Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

[istari]

Many of you may have read Tom Chick's reviews and columns over the years. He's one of the more thoughtful writers out there, although not a classic grognard by any stretch of the imagination.

Tom runs a site called "Quarter to Three", where many game designers and other hardcore gamers gather in the forums for some of the more interesting discussions to be found on the Net.

Tom's just updated his site today with his initial impressions of CM:SF. Check it out for yourself:

www.quartertothree.com

Istari

[The DesertFox]

And maybe with copious patchwork, this one won’t be a total waste. But right now, I can think of fewer games I would be happier to uninstall.[/QB]

Pretty devastating if you ask me.

What the heck was the point to send out an unfinished game with major issues to reviewers ?

cheers

[istari]

...and here's the developing thread where Tom's concerns are echoed by another poster who's been playing with the game for a week.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=37287

I'm a huge fan of the CM series, but this is pretty depressing reading.

Istari

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by The DesertFox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And maybe with copious patchwork, this one won’t be a total waste. But right now, I can think of fewer games I would be happier to uninstall.

Pretty devastating if you ask me.

What the heck was the point to send out an unfinished game with major issues to reviewers ?

cheers </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

The line about helicopters seems fatuous, anyway. Helicopters are a means of getting soldiers into combat. You don't fight from them. CM:SF also doesn't have parachutes, 2-1/2 ton trucks or LVTs - equally popular methods of getting troops to the fighting, and equally irrelevant in CM:SF. Guess what, they weren't in CM:BO, CM:BB or CM:AK either.

Combat Mission isn't an operational level game; it's a tactical one. I don't think Tom Chick really grasps the difference. He writes very well, but I think some of his comments were premature. He needs to re-examine what a tactical game is supposed to do, and how well CM does it.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by The DesertFox:

What the heck was the point to send out an unfinished game with major issues to reviewers ?

Could be a Paradox thing...

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

If someone has a version a few weeks ago (and they need it that early to play the game, write their review and meet their deadlines) then quite often what they write about has been fixed before their review hits the streets.

[/QB]

Which renders the whole reviewing process useless from the developers point of view. If the product ain´t final there is no point for a review. A Preview is appropriate.

However I take it from earlier posts on this board that the final version (the DVD Paradox is shipping) is more or less exactly the quality the reviewers got. If this is really the case, and I sincerely hope it is not, then the reviews are unfortunately likely to be spot on.

cheers

[MikoyanPT]

If i cared about reviews i would be playing this crap.

http://www.commandandconquer.com/

[Runyan99]

There is no LOS tool?

Replays are buggy, and a turn replay starts with men who are already dead and ammo already expended?

[gibsonm]

Well I don’t know what version BTS/BFC released to him.

I also don’t know if Paradox gave him an earlier copy “off their own bat”.

Without accurate information, there’s little point in commenting further but as I said above (edited post) the review seems flawed from the first page anyway - with comments about HEAT against armour and helicopters.

Personally I think BTS/BFC should go back to the “its ready when its ready” approach, but its not my call.

In any event you’ll be able to make your own mind up soon.

[MarkEzra]

The fact is he is reviewing an early build of the game, not a finished product. His comments would no doubt have been helpful back whenever. But I seriously doubt they mean much now.

Please keep in mind BFC's very rigid code of not releasing a game until it's clean. Look back a the history of CMx1 releases. You will find High quality in each case. I put my faith in BFC...they've never screwed the congregation. Amen!

[Holman]

How old is Tom Chick's version?

[MikeyD]

We've known since 1999 that these serious tactical sims were like poison to parts of the hard-core gaming establishment. To these guys the whole point of a game is to boost your endorphin levels. BFC really should've added that animation where you get to rip out your opponent's spine.

[Brooski]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

The fact is he is reviewing an early build of the game, not a finished product. His comments would no doubt have been helpful back whenever. But I seriously doubt they mean much now.

Why do you say he is reviewing an early build? The build he and I played is the same as the gold master version sent to Paradox.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Brooski:

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

The fact is he is reviewing an early build of the game, not a finished product. His comments would no doubt have been helpful back whenever. But I seriously doubt they mean much now.

Why do you say he is reviewing an early build? The build he and I played is the same as the gold master version sent to Paradox. </font>

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by Brooski:

Why do you say he is reviewing an early build? The build he and I played is the same as the gold master version sent to Paradox.

So you mean BTS released Banana Software: Let the Software ripe at the customer ???

That would be a huge dissapointment indeed.

cheers

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Brooski:

Why do you say he is reviewing an early build? The build he and I played is the same as the gold master version sent to Paradox.

The Gold Master 1.0 is several weeks old, so yes, it is an early build. The whole point about sticking to a certain release date has been that version 1.01 is ready by then.

[SGT_56M]

I don't think he reviewed the same game I've been pla... he he... testing for the last two months.

I liked the comparisons too... Command & Conquer 3 (Twitch RTS Big budget title), STALKER (big budget FPSbuggy on release), CoH (Mega budget backed by a huge development house twitch RTS)...

I just don't think CMSF is his cup of tea.

[Salkin]

Hmm...no LOS tool ?

I never was all that bothered by borg spotting and I'm not even sure that's the reason they removed the LOS tool....

Anyways the LOS tool was crucial in CM, why has it been removed ?

//Salkin

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Tom Chick is all about RTS's. His opinion of SF means less than nothing.

Out of Tom vs Bruce, Bruce Geryk is the guy you want for wargames.

[Stryker]

Originally posted by Tom Chick:

Many of the orders won’t queue up, which seems to suggest Battlefront expects you to play in real time.

*Many* orders won't queue... what does that mean exactly. I hope queueing works at least as well as CMx1.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Salkin:

Anyways the LOS tool was crucial in CM, why has it been removed ?

Redundant with targetting tools, I guess. With "Target" and "Target Light" it'd only clutter the command menu.

[JohnO]

Who cares what another person wrote about CM:SF. I will make my own judgment when I get the game in a day from now. And then I will post what I think about the game.

JohnO

[Battlefront.com]

I've been reading Tom Chick's stuff for years, so I know full well who he is as I respond to his Blog...

First, I must say I am disappointed. That was the sort of juvenile, uniformed, whiney kind of review I would expect from a 16 year old, not something from a seasoned reviewer. I don't know if Tom's dog was run over that morning by the milk truck or what, but I think even that would be a poor excuse for that blog entry. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but so are we. So where to start?

It is obvious that Tom doesn't know much, if anything, about contemporary warfare. His comment about helicopters proves that. They are highly vulnerable and prized targets for the enemy. This is why helo ops in Iraq are done only under very careful circumstances. The days of swooping in and dropping guys off in the middle of a firefight (which is what CM simulates) went away with Somalia. And to be fair, even then they knew it was risky to the point of tending towards foolish.

When helicopters are used it is for fire support and generally only in open terrain. The US military learned its lessons early in OIF and then in Fallujah. Combat Mission does include 2 types of helos for support with various different loadouts. I can say for sure that an Apache is a very welcome thing to have on your side. So whatever Tom Chick pictures helos doing in combat doesn't have much to do with real combat, which is why his views are at odds with Combat Mission (and reality).

Tom also doesn't apparently know much about what the Syrians are equipped with. He therefore dismisses our presentation of Syrian capabilities without real knowledge of the topic. We've used public and private intelligence estimates, news paper articles, reports on "shopping trips" to Russia, etc. for our information. Funny enough, he talks about us treating the Syrians as being "equal" to the US forces in terms of equipment. Yet we have resisted all calls to put in true state of the art Russian armor because, well, because they don't have it! So no T-80s, for example. I guess I can't fault Tom for not doing his homework, but he should at least give us the benefit of the doubt that we have done ours.

I suppose the biggest gripe I have is his description of our "half-assed" asymmetrical warfare model. From our standpoint it is a clever design to get around the impossibility of simulating a true civilian environment. And I mean that... impossibility. Unlike Tom, I have met the people working on multi-million Dollar simulations for the military and they've been working on these things for years with teams of rather huge sizes. I know what they've achieved and I'm sure Tom would take issue with their stuff too. Perhaps Tom is working on another Blog entry chastising scientists working on solving the problems of Global Warming for not having developed a clean, renewable energy source that can be burned in a car and cost less than petroleum?

Moving along to his comments about the state the game was released in. Well, 'tis true that v1.0 isn't what we wanted it to be. That's why we have v1.01 already done (final testing being wrapped up as I sit here). In theory nobody should ever have to play version 1.0 because the second they get it there will be a patch waiting for them. Apparently Tom, unlike other reviewers like James Allen, didn't think to ask us if there was a patch or to stay in touch with our publisher press contact who informed all press people where to get an early version of v1.01. As for Tom's hardware problems... who knows what they are. You'd be surprised at how many so-called professional reviewers didn't think to update their drivers and watch most, if not all, of their problems go away. I can't count how many times that's happened. Also, there is a SERIOUS problem with Microsoft's power management software and certain multi-processor computers. MS has a quite fix for it (quiet because it degrades laptop battery life) and there is nothing we can do to fix it. From the sounds of it he has the Microsoft problem, which we can hardly be held responsible for.

The biggest laugh is about his issues with RealTime and the camera behavior. Well, gee... I wonder what game I've been playing! It sure looks like CM:SF, but I've been playing it exclusively in RealTime and have no problems with the camera. And I do quite well, if I do say so myself. Hmmm.... guess we can chalk this up to him not wanting to give it a fair shake or it not being his cup of tea. Fine, but he shouldn't assume just because he can't handle it doesn't mean there is something wrong with the game itself. More people hated CMx1's WeGo system than liked it, yet I don't think the CMx1 fans would think they were playing a substandard game.

If Tom read his manual he would also know that right-click-hold does the same thing as the ALT key behavior he apparently feels we so horribly missed including. Or he could have tried right-clicking. Usually that does something in a game, so you would think he'd have been curious to see what that button did.

Now, he is correct that there is no tutorial. That's something that we simply don't have the time, resources, or energy to do for a game of this size. Guilty on that charge. However, generally someone who buys a game will actually try to learn it, tutorial or not. We do, however, want to do more with feedback. Expect that in future patches.

The AI comments are truly, well... special. He's comparing a rock-paper-scisors RTS game, that is now in its 15th year of production with tens of millions in development dollars, to Combat Mission. What am I supposed to do with that? Jump out a window because an incredibly simplistic "gamey" RTS game, funded with gobs of money and tons of time, can do AI better than we can? Tell me something I didn't already know and should have some shame about, then I'll think about the window. As it is I'll instead suggest that Tom take a nice hot cup of tea and sit down for a while.

This comment, however, is a classic:

I'm tired of hearing guff about how hard it is (note the manual's justification for their goofy stealth rules for unconventionals). Isn't that your job?

As stated above, I'm sure Tom is tired of hearing the global scientific community saying it is "hard" to find a replacement for oil and meet the cheap-skate "I want it, but I don't want to pay for it" mentality of the lowbrowed consumer. What he wants out of CM is not possible to get out of a commercial wargame developer. No matter how much Tom whines and complains about that, and waives his tiny fist full of money at us, reality isn't going to change. Give us a budget of $20,000,000 and 5 years, then we might have something he will find less than pathetic. Mind you, he'll still only want to pay $50 and will probably complain that it didn't come with a cup holder.

His next to last parting shot is ironic. He lambasts us for NOT putting out a decent single-player wargame (in his opinion) and then sorta excuses us for it because everybody else is doing it. Somehow he forgets to mention that nobody is trying to simulate contemporary warfare except for cartoon like RTS and FPS games. Yup, we're getting zero credit for doing what nobody else has the balls to do, and instead getting slammed.

There we go. My opinion of his opinion. I'm sure he won't take offense to what I've written any more than I have about what he's written.

Steve

[ July 25, 2007, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Redwolf]

That review seems half-bogus.

No LOS tool, not even from your own units - WTF indeed.

Scope: come on, we know from the ground, from an ongoing war, that there are indeed many, many decisions in Iraq done on the level discussed here. A company leader still have to make to with the resources at hand.

Helicopters (he means attack helos that wax tanks): not available to all company commanders at all times. Can't be modeled in this game because they keep a minimum distance to the target that is about the map size.

I always thought that the TacAI will probably makes this game sour for me, BFC just can't let their fingers off giving nonsense commands instead of no commands when some command is required. But that didn't keep me from pre-ordering the game, because even with that in place it will take a long time to make it sour.

Performance: the guy didn't even post his hardware, right?