Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Originally posted by 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.

Except, of course, if an RTS junkie (or anyone else) were to read his review and dismiss the game entirely. That's a lost sale, or two, or ten, or more.

Reading the comments section of that review is pretty surprising, there seem to be some people claiming the game is a total failure and Battlefront screwed up. They haven't even played it, and seem like reasonably intelligent people, but they're saying this just from reading this review.

Bad press is not going to help, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[Battlefront.com]

Pure RTS/FPS people won't like CM:SF much better than they liked CMx1 (hint... they HATED it). Personally, we don't care. They generally behave like 13 year olds no matter how old they really are. These are the sorts of customers we'd rather do without, thanks very much.

What CM:SF will do, though, is appeal to those RTS/FPS people that sorta liked CMx1, but disliked/loathed a turn based game system. Contrary to what Tom Chick says, CM:SF is blast in realtime. It's the only way I play. It just takes some getting used to if you're a control freak.

While bad press is never good press, so far Tom's is the first (but I am sure not the last) to scold us, fairly or unfairly. The other reviews out there, however, disagree. And since there are many more of people like that than like Tom Chick, we're not worried.

Steve

[Sirocco]

The two things I'd take from that if I were the developer would be tooltips and the tutorial. I think the former is worth adding, and as for the latter, we'll all find out on Friday how the game stands with that.

[Chelco]

The ONLY thing that worries me from the review is the alleged poor graphics performance.

Can anybody comment on that?

[Steiner14]

There is something strange going on. Registered 2005 and now the first post to defend a devastating review?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That's why we have v1.01 already done (final testing being wrapped up as I sit here).

I think alot of people would find it beneficial to their purchase decision-making if battlefront would post a list of what's actually fixed and tweaked in 1.01. It's hard to put these 1.0 reviews into perspective without that information.

So far, testers and whatnot have been claiming it as a vague "fix-it-all" patch that will alleviate all concerns, which seems highly doubtful given that it has only been in development for a couple of weeks.

[Alan G.]

Originally posted by 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.

I disagree with you on the helo issue. The AH-64 and the Marine attack Helos are definatly not transports. I would say that they would play a major roll in a fight.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Alan G.:

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

I disagree with you on the helo issue. The AH-64 and the Marine attack Helos are definatly not transports. I would say that they would play a major roll in a fight. </font>

[Sequoia]

Be Nice MD.

Edit: Opps you beat me to it and you were nice!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

Be Nice MD.

I am being nice. Appropriate air support is in the game; see Redwolf's comment. We're talking about tactical belt-buckle to belt-buckle combat within a couple thousand metres. That's the game BF.C set out to make, that is the game reviewers got, that is the game you will be downloading on Friday. It's really that simple.

Edit:

[adultery]

i have faith, if its anything at all like CMx1 then im happy to buy sight unseen

24 hours to go

[Stryker]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

There is something strange going on. Registered 2005 and now the first post to defend a devastating review?

I think he may be the "Bruce" in the "Tom vs. Bruce" articles in the Games for Windows mag.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alan G.:

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

I disagree with you on the helo issue. The AH-64 and the Marine attack Helos are definatly not transports. I would say that they would play a major roll in a fight. </font>

[General_solomon]

To BF,

I have already pre-ord. the game.

I couldnt care less on helicopters, compatibility issues or camera angles.

I have been waiting for this game for damn too long.

whatever version you put it will be all right with me. the first or second patch will take care of the issues.

I just want to thank the BF team for release a thinking persons game.

My only question for those reviewers is find me one other game in this class that is better.

enough said.

gen. solomon

[Alan G.]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alan G.:

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

I disagree with you on the helo issue. The AH-64 and the Marine attack Helos are definatly not transports. I would say that they would play a major roll in a fight. </font>

[Steiner14]

delayed double post

[ July 25, 2007, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Moon]

Originally posted by Chelco:

The ONLY thing that worries me from the review is the alleged poor graphics performance.

Can anybody comment on that?

There could be a number of explanations.

One - failed to adjust graphics options in the game AND in his video card panel. The manual provides some instructions to that because, frankly, some graphics cards seem to not be able to properly set "application default". (Big labels are able to simply buy themselves a new driver version from the video manufacturers, so pfff why should they fix bugs like that...)

Two - not updated drivers. I know of a handful of reviewers which had that problem initially (but they emailed us about it and by updating they are all set)

Three - hardware/driver conflicts. We know of a couple that are due to bad Vista drivers.

Another possibility - wrong expectations. If you are used to running around your ego shooter with 60 FPS you might find CMSF performance at an average of 20-30 FPS for decent sized maps/battles poor. Of course these are two different things entirely.

Martin

[Chelco]

Thanks Martin.

[Alan G.]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

There is something strange going on. Registered 2005 and now the first post to defend a devastating review?

So I'm a lurker. I was not defending the review. I did not agree with Michael's assesment of helos.

[Michael Dorosh]

Alan G. - welcome to the forum! I started a thread called Welcome Newcomers. If you do take the plunge - hell, even if you're just here to kick the tires - I hope you'll stop by there and introduce yourself. A conscious decision was made, I guess way back in 2000 or before and the first CM game, not to depict aircraft with 3D models. It makes sense once you get into the game as to why they're not there. You don't see medical personnel or the Sergeant Major with his ammunition jeep either. Good wargames abstract certain things in the name of clarity and playability. Helicopters/A/C are just one of them. But believe me, when an attack aircraft is in play, you will definitely know it!

[flammenwerfer]

Why is Tom letting his chick review war games?

[Sequoia]

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>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Alan G.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

There is something strange going on. Registered 2005 and now the first post to defend a devastating review?

So I'm a lurker. I was not defending the review. I did not agree with Michael's assesment of helos. </font>

[Holman]

Well, I have no way of judging the game yet, but I think Steve's post kicked butt.

[dan/california]

I did not agree with Michael's assesment of helos.

And your qualifications on the matter are? Helicopters are rapidly becoming a liability in a high intensity environment in many cases, most of their high intensity roles are rapidly being taken over by by some combination of UAVs and much higher flying jets.