Armchair General Review

[Prince of Eckmühl]

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=3527&page=1&cat=59

Larry Levandowski wrote:

In the final evaluation, Combat Mission Shock Force is a highly recommended wargame. Its detailed 3D depiction of modern company level combat has no peer. Gamers with an interest in tactical ground combat will find this game to be a must have.

PoE

[Mace]

Balanced review IMHO.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Mace:

Balanced review IMHO.

While I certainly agree, it's difficult not to be bemused by the lack of response to "good news" surrounding CMSF, albeit a simple game review. Could it be that an element that's native to the site's other forums has no interest in that which doesn't reinforce their view of the game and/or validate their over-arching sense of betrayal?

PoE

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The nail has been struck firmly on the head PoE.

CMSF's launch makes an interesting compare and contrast with CAW, considering the many excellent points you've made over at Matrix.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

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

Balanced review IMHO.

While I certainly agree, it's difficult not to be bemused by the lack of response to "good news" surrounding CMSF, albeit a simple game review. Could it be that an element that's native to the site's other forums has no interest in that which doesn't reinforce their view of the game and/or validate their over-arching sense of betrayal?

PoE </font>

[Chelco]

Great review. Congrats BFC!

[SgtMuhammed]

Come on MD, you know Larry, he's that guy, no not him the other one.

I don't pay attention to reviews good or bad. Sometimes I will read them if the game gets and extreme score, like a 10% or 98%. Usually I just buy games I think I will like and decide once I get it.

If you know your reviewers then it is easy to get a good score. With PC Gamer, for example, if it is a FPS or a C&C clone you are guaranteed at least a 75%. The others have their own prefered genre. So I really don't pay much attention to good reviews. Now really bad reviews usually mean that the game suffers from game stopping bugs so I will usually check for those.

I have had close friends and long time gaming partners love games that I hate and vice-versa so I don't put too much stock in anyone's opinions other than my own.

[Hertston]

I think anyone who scores CMSF at 87% in its current state has either been smoking something illegal or has taken a bribe - particularly in view of the "failed basic" he partially identified. BUT, I think those who scored it at less than 50% must have been on the waccy baccy too, or had an axe to grind. CMSF ranks comfortably somewhere in between those extremes IMHO. The game won't get better (or worse) just because somebody else happens to write that it is. Never take any review too seriously, other than your own.. and don't expect others to take THAT seriously.. including my first sentence !!

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

CMSF's launch makes an interesting compare and contrast with CAW

In what way(s)?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

]No offence, Prince, but what are we supposed to? Jump for joy because some nobody named "Larry" in a dreck-filled abomination like ARMCHAIR GENERAL happened to enjoy the game? I think a lot of people are sick to death of watching the so-called "debate" about what other people think of the game.

While I agree with Michael that the page-per-page suckage at AG is pretty much on-par with other such websites and publications, I found myself somewhat compelled to make note of Mr. Levandowski's three-page article, therein.

I did so, in the first case, because so many of our peers seem convinced that critical reaction to CMSF is all bad, and, in the second, because of the deafening silence which the link seemed to evoke among the ranks of our membership.

It's not as though this was the first positive review of the game, now is it? It's also not the first to have been ignored and/or dismissed by folks who want to talk the new game down.

Like many of you, I don't put a lot of store in reviews, good or bad. That some of CMSF's most vocal detractors have turned to reviews in their attempt to undermine public embrace of the game doesn't much trouble me, not much at all. My only concern is that an element of balance be evidenced in the discussion, hereabouts, hence the linkage.

My sober self,

PoE

[ August 19, 2007, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Prince of Eckmühl ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Balance, in an online discussion? Are you crazy?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Balance, in an online discussion? Are you crazy?

From individuals, no. Rather, what we have here is a collection of advocates. A vocal minority has taken up the banner of a now-defunct game system in what appears to be a sort of "the south shall rise again" fashion. Likewise, if my comments in support of CMSF are overly punchy, at times, it's a function of my desire to drag the discussion back toward the middle. There's a method to my madness, which is to say that it's, nonetheless, madness.

PoE

[SgtMuhammed]

I agree with you by the way. I'm just trying to stay awake here at work.

[Nemesis Lead]

Guys,

I subscribe to this magazine. It is a fairly new publication and I actually like it (although it does preach politics which I don't like).

However--in the video game review section of this magazine....you would be hard pressed to see games that are not rated well.

These guys are looking for advertisers and do not write balanced reviews.

87% is not a great score coming from the grade inflators at ACG.

[Michael Dorosh]

I admire PoE's underlying motive - balance - and apologize if I appear too gruff (more gruff than normal; was shooting for my usual Highly Irascible rather than Bat**** Cranky) but honestly, am not sure that any balance at this point is possible. I think the two camps are simply too far apart to give the other side any leeway - and the issues dividing them aren't really about camera controls or hotkeys, since agreement on what is glaringly "broken" is pretty much consistent among fans and detractors alike. The problem, if there is one, dividing fans and detractors are the underlying philosophy shifts in the game - and none of the reviewers are really addressing those points anyway.

[SgtMuhammed]

So are you saying that we are becoming like Delta and Omega houses?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

Guys,

I subscribe to this magazine. It is a fairly new publication and I actually like it (although it does preach politics which I don't like).

However--in the video game review section of this magazine....you would be hard pressed to see games that are not rated well.

These guys are looking for advertisers and do not write balanced reviews.

87% is not a great score coming from the grade inflators at ACG.

Oh, let me guess where we're headed with this...

Websites and publications that go hatin' on CMSF are more righteous than those that are positively disposed to the game. The former are "more trustworthy and authoritative" than the latter, those that cater to the "stoopid-RTS-clickfest" types. And to whom does a wargamer turn when he wants THE WORD on a new title? Why GAMESPOT, of course, the target demographic of which is male console gamers, ages 17-34.

Poopers on that.

PoE

[Guest]

PoE -- I think he was just trying to give us some insight into the scoring system at AG. If you know that a review site or magazine inflates or deflates its reviews for whatever reason (if 87 is in fact *not* a good score at said site), that's important to pass along.

As for Gamespot, I hate to say it since you apparently revile them, but they hit the nail on the head more often than not, and I haven't seen many inflated reviews from them. Only place with reviews I trust more is PC Gamer. I tend to be pretty picky about what I read reviews for, though.

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

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

Balanced review IMHO.

While I certainly agree, it's difficult not to be bemused by the lack of response to "good news" surrounding CMSF, albeit a simple game review. Could it be that an element that's native to the site's other forums has no interest in that which doesn't reinforce their view of the game and/or validate their over-arching sense of betrayal?

PoE </font>

[Nemesis Lead]

Phillip,

Thank you for explaining this to the simple PoE.

Clearly he does not care about the credibility of his sources, so long as they say what he wants them to say.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Michael

You could say that about magazines in general. I used to read quite a few "stereo" or "home audio" publications before I attended Indiana University for studies in Audio Engineering.

Looking back at them now, they are easy to identify as basically cheerleader rags for the industry. One could probably make the same claim about the car magazine market.

My question is: Did mags like WWII Magazine shape the readers appetite for "Hooray US Army" type fluff; or are they simply catering to the biases that already existed in typical subscription magazine fashion?

I don't suppose I should be too virulent less I come off as elitist, though at the end of the day, I suppose I am. I do buy World War II Magazine on occasion, ditto Military History (though not AC), usually on a lunch break if I'm not in the mood to look at the newspaper that day. The latest issue of Military History featured - yet another retelling the Bridge at Remagen, the charge at San Juan Hill, Custer's Last Stand and The Battle of the Crater in the ACW.

Give me a break! The articles were fine, but they didn't shed any new light on anything. For an adolescent who hasn't yet read about these actions, I think the magazine would have been a great introduction to four really interesting conflicts in American history. There were also some articles on cavaliers/roundheads, King Arthur, and other stuff outside of the realm of US history. On a whole, far better than the politicized stuff in AC.

But I could probably recite the orders to Benteen and Reno in my sleep now, ditto the roster of Company A at Remagen Bridge - Timmermann and Drabik et al. I think it is great that new generations get introduced to these heroic figures, and very few people will be - umm, I think Steve called me a "detail obsessed grog" - interested in military history enough to buy MILITARY HISTORY QUARTERLY every 3 months, which provides the level of research into arcane topics that I far prefer to revisiting the classics.

For what it is, those magazines serve the purpose, and it would be simply tilting at windmills to expect more.

How sad, though, that some are starting to view Combat Mission the same way. CM was the MHQ of wargames, or had the promise of being. i.e. marketed at the detail obsessed grog, and kind of in your face about it. "We don't care what you think of our graphics, so screw you - this game is for your father." Not anymore. Now it begs you, your dad, and your weird uncle to give it a try and hopefully, there will be a little bit of something for everyone to like, pretty please.

[Janster]

Very poor review, even in a review technical sense..

don't like it.

Janster

[KNac]

How sad, though, that some are starting to view Combat Mission the same way. CM was the MHQ of wargames, or had the promise of being. i.e. marketed at the detail obsessed grog, and kind of in your face about it. "We don't care what you think of our graphics, so screw you - this game is for your father." [smile] Not anymore. Now it begs you, your dad, and your weird uncle to give it a try and hopefully, there will be a little bit of something for everyone to like, pretty please.

I could care less how others see the game. Be them reviewers, casual gamers, CMx1 zealots, CMx2 zealots, gamers or grogs.

All this "Gamespot review gave CMSF a 4" and "Armchair General Review gave a 8.7" it's just pointless. I encourage people to play the game (demo if they haven't bought the game), open minded (that's impossible for some unfortunatly), forget what others said, and make yourself an opinion. No need to follow the masses.

If you think bugs are gamestoppers for now, then don't buy or wait until are fixed. If you think TacAI or pathfinding is too much broken for your taste and won't let you experience the good things of the engine, don't buy it, atleast until it's fixed. If you think that even with all the things that are not fixed or polished enought is worth it, but it. Not that hard.

About people don't liking the game cause the game design. That's false, most people who hate the game started to hate it cause bugs and unfinished features, have been the game released in a finished state, most rant would be gone. I won't count these who haven't bought the game cause is not WWII.

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

About people don't liking the game cause the game design. That's false, most people who hate the game started to hate it cause bugs and unfinished features, have been the game released in a finished state, most rant would be gone. I won't count these who haven't bought the game cause is not WWII.

False? Really. I suppose its tricksey and uncrunchable as well?

Seriously though, I am not false, and I am not buying SF for 1 reason: Core game design. AI might get fixed, pathfinding and fight-to-the-death and all that other "unfinished code" stuff most probably will get fixed (this is BFC after all), but I will never be able to pick my own forces in a QB. That's a game-killer for me.

As I've stated before, I'm uninterested in modern M.E. warfare so my plan was always to buy SF to get familiar with the editor in anticipation of the WWII version, but now I'm not even doing that, and from what I've been told by Steve, the WWII version won't be for me either.

Overall CMx1 strikes me as a company level historical wargame and CMx2 strikes me as a platoon level combat sim. Maybe with Shermans and M1s and BARs wrapped around it I might take the plunge for a future SF release, but right now I doubt it.

-dale

[KNac]

If you read I said MOST people. There are few exceptions, like you, but not the majority. Majority of people is ranting on game bugs or unfinished code even if they undercover these rants on hwo the game is no longer like CMx1, how there is no WeGo (false), or how much does BF sucks.

If your only problem with the game (I guess not) is not being able to pick QB forces, I hope someday you can pick the game cause we all want the game to get better in that aspect. Maybe not a total freedom of selection (the game system prevents that it seems) but yes to some degree, not like now.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I think it is a very reasonable review.

But of course I am one of those who think the game is great, all I could have wished for… but sent out the door too early and unfinished.

I agree with KNac. Certainly amongst the reviewers who give the game the thumbs down it was mainly because of the bugs. They quite reasonably take the view the games should never be sent out the door in such a state, and if they are, should be dealt with harshly.

One reason I am such a fan is probably that I know the bugs will be fixed and the TacAI and pathfinding improved so am not put off the game. I can see the stunning simulation behind the bugs.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.