Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[dalem]

Originally posted by Chelco:

Ah, give me a break!

Let's take off the masks fellas!

Grog, what grogs? The ones who would discuss 10 pages of threads about if the PzIII should have the number 13 in the cuppola painted white or light blue while happily let go a game mechanic that was basically combat chess?

That's not grog, that's hardware fetish fed with Amazon books.

I've seen people that make military grade simulations for a living giving praise to the game. I've seen people who have been in the military giving good feedback too. Are they kiddie-clickfesters too? Are out there bigger and better grogs than the ones who held the real weapons and rode the real machines of a state for a living?

You should stop acting like you are the center of the universe.

How many of you are calling BFC for a "soul searching" and "going back to your roots"? 25? 100? Don't fool yourselves: you may be visible and vocal, but you are just a fraction of the market. Don't self-appoint yourselves as the chair commitee that preserves the holy grail of wargaming. I would share my tootbrush with any you rather than to agree to the convoluted pseudo-logic you use to cover the bitterness from the realization that the train has left without you this time.

This game is clearly not for you. I already know what you think. Time to let it go.

Edited for ESOL.

WTF?!?

-dale

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Ah, give me a break!

Let's take off the masks fellas!

Grog, what grogs? The ones who would discuss 10 pages of threads about if the PzIII should have the number 13 in the cuppola painted white or light blue while happily let go a game mechanic that was basically combat chess?

That's not grog, that's hardware fetish fed with Amazon books.

I've seen people that make military grade simulations for a living giving praise to the game. I've seen people who have been in the military giving good feedback too. Are they kiddie-clickfesters too? Are out there bigger and better grogs than the ones who held the real weapons and rode the real machines of a state for a living?

You should stop acting like you are the center of the universe.

How many of you are calling BFC for a "soul searching" and "going back to your roots"? 25? 100? Don't fool yourselves: you may be visible and vocal, but you are just a fraction of the market. Don't self-appoint yourselves as the chair commitee that preserves the holy grail of wargaming. I would share my tootbrush with any you rather than to agree to the convoluted pseudo-logic you use to cover the bitterness from the realization that the train has left without you this time.

This game is clearly not for you. I already know what you think. Time to let it go.

Edited for ESOL.

WTF?!?

-dale </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Darren,

In six months I think we will all have a much better idea of the strengths and weakenesses of the product without all of the emotional baggage in either direction. Then we can generate new emotional attachments to the new engine.

Which is why you don't see me running around trying to prevent the sky from falling. I know this is an emotional reaction and I know I can't make it right for those who are reacting this way. Time will sort out things out and is, in a way, already doing so. We're in patch mode for a few months so we won't be making any significant game improvements for some time. When we do, they will be deliberate and take into consideration the rational arguments put forth that we find compatiable with our vision and our time schedule. I'm patient.

Steve

[KNac]

Originally posted by TheNathan:

aside from the fact that in order to pause the damn thing, you have to press escape which brings up that annoying text in the center of the screen. I would have really liked it if there were some kind of "command mode" so the game can be paused without having that text, or the ability for intermittent pause periods for RT multiplayer so people can catch their breath a bit.

So true, I hope this could be "fixed" (should be very easy), in a future patch, so Steve could you add it to the wishlist? (even move the text to the top of the screen and make letters smaller)

[mazex]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />For us, you listed a bunch of ways that it's our fault that we don't see it, but you didn't list the simplest answer of all, which is that your newest widget fails in its effort to show us all of its cool features.

That's just the problem... we can't make someone see something in a positive light if they don't want to view it that way. RT play is a huge advance, and many hate it so much that they slam it without having even tried it. How can we "show off" something if the person refuses to even look at it? Same thing with people saying the game is a "clickfest". It's an emotional reaction to something they percieve, and there is no amount of showing them what to look for that will change their minds.

I've said it before, though. If we had CMx1 style QBs, WeGo TCP/IP, and no RealTime I bet you we would not have had such a negative reaction from a segment of our CMx1 customer base even if NOTHING else was different. But since they are in a foul mood, everything we've done is fair game for criticism. Even the stuff that, in our opinion, they should be celebrating.

Steve </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But still. No grogs. Odd, ain't it?

They are here, but they are WWII grogs for the most part. That has no small amount to do with all this hubris too. If the setting were WWII the tone would be quite different, of that I'm sure. Just think back to the wonderfully "warm" reception we received when we announced contemporary warfare would be the first subject matter for CMx2. Think of the many wonderfully reasoned threads that people started up to tell us that modern warfare was a joke and we were wasting our time.

My point is that many CMx1 fans came to CM:SF only half heartedly because it wasn't WWII. Obviously such people were coming into this with a different mindset than those looking forward to the contemporary setting.</font>

[KNac]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

In that case, in answer to your question "why can't I bear to play WEGO anymore", which I attempted to answer, the answer would be one or a combination of the following:

a) you don't play CM anymore

you don't play anything more than a couple of platoons at a time

c) you con't play against other humans

Am I closer to the mark? Because you can't tell me you're enjoying playing RT company-sized engagements against other humans.

Have you tried RT using pause (escape) when needed? I think that would be helpfull and much more enjoyable than WeGo (anyway, it's the variable time WeGo some asked for in other thread).

[TheNathan]

Yeah, the ability to use pause in real-time is pretty much a necessity, things get very overwhelming very quickly unless it is employed.

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't get me wrong, I like RT and use it exclusively against the AI. But I'm not a good CM player, am not looking for a huge challenge, don't play as much as I would like, don't play more than a couple platoons at a time and don't play RT against humans.

[Astolene]

Well here's a grog complaint:

I think it's cool to watch the MG teams set up, and at the end of each 100 round belt, the gunner opens the feed tray, and the assistant reloads him. But then the gunner does these pansy, half-pulled trigger 2-3 round bursts! He's going to break the sear on the MG like that!

Why doesn't CMSF have the MGs break down because of all the poorly trained gunners?

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I believe this is an example of the kind, well thought-out defense of the product as opposed to the vicious attacks of the less than satified.

Darren, nice post.

I'm not defending the game. It has its flaws I reckon. Also, there are not vicious attacks anywhere, just a complete inability to let go.

Either that or a certain Chelco is the chair committee that preserves the holy grail of wargaming.

I appreciate your sense of humour but I don't think we are reading the same forum. Darren, are you aware that there are people out there telling BFC how to (or not to) design games? Have you read things like "this is computer game, not a wargame"? Not me.

Sigh: this is what I mean about silly ass posts flaming people who don't agree with you.

One example in 200+ pages of things. Big deal. After all I read, I have the right to vent my crap too.

How could it have been written? Hmm. "I think some folks here think grog means overly attached to superfluous detail instead of actual significant information. Professionals in the simulation field and in the military are quite supportive and applauding of BFC's current product. Those who continue to complain are coming across as childish and self-centered and must accept that they are not the only adjudicators of wargaming quality and innovation. While I would happily share social time with you, I must state that I reject your views on this game and the industry as a whole. (I can't think of a nice way of saying that I know what you think so shut up). Just a quick alternative.

Thanks for the effort in embelishing it. Still prefer my words. I'm too old to disguise what I really think. I hope you don't mind if I think that if you are throwing present-paper-covered crap at somebody is still crap.

[Darren J Pierson]

I wholeheartedly agree that present-paper-covered crap is still crap and hard to say five times fast as well. And yes, you have have the right to share your thoughts but I think the point was in the thread that there was too much venting and not enough discussion. However, once again that is a matter of interpretation. And you are certainly not the most aggregious poster by a long shot - if that opinion matters.

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Anyone reminded of the X-Com series fiasco?

Damn! I thought I was the only one! :eek:

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I wholeheartedly agree that present-paper-covered crap is still crap and hard to say five times fast as well. And yes, you have have the right to share your thoughts but I think the point was in the thread that there was too much venting and not enough discussion. However, once again that is a matter of interpretation. And you are certainly not the most aggregious poster by a long shot - if that opinion matters.

Indeed your opinion matters to me Darren. Point well taken here.

I just don't have time to write right now, so I will e-mail you later if you don't mind.

Gotta go!

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Astolene:

Well here's a grog complaint:

I think it's cool to watch the MG teams set up, and at the end of each 100 round belt, the gunner opens the feed tray, and the assistant reloads him. But then the gunner does these pansy, half-pulled trigger 2-3 round bursts! He's going to break the sear on the MG like that!

Why doesn't CMSF have the MGs break down because of all the poorly trained gunners?

Well Thank God for That:

For awhile there I thought I was at a New York Drama Critics Roast for Steve.

[Timskorn]

I consider myself a "casual" wargamer. I played the demo for the first CM, was amazed and immediately bought the game. I played the demo for CM:SF, was not impressed and will not buy the game.

You can tell me I don't "get it", but the fact remains, it's my money that you don't "get".

I was in the game industry. The object is to stay in business and hopefully make some money. If you can't do that then who cares about all the new features that we're supposed to "get"?

I'm being harsh because the industry IS harsh. You're only as good as your last game and the CMx1 series was solid. All that crap that forumers whine about wanting is, in the end, just a wish list. They'd still buy a CM game even if it didn't have 1:1 representation, and a new customer wouldn't buy it because that "feature" is in the game.

Word of mouth is much more powerful, and I'm afraid CM:SF is losing in that department.

[FaxisAxis]

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>

[Kong]

First, thanks to all (well, most of you) for commenting in this thread. It confirms what I was sensing.

I'm a CMX1 vet since Sept '00. I played CMX1 daily for 4+ years. Most of my games were PBEM, custom battles, large forces. I was not 'dying' for CMSF, for a number of reason, most having nothing to do with CMSF itself. I say this because I do not believe I am reacting from a strong 'emotional' response.

Charles is a gifted programmer. Period. But there is only so much one person can do and I think it obvious that CMSF was/is too much for one person.

I applaud the 1:1 decision and agree with the desire to create a simulation. It is apparent that 1:1 also meant CMSF could NEVER be CMX1, due mostly to CPU horsepower contraints. So at this point in time 1:1 means small force battles, and this means RT is the right choice for 'realism'. You included WEGO to try and 'keep' customers, when you knew and know that CMSF is a RT game. And that is why WEGO is what it is in CMSF. RT is the right design decision for small force games, and WEGO the right one for large force games. CMSF is a small force game. RT and WEGO are fundamentally different, and you cannot have a GREAT game that has both. Especially with only ONE programmer.

I 'think' this is where alot of disappointment is coming from, well that and the myriad of bugs.

The reality of the comments in this thread speaks volumes. Both from long time fans/supporters and BFC. I did NOT expect CM:SF to be revolutionary, how could it be? But I did expect it to be as good as CMX1. This thread is proof that CMX2 is not what most fans expected or what BFC wanted. That is disappointing.

I think I 'Get IT'. CMSF is a 1:1 modern combat simulation small force game that was rushed out the door due to a distribution agreement (Ironically I believe one of the reasons for Steve and Charles creating BTS/BFC was so this did NOT happen). You knew that NOT including WEGO was gonna turn A LOT of customers off. You were right. But, IMO, you'd been better off doing that than the WEGO that is in CMSF now.

Yes I'm disappointed that CMX2 is not going to be the game that I want. But know this. I want BFC to succeed, I want CMSF to be a great game. IMO, if CMSF was a great game people would enjoy it despite the fact that it is not the 'type' of game they prefer.

Kevin

[FaxisAxis]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

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

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

You are an idiot. </font>

[thewood]

The comments I have heard in the few posts about the distribution deal are what puzzle me. I agree with Kong that I thought the entire concept of BFC was to give the little developer a route around the "big guys". Now I see that is one of the reasons for BFC taking a credibility beating. First it was TOW and now CMSF.

I really want to like CMSF. I had two 24 hour flights immediately following the release and probably played more than anyone else on the planet. I am struggling with whats new and whats a bug. The manual is missing a lot of useful information on how stuff works. I just want BFC to tell us how things really work in the game. How do you get Strykers to fire, when won't they fire, when will a tank fire an AT missle over a HEAT round, why do enemy units ignore each other, etc.

I find myself replaying scenarios over and over whan I run into these issues. CMSF is becoming like work for me. This, to me, smacks of a premature release, something I forgave them for in TOW, but have a hard time doing for CMSF. I also just found out there is no Santa Clause.

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by Chelco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I wholeheartedly agree that present-paper-covered crap is still crap and hard to say five times fast as well. And yes, you have have the right to share your thoughts but I think the point was in the thread that there was too much venting and not enough discussion. However, once again that is a matter of interpretation. And you are certainly not the most aggregious poster by a long shot - if that opinion matters.

Indeed your opinion matters to me Darren. Point well taken here.

I just don't have time to write right now, so I will e-mail you later if you don't mind.

Gotta go! </font>

[Northman]

In that case, in answer to your question "why can't I bear to play WEGO anymore", which I attempted to answer, the answer would be one or a combination of the following:

a) you don't play CM anymore

you don't play anything more than a couple of platoons at a time

c) you con't play against other humans

Or d) you don't use tactics that involve units doing stuff at two different places on the map at the same time(and good tactics very often fall into this category). This is the most obvious reason why RT does not work; a player can only focus at one part of the map at any given time. Attacking the fort in the first campaign mission from two sides for example, is simply impossible in real-time, without taking lots of casualties solely because of your inability to coordinate two groups of units at the same time, or at least not without moving your forces in a way that would severly reduce the benefits of a two-point attack.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Northman:

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

In that case, in answer to your question "why can't I bear to play WEGO anymore", which I attempted to answer, the answer would be one or a combination of the following:

a) you don't play CM anymore

you don't play anything more than a couple of platoons at a time

c) you con't play against other humans

Or d) you don't use tactics that involve units doing stuff at two different places on the map at the same time(and good tactics very often fall into this category). This is the most obvious reason why RT does not work; a player can only focus at one part of the map at any given time. Attacking the fort in the first campaign mission from two sides for example, is simply impossible in real-time, without taking lots of casualties solely because of your inability to coordinate two groups of units at the same time, or at least not without moving your forces in a way that would severly reduce the benefits of a two-point attack. </font>

[KNac]

@ thewood:

Bugs apart, there is some confussion going around about game mechanics and how things work. It would be nice if BFC did clarify some of these points (read Dorosh thread for example for some usefull discussion).

About distribution etc. BF.C is composed of human beings, who need money to live, or survive even haha. While I don't agree on the business practice of gaming software industry of releasing unfinished products, I understand to a point why is done, and in the case of BF or similar develoers, even more. You know this stuff happens daily, even with inflated budget movie productions, there is a point when you have spend too much and need some cash flow.

As I'm an old CM player I know that BF will work hard to make the game the best they can, but I'm patience and I know this will be a hard and long way, cause as someone has pointed out, there is so much one eprson (or a small group) can do, and this project is not any easy from a programming point of view. IMO the concept and idea is spot on, and with time it can become classic (more than CMx1), but a lot of tuning and additions will have to be done.

@ Dorosh:

I haven't played online yet, but if TCP/IP doesn't include pause button then it's hard to play yes.

[cow_cookie]

I'm getting in on the discusssion late, but I'm going to split the difference between the reviewer and CM:SF defenders.

Things I disagree with:

1) Graphics: Not bad looking in my opinion. I wonder if it's the way things disappear when you zoom out that's pissing them off. I can't see terrain features very well, though, and would like some contour lines or something else.

2) Interface: If they liked CMx1 games, I don't understand what the problem is. The difficulty seems comparable. The interface is close enough to earlier games that I haven't had to read the PDF manual all that much to get the hang of it - although some things did seem counterintuitive. Why when I want a javelin to fire on a specific building must I use area fire. The decision to use the same hot key for different commands, depending on the menue, does seem pretty dumb. But I don't use hot keys all that much.

3) Modern warfare problems: The era doesn't seem to be prohibitive in my mind. I'm glad to at last have a CM game with modern equipment. I know it better and can relate to it more, so it cuts down on the learning curve - especially important since I'm a working man now, unlike when the series first came out.

4) Campaign: Works for me. Maybe it's not as dynamic as it could be, but I'm not complaining.

Things I agree with:

1) Pathfinding: It sucks. Period. BFC has all but conceded this in previous threads, why should the reviewer not point it out? Any suggestion that it in some way reflects the confusion of war is bogus. It's a mistake. And that whole stop and rally at every waypoint deal? BS, plain and simple.

2) Tac AI: Hard to separate this from the bad pathfinding, in my mind, but not so hot.

3) Hardware problems: At any given time, starting a mission can result in anything from smooth-as-silk framerates to choppy frame rates. This is true even when we're talking about the same mission. It's hard for me to get too mad at this, though, as I see this on nearly every game that comes out if you don't have the latest hardware. And if the reviewer can't figure out how to get the game running smooth, how likely do you think the average gamer is to do that? I certainly thought we were past the days of mucking about with the OS to get our game of choice running. In all fairness, though, my problems haven't been bad enough to force me to do that.

4) Expectations: Sure, it's not fair but I consider the game's problems a bit more severe considering my expectations for it. I didn't play CM:BO at release, so I can't compare to that launch. But I do recall the various versions I did play over the years, and this experience just isn't as polished. Notice, I didn't say it doesn't have my feature of choice. I said it wasn't as polished. I think that's a problem any way you look at it.

5) UNCONS: I don't have a big problem with them, but I think they could be left out and nothing would be lost - except for the IEDs. It seems to me any civilian running around outside in a bombed-out city would be pretty suspicious.

And let me add one of my own:

1) Morale: I've never seen either my men or my enemies rout. Ever. The game does show a combat modifier, but the dedicated little troopers stay in place until they die.

All in all, I think the score is a bit harsh. I'd have put it more in the 5s or maybe low 6s. But I don't base my purchases on scores; I base them on comments. I think the reviewer's comments are right much more often than not, and the times that I think he's off are perfectly defensible.