Jump to content

Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This review is spot on.

I am an old time wargamer, long time SERIOUS computer gamer, and fan of CM and battlefront.

I have lost count of the number of people I have introduced to the CM series with forceful advice to play and buy.

But, NO WAY would I recommend CMSF now...

I am not playing it because it doesn't work as

well as the CM1 games and is not as much fun.

To sum up "There are too many design flaws (like no QBs with force picks, or proper WEGO) in this beta release"

NB Proper WEGO needs either a pause and replay in real-time and customisable variable time increments for turn based.

Sadly it CMSF now a very unpolished and premature release - whatever happened to "It's done when it's done"?

However I am happy to have given BF my money for a game I do not play, if it means a WW2 version will get it right - and yes, that means getting right what was already right in CM1, before going off on tangents for extra eye candy and real-time twitch-gamer commercialism.

But if BF want to sell me a yet another real-time WW2 game, I will not be buying - there are plenty of those that I have never bought already out there.

We need an improved version of the CM we all love, and CMSF is NOT the CM we love...it is very sad to see all the people who express their disappointment condemned. Please try to listen to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, WEGO is in. It's all I've been playing. If you mean TCP/IP WEGO then you're right, it's not in.

But I must have played...loads - over a thousand games of CM. Of that < 20 TCP/IP, I just don't have the time.

So I don't really see the objection. I don't know how indicative of the general case I am, but unless you've got a gaming buddy waiting all the time, and all the time needed to play, I'd imagine my experience is pretty standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sandy:

I have lost count of the number of people I have introduced to the CM series with forceful advice to play and buy.

But, NO WAY would I recommend CMSF now...

This part really struck home with me..

Many of the people I used to play SL/PL/PB with just are not interested in CMx1. I tried, I argued, I fought tooth and nail to try and persuade them to give it an honest chance. I knew that if they gave it the same chance I did, they would LOVE those games. Because at those games heart was a sound, tactical wargame like none other ever created. They were AMAZING!!

CMSF is nothing like any wargame I've ever played... and thats not a good thing. I would never try and sell this game to any of my friends, its simply not worth the money in its current form.

I honestly think the 1:1 representation is the biggest blame. I'm sorry, but it really doesnt matter if Pvt. Smith is wounded, where he's wounded or whatever... I only really care if the *unit* is fit for battle.

CMx1 did this well, CMSF just makes you a baby sitter.. with nifty new graphics.. assuming you have one of the systems that were used by some beta-tester.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4.5? This is so harsh. I agree it must be his 8800 card, because graphics are fine with no glitches if you are lucky to have the right pc combo. Hideous visuals? The guys have done a tremendous step forward in this part of the game, with fantastic models, crisp and clear details and a great pallete of colors with no fancy hollywood shades. The game is unfinished, true, and this is probably why he rates it so low...but 4.5? A 6.5-7 would be fairer.

Hope BFC wont be disappointed with the negative reviews, I guess they were kind of prepared with all the bugs and all. Base engine is all that matters with this release, I dont mind they released it as is, I couldnt wait any longer and I'd be happy to help shaping CMSF into a great wargame. 1.02 shows that they have the energy to pay attention to our observations/suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sandy:

This review is spot on.

I am an old time wargamer, long time SERIOUS computer gamer, and fan of CM and battlefront.

I have lost count of the number of people I have introduced to the CM series with forceful advice to play and buy.

But, NO WAY would I recommend CMSF now...

I am not playing it because it doesn't work as

well as the CM1 games and is not as much fun.

To sum up "There are too many design flaws (like no QBs with force picks, or proper WEGO) in this beta release"

NB Proper WEGO needs either a pause and replay in real-time and customisable variable time increments for turn based.

Sadly it CMSF now a very unpolished and premature release - whatever happened to "It's done when it's done"?

However I am happy to have given BF my money for a game I do not play, if it means a WW2 version will get it right - and yes, that means getting right what was already right in CM1, before going off on tangents for extra eye candy and real-time twitch-gamer commercialism.

But if BF want to sell me a yet another real-time WW2 game, I will not be buying - there are plenty of those that I have never bought already out there.

We need an improved version of the CM we all love, and CMSF is NOT the CM we love...it is very sad to see all the people who express their disappointment condemned. Please try to listen to us.

I agree. Absolutely. This game is poor. POOR. I brought the entire CM series (CMBO, CMBB and CMAK), and on my opinion they are the best tactical games I have ever had, but I won't buy any other CMx2 series game if BF doesn't change radically this situation.

Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4.5 is perhaps a bit harsh, but I have no problem with gamespot reviewing the game from a 'gaming' cf simulation perspective. I've been computer wargaming for almost 25 years, bought all 3 CMX1 games and played extensively, but after playing thru the CMSF campaign - it's just not fun!! :( Pretty much every scenario has you beating up against weaker forces defending in open country from trenches/buildings. There's no sneaking, no particularly even stoushes and a victory condition of 'destroy the enemy without losing more than 10-20% of your own forces' just isn't fun compared to the WWII 'take the village at all costs'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with the review.

In every review you read, you realise CMSF has been beaten...by its predecessors. Yeah, there are great improvements, but we have lost too much things.

Also, this game has treated the old WEGO Grognards as second class players, this is the real reason behind all the complains and cries.

But also, in every review you read, you see that very few mainstream RT players will like this game. This is a saturated marked with very good and fully oriented products

It seems BF has dig their own hole. I really hope they get out of there in the most logical way, I mean, adding all the wonderful lost CM flavours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by panzermartin:

4.5? This is so harsh. I agree it must be his 8800 card, because graphics are fine with no glitches if you are lucky to have the right pc combo.

Are you serious? We have to be lucky that software we buy will run on our computers?

If it's impossible that all combinations are tested, then the absolute minimum is, to test and develop on the most widely spread modern systems!

Hideous visuals? The guys have done a tremendous step forward in this part of the game, with fantastic models, crisp and clear details and a great pallete of colors with no fancy hollywood shades.

The shades look awful on many computers. Many objectives have statically turned self shading off, to get some useful framerates at all.

The game is unfinished, true, and this is probably why he rates it so low...but 4.5? A 6.5-7 would be fairer.
Oh, the car is unfinished. The airbags and the second brake circuit will be included in the next service.

But if that is the case, i want them to tell me, BEFORE i buy it. No word from BFC that the game is in early beta.

And to me this is even more a problem, since the small but fine community was kept in disbelieve.

Hope BFC wont be disappointed with the negative reviews, I guess they were kind of prepared with all the bugs and all.
They should have better thought twice about the disappointment in their community, with members that waited 4 years in patience, members that upgraded their computers in believe and trust into BFC - and that have now 10 FPS with their newly updates computers. Not a single word from BFC, to wait. Instead it was spread that Nvidia is the way to go. No warning words, that the game is not tested at all with modern cards.

And you worry, that BFC could become disappointed about negative reviews? :eek:

Base engine is all that matters with this release,
Then i must have missed that post...

I dont mind they released it as is, I couldnt wait any longer and I'd be happy to help shaping CMSF into a great wargame. 1.02 shows that they have the energy to pay attention to our observations/suggestions.
I'm afraid, there will not be enough time for them to fix it - they had 4 (four!) years to get the basiscs right and couldn't - and now you expect them to do that in a few weeks?

Obviously all development time was wasted for the (for wargamers) unnessecary 1:1 representation.

And on the other hand, what came out is ofcourse not good enough for mainstream gamers, to be attracted by the graphics. The game looks ugly compared with those, it obviously tries with 1:1 representation to compare with and for the real wargamers, the important basics, like shooting through walls, plausible TacAI behaviour or pathfinding were not improved - they even got worse, partly much worse! Three steps back behind CMx1 in important aspects.

And you wonder about bad reviews?

They freely have chosen to sit between all chairs - and i have to admit, also my patience is coming to an end and i'm losing more and more interest in the further development of the game.

IMO what we see with CM:SF is a typical mistake of developers losing the roots. By trying to make all much better, they forget what works already perfect and what parts need to be really worked on (anyone remember about the old wished for grid-overlay, full game replays, co-op play, campaigns?).

They now have a new engine, but that is not capable to show a grid overlay. No fullgame replays. And not even short replays in realtime. How long will people be satisfied about that? How long will it last, until the invisible terrain elevations become disturbing?

EDIT: that brings back the memories about the hull-down discussion of the PzIV and the hope, the new engine will model turret height. That was the direction CM was aiming at and everyone hoped was going for. Now we have responses, that there are abstractions and we have bullets flying through terrain. I doubt discussions about turret height will ever appear in CMx2...[/EDIT]

Basics, that are not there and without any hope they will be inlcuded in the next few patches.

IMO they already destroyed the enourmous reputation CM had - a reputation that could have been used to win more players, with up to date graphics, but with keeping the good old basics solid. I really doubt, their plans about modules and selling numbers can work now.

[ August 11, 2007, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its laughable that people think a 4.5 rating is severe.

This game is horrible. And while I know all the supporters and BFC people will say "This isnt CMx1, its CMSF, so stop comparing them" that doesnt change the *FACT* that CMx1 was an amazing and revolutionary game, and this game is... not.

I keep starting it up... trying to play it, giving it a 20th or 30th chance, and it disappoints every single GD time.

If its not the sluggish graphics and horrible framerates, its the unforgivable AI that does nothing but get your troops killed unless you choose to play in Real-time... which I have no desire to do.

These games were/are best with the WE/GO system. It was and is the best of both worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The review is spot on and has the same trend like the other 2 reviews I have found and read.

Bottom line and this is also supported by the comments u read in several forums

CMSF is not nearly good enough to rival other RT games already on the market. Hence if u like RT u find several better games on the shelves.

CMSF is a hughe step backwards if u like WEGO. Hence if u like WEGO the old CM series is the much better and cheaper option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reviewer is correct, and 4.5 is more than deserved for 1.1 version. I think the reviewer is even being nice in saying that the game has great potential and will improve through time. Releasing games in beta status must really piss off reviewers I can imagine.

I agree with a lot of posters above in that this is not a game I recommend to friends, even though I've been beating them to death with CMx1. I don't mind paying for a product I will not play that much in the current state. Problem is that I've said the same thing about ToW. So that's two games that have been a disappointment for me.

IMHO BF will start losing credibility if they don't step up to the plate with the next few patches and stop the "you-just-don't-understand-how-great-this-game-is-attitude".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Stirling:

I really didn't expect the game to come out till the holidays, or even early next year, judging by what was revealed (or the lack thereof) over the last few months.

I thought the same. I do wonder how firmly BFC's hands were tied by Paradox.

no game should be released in such a rough, incomplete state.
The reviewer is correct, but the last two games I bought were SH4 and CMSF, and neither were ready for more than robust testing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no comparison between CMSF and "other" RTS out there. RTS are a seperate category with specific resource management gameplay and they are more of a game than a pure wargame. They are designed to be fun and balanced, COH is a good example and pretty entertaining I must admit. CMSF RT is not here to compete with these games, they share nothing in common except that you order units as the action unfolds. RealTime doesnt mean I sold my sould to the devil to make some bucks. It IS a step forward to realism. Its the engine problems that hold it back right now and the modern setting that many arent used to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have full game and its great fun! much better as all combat missions together. im playing in realtime and everything is as it should be. we-go was after some time bore. (for me)

of course there are some bugs, but they will be soon fixed. i was frist dissapointed too. give the game chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realtime is NOT a step towards realism.... these games aren't realistic because it is not "realistic" at all to have a single person controlling every single aspect of a Company+ sized formation.

If you want a realistic RealTime game, it would be squad level at best,and you would have to tell your individual soldiers what to do.. Because "realistically" one man is only ever in charge of a squad sized element(and even that is pushing it).

To command more people, its not realistic, so just throw out the idea that "Real life is real time, so any game trying to realistically portray combat has to be in RealTime".

The compromise between the two, was WE/GO, and apparently, BFC and many of its fans have forgotten that.

Sorry I said "real" 18 times... smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by panzermartin:

There is no comparison between CMSF and "other" RTS out there. RTS are a seperate category with specific resource management gameplay and they are more of a game than a pure wargame. They are designed to be fun and balanced, COH is a good example and pretty entertaining I must admit. CMSF RT is not here to compete with these games, they share nothing in common except that you order units as the action unfolds. RealTime doesnt mean I sold my sould to the devil to make some bucks. It IS a step forward to realism. Its the engine problems that hold it back right now and the modern setting that many arent used to.

I think that theme has been deeply discussed but I can't resist...sorry, but, tastes apart, my idea of realism is not losing three tanks because I was trying to do a correct placement at the other side of the map...

RT games are designed to be simple handled because of a reason, I guess

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MarkEzra:

If you are a Wargamer you'll love CM:SF, see it to be a big step forward tactical simulation. If you're a Gamer who likes playing Army you're just not gonna get it.

That's a load of bull.

I've been wargaming a hell of a lot longer than computer games have even been around, and I don't see CMSF as a step forward. It has potential, but as a simulation, it isn't up to CMBO par yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. that review score was atad bit low I think, but not by so much. Gamespot, is whatever you might think about it, a major game source on the internet.

FYI, the meta score for CMSF is 61%

I guess there are more and more internet sites who doesnt "get it". Or perhpas, just perhaps, they *might* be on to something?

Meta Critic

Link to post
Share on other sites

currently I fear CMSF is a sinking ship.

I found 4 reviews so far and all are from bad to worse. Nobody who reads a review before buying will get CMSF.

Lots of people who try the demo before buying will not get it either i guess.

Most of those who like the old CM will not get it or if they already got it will not buy the add-ons.

The typical RT guy might get the basic game but not the add-ons. By the time the add-ons are around and the bugs are ironed out there is another newer cooler RT game out by somebody.

So unless BTC pulls an amazing rabbit out of the hat very soon they might be in trouble

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...