Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[Battlefront.com]

Mazex,

Creating a good simulation is all about creating a well balanced abstraction of reality. There was a lot of talk about the advanced moral calculations i EYSA but if you don't get the other part's together it doesn't matter? CMx1 clicked for me even though it may have been more simplistic, as well as Strategic Command which is at the extreme edge of the realism scale. CMx2 does not click for me yet - and I have tried hard to ignore some of the obvious shortcomings!

Nicely put and there's nothing for me to say other than I hope we can make the improvements that you wish to see. From what you listed I don't think it's an unreasonable list of expectations and it is in keeping with the direction we're going in. So I think you should keep hope alive In fact, v1.03 should do some things for you specifically.

Timskorn,

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"?

You're not the first person who has presumed to know more about what we do than we do about what we do. We've been told countless times how we're doing this or that wrong and will go out of business sooner rather than later. We're comming up on 10 years of doing just Battlefront (not to mention what we did before), and we're still going strong. Nothing is perfect, and neither are we. But we aren't concerned about snuffing out because some people don't like what we're doing. We've always had that and we're still very much here.

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

Says who? Back in CMBO days the "word of mouth" in some segments was horribly against CMBO. If anybody said "hey, I actually like it" they were skewered alive. Yeah, we used to lurk on Close Combat and Steel Panther's message boards. There was even a flame war between a couple members of one and some members here.

My point is that if we are guilty of seeing what we want to see, as we are accused of doing, I think some of you need to take a harder look at things. There is discontent, for sure, but there are also people that really love the game "as is", still others that need to see some patches before they decide. All fair enough, but it isn't nearly as one sided as some of you wish it to be.

Kong,

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.

I disagree about WeGo being poorly implemented. It is almost exactly as before and even have some improvements (though some disagree with that). There are secondary features, such as the QBs and WeGo TCP/IP that are legitimate sources of discontent, but they aren't WeGo itself. I'm not saying there aren't some rough edges, but that is all they are. There isn't anything fundamentally broken with WeGo.

In fact, the issues I can think of that are missing from the WeGo experience are missing from RealTime as well, and therefore are just features that are missing and have nothing to do how the game is played. For example, no penetration hit text, no ability to see all movement lines at once, no movable waypoints, etc. These need to be added back into the game, I agree. But they are also missing in RealTime just as much as WeGo.

I don't fault people for wanting to see improvements in what we've already done. Perfectly natural and part of the process that we expected to go through. As I've said, CMBO went through the same process. We just have to keep things constructive and it would help by keeping the hubris to a minimum. As I said, some people don't see the direction we're headed in as a positive one. There isn't anything I can do for folks like that. Not the ones with fundamental issues with the core of the game. We're not going back to an overly abstracted system, we're not ditching RealTime, we're not going to spend massive amounts of time on missing CMx1 features if they interfere with progressing CMx2 forward in the new direction we have chosen for it. For those who simply can not let go of what was and embrace what is and will be, I recommend looking for a new game to fill your time because wanting CMx2 to be something fundamentally different than it currently is will not happen. I'm not slamming anybody, I'm not angry. I'm simply giving out sound advice that CMx2 might not be the game for you.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Fantastic review. Good points all around, similar to the eurogamer piece - mirrored my feelings exactly on the first couple of playthroughs. I really do hope this kind of stuff improves beyond just bug fixes and tweaks here and there.

[Michael Dorosh]

I suppose we can pay attention to Matrix and see what is following on in the wake of Panzer Command: Operation Winter Storm. I bought that one but didn't like it much, mainly because of the camera. The presence of a certain bulldozer dude on their forums was a turnoff too, but I think he's been banned now. They did seem open to suggestion, but everyone seems open to suggestion up to the point you start telling them how to run their business.

[Pinetree]

The presence of a certain bulldozer dude on their forums was a turnoff too, but I think he's been banned now.

Check the Kharkov forums. He's baaaack...

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I suppose we can pay attention to Matrix and see what is following on in the wake of Panzer Command: Operation Winter Storm. I bought that one but didn't like it much, mainly because of the camera. The presence of a certain bulldozer dude on their forums was a turnoff too, but I think he's been banned now. They did seem open to suggestion, but everyone seems open to suggestion up to the point you start telling them how to run their business.

Agree about Panzer Command Michael. Horrible camera, but Matrix are always worth keeping an eye on (more so now for me). Yes, it seems like people are willing to listen to suggestions...as long as you agree with them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pinetree:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The presence of a certain bulldozer dude on their forums was a turnoff too, but I think he's been banned now.

Check the Kharkov forums. He's baaaack... </font>

[cow_cookie]

I disagree about WeGo being poorly implemented. It is almost exactly as before and even have some improvements (though some disagree with that).

Gotta agree here. WEGO seems nearly identical. I think it may be getting blamed for other things that aren't WEGO's fault, per se. It can exacerbate some problems (pathfinding) because of the loss of control for that time. But that's hardly WEGO's fault.

[Roter Stern]

OMG! This thread has been off the top of the forum for almost 30min now! :eek:

Ohh and GameSpot is only read by xBox-playing 15 yearolds anyways, so no big loss there

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.

Perhaps you got a different game than I did. The one I got has a Tac AI that is dumber than any AI I have seen. Models each individual? Yep, they all mill around in the street and let themselves be gunned down without any attempt at taking cover, running for cover, shooting back...

Then there's the ultra realistic routes my vehicle drivers take... often spinning in place because they didn't know what to do with the fence they clipped...

Sorry, the idea lives up to what you say, the execution doesn't

[MarkEzra]

Perhaps I have. No spinning, little actual trouble with way points. Usually me being sloppy same as CMx1. I'm not happy with self preservation model and agree with you there. I am playing QB against the AI and PBEM using the battles...although I just started a QB PBEM that looks to be promising. You can either take my word for it as someone who has played a ton of CM like you have or not. I am having a hell of a good time with this game..warts and all. I'll certainly not apologize for enjoying it nor give a damn if you don't believe it.

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by cow_cookie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I disagree about WeGo being poorly implemented. It is almost exactly as before and even have some improvements (though some disagree with that).

Gotta agree here. WEGO seems nearly identical. I think it may be getting blamed for other things that aren't WEGO's fault, per se. It can exacerbate some problems (pathfinding) because of the loss of control for that time. But that's hardly WEGO's fault. </font>

[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.

[pad152]

no game should be released in such a rough, incomplete state.

Sad but true

BFC deserves every poke in the eye it gets for this one!

[MarkEzra]

]

[Astolene]

WOW!

As a paying customer, I find it highly offensive that I don't "get it."

I "got" Steel Panthers, and I enjoyed it.

I "got" Close Combat, and I enjoyed it.

I "got" Combat Mission, and I enjoyed it.

I "got" many other games that commercially succeded (or failed!) to one degree or another.

I DO NOT "GET" CMSF!

I will never buy another BFC product until it has been released for many months and is patched or in the bargan bin.

Keep on deluding youselves for releasing this game as it is. I wont forget...

[ August 11, 2007, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Astolene ]

[pad152]

BFC time to put a fork it, it's done, cooking it longer won't make it taste better.

I really don't know if this turkey can be saved (bad interface, bad AI, bad path finding, so-so graphics, crappy campaign, non-functional quick battles, etc.) BattleFront will have a hard time selling any expansion packs for this one. I think BattleFront should dig a big hole bury this one and go back to WWII as quick as they can. Then invite anyone who purchased this to be part of the beta team for WWII game. Don't sink the company over one bad game!

[sandy]

Well said Pad152 - I agree with you completely - this game is an disappointment best forgotten, but the BF guys have put 4 years into it so that is rather hard for them to do..

The real problem is their responsea (at least so far) are

Bad interface? {Truly not that bad, just not as good as CM1) The Customer is wrong, they "don't get it"

Bad pathfinding, etc? {again almost workable, but still far, far worse than CM1} The customer is wrong and cannot see the benefits...

So-so graphics? {actually not an issue for me, they are mostly OK, except the terrain is clearer to read in CM1} Here thay will discover that the mass market twitch crowd will not accept what they have provided as pretty enough.

Crappy campaign? {cannot say this is worse than CM1 as they never delivered CMC or anything else there despite years of customer requests - but it is unimpressive so far with no big picture or units to care about} - we don't get it...

Non-functional QBs {a terrible, terrible step backwards from CM1, particularly since most of the fixed battles are not that great) The customer "does not get it" and is therefore wrong to wish to be able to set up fun QBs (=unit picks) that actually work.

Instead the answers to all of these issues (except graphics) should be "We hear you and will get it right next time"

I have still to see any sort of response on those lines; the actual response is "Like it or leave it - this is what we do these days!"

Don't sink the company over one bad game, even if it took 4 years to release (before it was done)!

[dalem]

Sandy-

What if the game is selling like hotcakes though?

-dale

[sandy]

Great! - good news for BF and wargamers looking forward to a good WW2 implementation!

Plenty of poor products sell well...(you don't want examples, do you?)

By posting here repeatedly I am trying to make make the WW2 iteration of CM2 an improvement on CM1 (and not a step backwards in many areas) with real working AI, real working pathfinding, real working QBs, a real dynamic campaign, etc. etc

Keep realtime play by all means, but make it pausable and replayable, and keep the original WEGO as an option (better yet, add user selectable variable time periods other than 1 minute).

Read some of the old BF press releases from the time of the formation of the Company - they were dedicated to real and serious wargames, and that is what I am looking for.

[ August 12, 2007, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: sandy ]

[TufenHuden]

By just playing the Demo-I'm extremely

disappionted-I did expect that this game

would be like CM series but more.

As saying goes-don't fix wait isn't

broken.

I expected to pick from units from

USMC to Army Rangers.

I expected that you still could changed

skins-BMP's-this gave CM unique then other

wargames-change the look-terrian-etc....

The UI still is crappy-the original would

of worked fine.

Gamespot review was right on-it said the

clear truth-it said respectfully-the game

hard to play-disappointing graphics-UI,AI,etc-

PBEM disappionting-I like pbeming...

And off course the AAR and looking who

did what on the battle-not CMSF....

I really don't want to say this about this

game-but it does-I hope BFC doesn't make

WW-II like this game and go back to it's

roots....

Make it both CM was and some improvements-

if they made this game with this little

more improved graphic interface-original

UI/AI-this game be smoking in my book.

They even forgot cover arcs-those where cool

but maybe in completed game but are not in demo.

Well anyways really disappionted about the

product-I hope they revamp it....

[Potential Italian Player]

I recommend looking for a new game to fill your time because wanting CMx2 to be something fundamentally different than it currently is will not happen. I'm not slamming anybody, I'm not angry. I'm simply giving out sound advice that CMx2 might not be the game for you. Steve

THE END

Ok people just give us a break...

[RobboG]

I enjoyed the strategy and tactics of the previous Combat Mission series' and even TOW but I can't find too much to enjoy about CM SF so far. I find it clumsy and very random. Perhaps that is modern warfare. I probably need to spend more time with it. It just doesn't feel right.

My 2 cents worth.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I think the fact that Steve has now been so upfront with the fact that BFC know they sent CMSF out the door unfinished due a contractual problem should make all but the most anti-CMSF relax. It is certainly a relief to me. It means it is likely there is no fundamental problem with the RT system that stopped them being able to produce a polished product with CMX2. Give it a few months and all should be well.

It is a difficult one, but it may have been better if Steve had been more upfront from the start with the fact that it is unfinished even in 1.01.

Anyway I am enjoying playing some WWII style infantry games with CMSF, works very well. I look forward to a long line of CMX2 games, but will sit out Space Lobsters as I lack imagination and am only a hardcore wargame fan .

Steve,

There is one missing feature I do agree with your critics will cause problems. No Pause in human v human. Or so I am told. If we could have the option of using Pause in human v human, if playing someone we trust not to abuse it for example, it would help a lot. RT with no pauses is pushing the envelope. To be sure not to spoil the game one would have play very small scenarios. As someone who likes big/huge scenarios this would be a shame .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[KNac]

some people should just quit the game, seriously, it's harmfull for your health lol

next instance of this game engine, just read reviews and play the demo, wait until it has been played by otehrs and buy it if you want it. in otehr words: make yourself an opinion and dont buy based on faith. you will avoid all the disgusting.

[ August 12, 2007, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[Caesar]

I think the fact that Steve has now been so upfront with the fact that BFC know they sent CMSF out the door unfinished due a contractual problem should make all but the most anti-CMSF relax. It is certainly a relief to me. It means it is likely there is no fundamental problem with the RT system that stopped them being able to produce a polished product with CMX2. Give it a few months and all should be well.

I've played all three of their previous products. I've also bought Paradox products before. I just assumed this was the case. Paradox seem to be incapable of delivering me a product that is finished. Does every developer that works for them suffer the same problems? I remember buying HOI from them; CMSF is a thing of joy by comparison. I think there are about half a dozen game breakers at the moment and not all of those are affecting all players. I figure by about 1.04 the main problems will be gone and the game will be pretty good. By about 1.07 or 8 most of these threads will be bad dreams.

Obviously not everything is going to be fixed as some of these things are gone by design. QBs for example will never be what they were in CM1, but I suspect they will be good enough to satisfy most. I still want to be able to buy my own units but I cant see how that will be fixed. A plethora of new maps, being able to select them at will etc will keep most happy. Maybe they can work out a more directly selectable mechanism.

WEGO I suspect, will be okay (changed yes, but at least okay) once the AI is sorted and maybe a few command stacking options are added in.

My only real fear is that all the negative reviews coupled with their attending negative word of mouth will hammer the company.