editor to make some impressive battles. Even so, no game should be released in such a rough, incomplete state.

Closing lines of another English review - score medicore 4.5 out of 10. Seems critics are copying each other. Did he even play it?

[Zemke]

Originally posted by chelm1234:

My View

I then decided to read some of the AAR's that were being posted (Not Many) and they sounded very much like the TOW AAR's. Place this here to destroy that then move this here. It's puzzel solving not tactics that are being used.

I hope these problems can be fixed, but I'm not holding my breath either as I believe the problem is the scripting of the AI that leaves it no flexability to deal with changing situations. I think I'll hold onto my money for the time being.

PS. By the way anyone want an unopened copy of TOW. $20 sound fair.

My impressions were the same after playing the Demo. Frankly I never played CM1 much against the computer anyway, and it's AI's at that level is not much different. What really concerns me is the poor tactical AI, you have to have good tactical AI or you have to become a damn tank driver. Which is not what I want to do. I want to fight the battle, not baby sit units. The interface needs work, I missed the ability to see the orders of all my units. Against a human opponent it is where this can really hurt, but give them some time.

BF also keeps bring up coding issues with this new engine, "we cannot because of"....thought this new engine was going to allow more possibilities, except I keep hearing we cannot because of code.

I have not read everything on these forums, far from it, so I may be off base with some of my comments. With that said, if I had been BF, I would have put out game just like CM1, but with the graphics of CMSF, and with even more improvements. For example, the artillery model in CMSF is excellent, I understand the editor is excellent too. Perhaps with the Campaign Game they talked about. I am certainly no programer, but why not improve what is working, like the QB format. One post on the Blitz (where I get my opponents), said "face it, CM as we know it dead". I hope not, even if it took someone else to buy the rights to the game and take it to the next level. Perhaps in a few years Matrix will, they seem to be re-publishing re-runs of older wargames. Or maybe CMSF will (after all you guys who have it finish beta-test it for them), be the simulation it could be.

[Zemke]

Oh one more thing BF, you guys have KNOW this CMSF "I wish", "where is", thing is going to rage for months right.....because when guys like me do decide to buy the game after patch 1.03, or 1.04, or 1.05 and on and on, we will be posting all our grips.......

A man loves his wife, his dog and his hobby, just not in that order.

Good Luck

[John Kelly]

After my experience with Theatre of War, I'm taking the Game Spot review to heart. I'll pass on this one.

[Zemke]

Battlefront

Again, you overlook the truth. Individual ammo counts and types are tracked, individual soldier Morale is tracked, vehicles have dozens of things that can be damaged, the ballistics modeling is now based on the highly detailed 3D models instead of abstracted forms of them, etc. These are all things that people asked for and now they have them. I can forgive the short memories, I can not so easily forgive people almost deliberately not looking at something that is right in front of them.

All that sounds great, tell me more....sell me, tell me the good things, all the improvements.