Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[panzermartin]

Well I guess its all about practice. In COH you feel so time pressed that your head aches after half an hour. And you actually have to think too and make decisions. Bad decisions cannot be countered with frenzy clicking.

CMSF in comparison is like cruising in the countryside. Pace is just right and tactics and positioning will win anyday against a click-happy opponent.

Oh, and in CMBB WeGo (TCP/ip) I often had the advantage over my buddy(boardgame old timer) because in the same time limit I was able to make more moves than him.

[average]

Bitch, Bitch, Moan, Moan, Games were better when they were played on boards. Can't believe you don't get as long as you need to think about things. Its like a click fest. I prefer staged 60 seconds turns. I have 4 hours an evening to play out 30 minutes of action.

Lot of child like moaning about how its not the same as CMX1 and it should be because, you know we really liked CMX1. Well keep playing CMX1. But it has the same name. Well, its a brand name.

It is like saying the F-22 Lighting 2 should be similiar to the P-38 Lighting 1. Things change, sometimes you like it sometimes you don't.

If you don't like it, it does not mean it is crap ipso facto. It is different. There is a grown ups lesson guys. Something board based war gamers are not renound for, but regardless, try applying it to other situations in your life, see if you spend less time moaning.

The review is off the mark. Most of the bitching is off the mark as far as I'm concerned.

You want to see utter crap, get your hands on Eric Young's Squad Assault, to see just how good BFC have got CMSF.

Next week we learn to use the word 'challenge' instead of 'problem.'

[ August 11, 2007, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: average ]

[pocketrocket]

If you don't like it, it does not mean it is crap ipso facto. It is different. There is a grown ups lesson guys. Something board based war gamers are not renound for, but regardless, try applying it to other situations in your life, see if you spend less time moaning.

Because you like it, it is not ipso facto good. You calling people immature for expressing there opinions on the game is pure hypocrisy.

Maturity is being able to be tolerant of alternative opinion to your own and to be able to discuss those opinions without resorting to childish personal attacks as evinced by you in your post.

I am not winging, moaning etc, I am expressing an opinion clearly and rationally.

[KNac]

Sorry pocketrocket but you must admit there is a lot of useless moaning and whining around.

But you know what, I've been online, involved in gaming forums and reading reviews for years. And it's always the same ****, there will allways be strong defenders and these who feel "betrayed" or "lied" and hate the game.

And it doesn't matter that much, even for bad reviews, soem games with bad reviews sold very well, it's like film criticis haha. And it doesn0't matter how much people does complain or not about the game.

To be true, I find it's completly useless to lose time wrinting negative or positive stuff in that extremist fashion. I even't don't care that much for more rational opinions (but at least, are readable).

I think there is a demo, and now reviews, and pre-reviews, so you could form yourself an opinion about the game before buying it, when you bought it, you knew what you were getting. So why all this moaning?

You can or can't agree the direction BFC have taken with the new engine, saga or whatever you want to call it; but no one obligues you to support the game.

So: take it or left it, that's about all you have to do!

[pocketrocket]

Sorry pocketrocket but you must admit there is a lot of useless moaning and whining around.

Examples?

Most of the criticism I read is constructive.

[Cavtroop]

I think the review is pretty spot-on, and similar to the review I gave the game.

No terrain shading? Makes it very tough to see dips and depressions in the terrain. Needing a CPU patch? Funny, nothing else I run needs that. Crippled WEGO is the big killer for me.

I have yet to figure out how to properly ambush in WEGO. I don't think you can, the proper features are missing.

And the stability is very poor for me. I can't save or load most games without a crash, so the campaign is completely unplayable. and without any sort of usable Quick Battle functionality, I'm limited to battles. But the AI in most of the battles is broken, and just sits there for the duration. So those aren't fun, either.

I haven't booted the game up in days, except to see if 1.02 fixed my crashing issues (it didn't). I still think this game has potential, but I'm not sure that BF is focused on making this the game that I want to play - a WEGO based wargame. We'll see.

I'm not deleting it off my HD just yet, and sill give BF some time to fix the major issues they have. Hopefully they'll put out a gameplan on what they intend to fix/add, once they get the game working for the majority of people (8800 users?).

[monkeezgob]

At the moment I'm happy to left it. The review seems to identify most of the main flaws with the game. Can't fault it for that. My own experience of playing it (as has been said by others) is that is not so much a wargame, but a computer game for the RTS crowd. Great if you like that, but not for me thanks.

[ August 11, 2007, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: monkeezgob ]

[Feltan]

One get's the feeling that the Gamespot reviewer would be happier playing with ogres and gremlins than realistic military forces that, on occasion, don't respond in an expected manner.

I have commanded a company in the field. The amount of "control" one has is about 10 times less than in CMSF. You are quite lucky if you simply know where everyone is, let alone what they are doing at any given point in time. That makes some people very uncomfortable. Those people, and the Gamespot reviewer, should stick with a game that suits them: Barbie's Pony Adventure.

Regards,

Feltan

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Hey, at least Gamespot reviewed CMSF.

They refused to review Take Command: Bull Run. No kidding, I emailed Jason Campo half-a-dozen times and begged him to take a look at it. He never responded to me or anyone else associated with the game. He was reviewing their RTS games at the time, btw.

The real focus of GS is on consoles. I don't even visit the site nowadays. It's not like their comments are gonna have any great influence on grown-ups.

CMSF FOREVER, RT ONLY!!! :cool:

PoE

[FaxisAxis]

Originally posted by peleprodigy:

ps- the reviewer probably has a 8800 gtx card and is just upset that the game won't run properly on high end hardware.

Watch it. Not to brag but. I have a Geforce 8800 GTX and I dare say I'm probably running it better than anyone here.

I've had no problems, no crashes, no lockups no artifacts, and it runs smooth. The setting are for the most part all on their highest. I can run it with or without antialiasing and 16x filtering, vertal sync.

And to talk about multicore processors-for most this means dual core- I have an intel quad-core if multi core processor were such a problem four cores should really be causing me major problems-yeah sure you're going to assume its maybe only with AMD.

I just don't understand about these serious game stopping bugs with multi-core and 8800 GTX-

maybe its only the GTS thats having problems.I have pretty much the same OS same version same drivers and setup up as the people who are who are having these problems. I've even tryed different settings- oh, I don't download porn and crap videos and I know how to debug if I need to.

But I've been running this game since I got it and there has been no problems-other than QB AI and interface, bad path finding etc.

But then ever forum I go to that has the same game as me, there are numerous people complaining and demanding

a patch for all the major crash problems they are having and they have the same video card the same processor some OS.

I know BF feels it is incumbent apon them to help these poor souls-regardless if they don't know how to configure their systems to get it to work right or uninstall some programs that my be interfering-but don't isolate the problem to the Geforce 8800 series it simply is not the case if it is working for me on what most have -should have- for an OS which is winXP with SP2.

Nevertheless, I will not complain though if a patch could make it so that the game would better utilize my multicore processor or optimize the git to run even high frame rates when using forceware drivers.

[drtechno]

All of gamespots comments were valid (as of the patch they reviewed) although I think the game probably deserved a 5.5

Especially true is their hit and miss comment on enemy AI:

"Even in missions where you're supposed to be competing for an objective, AI troops will sometimes mindlessly hang back and wait for you to move in and slaughter them. It's almost as if units have little, if any, functioning AI and are responding solely to battlefield triggers."

I have played maybe 8-10 missions so far, and probably 3-4 of them (like the current one Al Hawl) the enemy does just that. There are like 6 BMPs still sitting there in the deployment area not moving. A couple T72s moved ahead, but its precisely what as gamespot stated.

BTW, GS is not all about consoles since I follow their PC stuff all the time and consider them the most accurate reviews (to my tastes) of any site.

BF still needs to tweak the game a bit. Great potential tho, and fun when it works.

BTW, the annoying thing (other than no 'walkthrough of a battle' section of the manual) is that the maps DO float in nothingness. Its just REALLY wierd. I would have just preferred a black background.

[FaxisAxis]

Boo hoo, Yeah I guess we are all so disappointed-I knew this was going to happen way before it was released-, and the game is just no good until all the patches in the future fix some of these problems..etc include talking grandiloquently out of your asses. (you know how many times I've read this crap-for one thing all the patches and support in the world aren't going to make the game the way you you want it to be- you'll see. So just move on or back I should say and go play some more CMx1.

[ASHBERY76]

It seems the engine change was just too much for a small company to handle..

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Feltan:

Those people, and the Gamespot reviewer, should stick with a game that suits them: Barbie's Pony Adventure.

*sigh* Yes, ofcos, its the reviewrs fault for "dissing" your fav game, they just dont "get it", right?

Funny how many ppl that does not "get it". And funny how GS were competent when they reviewed CMx1, and gave rave reviews. But the moment they point out obvious flaws that has been said time and time again on this forum, they can only review kids games etc.

Great post.

[thelmia]

Eh, yeah pretty close. I like this game a lot, but I'm not recommending it until it's patched. I can't play multiplayer without it crashing half the time. Then there's the lag. That right there is killing it for the people I play with. It crashes once or twice and then we go do something else. Or there's so much lag that one player can't give orders and is frustrated.

When you have to fight a game to get it to do what you want, it changes the focus from gameplay to tweaking. I have to tweak a lot.

[Omenowl]

Well I have 0 problems with my graphics card and I have all settings set to maximum. 7600GT 256mb of ram, which is a middle range card playing at 1280x960.

My problems are mostly with the

LOF through walls.

Bad pathing even if I babysit them (follow my waypoints rather than run around them).

Assault (leapfrog is great, but actually fire on the move, stay together in a building or clear it as you move).

Figuring out how to launch my javelins at a building.

Sad thing is I did better on Elite than I did on veteran.

I still haven't gotten the blast command to work.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[monty burns]

Why is it when we dislike a reviewer's opinion, we just assume that he "doesn't get it?" What is there to get? Either you were impressed by the game, or you disliked its many shortcomings. Clearly the reviewer can not see past the many flaws in CMSF--which makes me wonder why so many of us wanted him to do so.

At least he recognizes the potential with the game. I just wish the "potential" was what we got on release day.

[ribster]

I think the review is pretty fair. If this was a business software they would be nailed to the wall. It's clearly far from finished. It just won't have the longevity of the other games, unless of course they sort it out. I've been playing cmbo, cmbb and cmak since release. At the moment I can't see myself playing this more than another 2 weeks.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The written review is fair enough, though in the scoring I think he doesn't give credit for what CMSF does do well.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Lord_Simmox]

i really like the editor and AI scripting features,assuming you can be bothered making up scenarios

bugs aside,i like the gameplay in its basics.

the actions good and the visuals and sound are good.

the wind moving smoke around the battlefield,the tracers and explosions,are very cool.

my biggest problem is lack of troop nations,so far, its much more fun playing as the reds,as you got lots of different units.

the blue side is just one arm of the US forces and would probably get a tad jaded after awhile.

should be all nato troops and all their respective arms.

british and australian (at least) troops should be included.

not too impressed about the terrain being strictly middle east,although i can live with that.

the QB maker in its current form with the painful unit selection,is just not gonna cut it.as most of us expect to be able to generate QBs with the same replayability that were used too.the only real way to do it now is manually creating the forces and map,setting the params etc.i understand the reasoning behind this but in practice its a hinderence.

although i havent tried the WEGO in CMSF,i can see,however,if its not in a good working order for the PBEMers,(in both forms TCP and Email),itll be sorely missed,some of us old blokes need the classic wego,or suffer the next few days with major hand and finger cramps:)

i was a little concerned that BFC were saying,the next CM2 game will be like overlord again,late war western europe? with just american forces again?.pfft,not happy jan

i didnt catch what they had in store for the german side,probably just one arm of the german forces i suspect.hopefully its not too late to get them to open up the scope abit,instead of closing the shutters even tighter.

i understand the statement ,BFC want to be known as a wargame developer and not just a WW2 dev,however,we(the punters) all got on board and bought and played the CM1 games and helped get us where we are today.

a point i think should not be trifled with too much.

maybe we all got spoilt by the grand scope the CM1 games provided us,but for me its too hard to go back to a narrower view.in my mind getting away from the basics that made the originals so good.

ill continue to play CMSF as i think we all should,even if its only to help improve the next release.

im enjoying the challenge of CMSF,learning and applying the lessons ,posting thoughts and comments,all helps i hope.

[Calvin]

While I'd agree with much of the review (as it does identify several areas needing immediate patching), the conclusion and rating are far too scathing.

One, this is an ambitious piece of work from an indie developer.

Two, Battlefront has proven their dedication to improving their software well after release, including improvements based on requests from users. This is a work in progress.

Three, even what we have now is still light years ahead of any other realistic RTS-- and can you even think of another game that's anywhere near a truly realistic RTS? (Please don't say Company of Heroes!)

Four, this is something completely knew--- modeling modern tactical combat within realistic parameters.

It's rough, but it's a diamond.

C.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by FaxisAxis:

Boo hoo, Yeah I guess we are all so disappointed-I knew this was going to happen way before it was released-, and the game is just no good until all the patches in the future fix some of these problems..etc include talking grandiloquently out of your asses. (you know how many times I've read this crap-for one thing all the patches and support in the world aren't going to make the game the way you you want it to be- you'll see. So just move on or back I should say and go play some more CMx1.

You are an idiot.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

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

Boo hoo, Yeah I guess we are all so disappointed-I knew this was going to happen way before it was released-, and the game is just no good until all the patches in the future fix some of these problems..etc include talking grandiloquently out of your asses. (you know how many times I've read this crap-for one thing all the patches and support in the world aren't going to make the game the way you you want it to be- you'll see. So just move on or back I should say and go play some more CMx1.

You are an idiot. </font>