Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

[Sergei]

The funny (well, funny and funny) thing is that when I first read the title of this thread, I confused the name to Jack Chick. So I started thinking we've got the wrath of hardline Christians on us or something...

[PSY]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

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

I'm pretty sure that would be Brooski who posted about 7 posts up from your post and got the "And you are...?" reply from stoat.

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.

[Alan G.]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Originally posted by Sergei:

The funny (well, funny and funny) thing is that when I first read the title of this thread, I confused the name to Jack Chick. So I started thinking we've got the wrath of hardline Christians on us or something...

That will happen as soon as they realize that CMSF isn't tied in with a premillenialist interpretation of contemporary Middle Eastern politics...

[MrWombat]

I've preordered this, and certainly hope to find out for myself what's up this weekend.

That being said, I think folks have to take some deep breaths and think clearly for a bit. Tom Chick's assessment of the game may or may not be accurate, it may or may not aggree with what you or I or anyone else thinks of the game (once we get it, heh). But Tom isn't some adrenaline junky, or some l337 dude Counter-strike freak, or an amateur of any sort. He's a professional writer who has been reviewing a truly impressive variety of games for many years now. When I was an editor at a major games magazine some years ago I worked with Tom a fair bit. I didn't agree with everything he wrote--his Deus Ex review, for instance, is infamous among fans of that game--but I came to respect his opinions.

He plays wargames sometimes, but not like a grog. He's part of the community of gamers that Battlefront is clearly trying to reach with games like Shock Force--interested in military stuff, willing to try something beyond RTS. What this group of gamers is not willing to do, however, is deal with games that don't measure up as they see it to the "state of the art" in terms of interface, functionality, and design.

Comments about the differences in budgets between different games are relevant in some degree--you can't expect $150,000 to buy you what $20 million can. But they're also irrelevant from the consumer's point of view, if that consumer is not already fully invested in a niche perspective. Comments about the types of games a reviewer plays, likewise, can be relevant, if it's clear the reviewer simply doesn't "get" the game being reviewed. But in this case, I think Tom "gets" it, he just doesn't feel the game as reviewed bridges that gap between niche and mainstream gaming--according to his review it has all of the drawbacks of a niche title without the polish of a more ecumenical title as it were.

And as for how old the build he has is, it's pretty much immaterial. I've reviewed games for years and years, starting back in the print game days for Fire & Movement, and continuing all the way through maybe a year or two ago in the computer era. I've also managed free lancers and staffers writing reviews. If you get a game from a publisher and the publisher says it's reviewable, there you have it. It's the publisher's responsibility to disseminate versions that reflect the released product. Yeah, that means you gotta choose between publicity being potentially skewed by the version being reviewed, or publicity being reduced by not having review copies out there in time, but that's life.

Troy Goodfellow, as well, is a quality reviewer (and professional historian/teacher, and a real smart guy). There's no need to agree with these folks of course, but there's also no need to excoriate them in ignorance, either. Steve's reply, while passionate, is a reasonable rejoinder, though none of us can judge either it or these reviews until we get the game in our hands I suppose. Even then, you can't fault a reviewer for giving an opinion on the game in the state it is when they get it--there may well be uber patches coming out, but prdicting the future is dangerous work.

Anyhow, personally, I can't wait to try this baby out, as I'm fairly sure Battlefront will have patches/updates/continuing development to make whatever's wrong, right. But it doesn't strike me as beyond the pale to think this new step into CM's future might be a bit rocky at first, too....

[Mace]

What I find interesting is the number of people taking the reviewer's word as gospel without at least experiencing the demo for themselves.

Heh.

If I listened to every poor product review I wouldn't have purchased what turned out to be some of my most favorite games/Music CDs/movie DVDs.

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by Mace:

If I listened to every poor product review I wouldn't have purchased what turned out to be some of my most favorite games/Music CDs/movie DVDs.

Yeah, but your Australian! Your used to ignoring what people say!

Madmatt

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by Martyr:

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

I think Steve just wasted is time and energy answering a guy that loves a game like Command and Conquer 3.

This people dont care about damage models, balistic models, and this kind of boring stuff.

They just like their allien army smashes the enemy good with their laser gatlings full of FX.

When he said it missed the helos, he was refering to the lack of Uber Hover Gunships with plasma guns.

This guy just get depressed after thinking "Wath my pixeltrupens get out of ammo, that never Hapened in company of Heroes !"

I don´t think a wargamer cares about this kind of reviewers opinion. Well at least i don´t, for the others there is C&C Tyberian Wars, just go away and dont bother.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MrWombat:

Yeah, that means you gotta choose between publicity being potentially skewed by the version being reviewed, or publicity being reduced by not having review copies out there in time, but that's life.

You make plenty of valid points - welcome to the forum by the way, suspicions aside - and apologies for truncating your good post down to this, but I feel it pretty much says it all. A lot of us remember the passionate discussions of the negative reviews of CM:BB and CM:AK here. I don't mean to sound like a fanboy and I am obviously biased given my inside status, as it were, but I think your suggestion to take a deep breath is apt. CMX1 still stands the test of time. I still play the last two titles. Time will tell what comes of CM:SF; I do know that the devs will not simply abandon it upon release and fold their tents - it's just not in the cards. So whatever perceived shortcomings there are, they will be addressed, just as they always have.

I'm still mildly upset (okay - obsessed beyond reason), frankly, that British infantry squads in CM:AK carry Stens instead of Thompsons. Guess what the difference is in game terms. Starts with "z" and rhymes with "hero." When I compare that to the list of significant feature changes they made between initial release and the final patch, it pretty much shrinks to insignificance. Every indication has been given we will see the same with CM:SF. And frankly, what is coming out on game day is pretty impressive on its own.

It's too bad the reviewers need to compete for scoops, but that too is life. I hope that the reviewers will stick around and discuss the game with us even after the "need" for a scoop is long past. CMX2 will be a game system in development. I don't know, but to me, that sounds like a developing story to be followed, not a midnight edition to be hustled out the door.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Mace:

If I listened to every poor product review I wouldn't have purchased what turned out to be some of my most favorite games/Music CDs/movie DVDs.

To be fair, your favorite products include various Marky Mark albums, My Little Pony:The Game, and Debbie Does Dallas II: Who Wants to Sex Mutombo. Most people agreed with the reviewers there.

[ASHBERY76]

The lack of any tool tips is disapointing for this day and age and i'm very suprised by BF's attitude to help new players get into the game.The most concerning part for me is the crappy A.I followed by slow camera pannning.I will wait for the demo.

[GonzoAttacker]

I must say the anticipation for the new engine has me excited. I am a big supporter of BFC and I am looking forward to Friday's opening. I too ocasionally divulge into big money games but only to appease myself and that of playing partners. I have been through the original demo of CMBO all the way now to CMSF and fully trust that the game and the team knows their market niche and has a great reputation in listening and fixing and adding what is needed to fit our needs and wants. I like new challenges and I know BFC does too. The people they chose to beta test are the right choses because of their background in computers, military, and civilian alike. BFC, Thanks in advance for providing a well thought out stage for the new engine!

[Madmatt]

Tool tips are on the list of things we still want to implement at a later date but the thing to remember is that the most used tools IN the game are the various commands and why would you need a tool tip for the order to "FIRE" when the button that issues that command says "FIRE" on it?

After threats of pain and death, I also got Charles to include a full Hotkey list that you can bring up in game at anytime.

Madmatt

[Moon]

Slow camera panning - I can only assume that the reviewer missed that there are a few ways to pan the camera in the game. You can use the Q and E keys, or the arrows keys, or you can right-click-hold and drag the camera view freely (or left-click-hold to move it).

IIRC the arrow keys are used for finetuning and are therefore slow on purpose. The other keys are medium speed, and the mouse is using flexible speed (based on your cursor motion), and is probably the fastest way to move and look around (at least it's my favorite way). So I'm not sure where this "slow camera panning" is coming from to be honest.

Except for perhaps incorrect game settings or driver issues, of course.

As to the AI... there is no real way to make meaningful comments on that because "crappy AI" can mean anything. CMSF is an open game system where people can make their own missions (and script their own AI). This is something else entirely than a game with a handful of canned misions like most RTS or FPS games out there which only give the illusion of giving the player a choice. So the AI will inherently always be more challenged.

No doubt the AI is one of the areas that, as usual, will need most work when tested against time. This shouldn't be surprising for a game of CMSF's caliber and scope. Out of the box it will have its crappy moments and its high moments. I just played a QB where the AI, following a very generic AI plan, flanked (and spanked) me real good. I have seen some other review for CMSF where the reviewer said something about losing his units left and right. So it can't be all crappy.

Martin

[Roter Stern]

Yeah, lack of tool-tips is in fact shocking... last time I saw a proper product with out tool-tips was when 640x480 was considered "high-res".

The rest of the review I wouldn’t pay much attention to – judging by complete and utter lack of any sort of understanding, and hence true interest, of modern combat Tom must’ve been expecting “Combat Mission: Battlefield 2042” and was left rightfully bitter and disappointed. Just the fact that he had to look up what a HEAT round was, in my mind pretty much nullified whatever he had to say about the game, performance issued aside.

[Holman]

If the interface continues the design philosophy pioneered by CMx1, you'll miss tool tips about as much as you'll miss power-ups.

[Joe Shaw]

And. lest we forget, there are reviews and then there are reviews ... such as this classic

Joe

[norvandave]

I would like to say that helicoptors were used in Vietnam sometimes like aerial tanks. If this engine is going to support a Vietnam wargame it would be great to see them.

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

And. lest we forget, there are reviews and then there are reviews ... such as this classic

Joe

You are busting my chops !

I am emailing this to my buddies.

Indeed a classic.

That said, i would love to see Battlefield 2142 Battle Walker and chaser antitank mines in CM:SLOD

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

And. lest we forget, there are reviews and then there are reviews ... such as this classic

Joe

That.Was.The.Best.Game.Review.Ever.

Steve

[MikeyD]

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

Because it was redundant! Moving the unit's target tool does exactly exactly that same function - displays range and LOS. Simply remember to not click on the map while using it (otherwise your cannon will go 'BOOM!'). If they had kept the LOS tool in people would instead be complaining "Why are you cluttering the command menu with superfluous items?!"

The second item in the CMSF manual is titled "Unlearning Combat Mission". If anything appears to be carried over from CMx1 that was only because they couldn't come up with a better way to do it. But its its own game. If you're looking for a capture-the-flag balanced forces wargame you'll be a bit disappointed. If you're looking for an eye-candy only twitch FPS you'll be a bit disappointed. If you're looking for a real-world-conditions accurate-data modern forces Company size tactical sim then there just might be hope for you yet.

[Roter Stern]

Originally posted by Martyr:

If the interface continues the design philosophy pioneered by CMx1, you'll miss tool tips about as much as you'll miss power-ups.

While true, that’s not the point - by the same logic they shouldn’t have even bothered with 3D graphics, the entire battle can be represented and coordinated in a text-only format ... "The Oregon Trail" comes to mind here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_%28computer_game%29)

[Battlefront.com]

last time I saw a proper product with out tool-tips was when 640x480 was considered "high-res".

Then you must not have played any of the previous Combat Mission games, because none of them had tool tips either Seriously though, we have always intended on putting them in, so we obviously recognize their value. We do, however, feel the game works without them. Better with them? You bet, so they are on a list of things to get into the game.

I'd also like to remind people that there is another difference betweeen us and the average publisher. When a major product comes out it comes out basically "done". By that I mean that you'll likely never see any significant improvement over what you get on day one. That isn't true with us. The original CMBO was patched something like a dozen times and it added a whole bunch of rather significant things based on user feedback. TCP/IP wasn't included in the original version either.

So while I agree that Mr. Wombat that Tom had to review what was in front of him, not what wasn't, it would have been nice to have been cut a little more slack based on the trackrecord he knows we have. Instead, he did the opposite. Of course I can't EXPECT that from him, it just is a bit of a disapointment that he chose to say what he said.

James Allen (I'll single him out because Tom did), on the other hand, emailed us and said he had some problems. We gave him 1.01 and it fixed most of his immediate issues. He still had another problem, which we'd never seen before (REALLY crappy Vist drivers), that we now know how to fix in part due to his help. Did he violate any journalistic standards and do his readers a disservice? Quite the contrary. He went out and got the facts and then reported based on that. If he had come to us and we had instead said "v1.0 is perfect, that's all you're getting" I would have expected he would have reviewed based on that.

Look, the days of old where you got something on disk and were stuck with it are long over. The first thing a person should do, no matter what type of software they get, is to look for an update. Since 99.9% of the people buying games are hooked up to the Internet, that really isn't a big deal. Neither is tiny copper wire connections. I live in the sticks and that's all I have and I have to update a few times a day sometimes So if I can do it, so can anybody else.

BTW Mr.Wombat. The gaming press has gone down hill since the time you were the Editor of that major gaming magazine (may it rest in piece). Thanks for your work in the past and thanks for the faith to preorder. No Battlefront.com customer will ever see v1.0 since we're starting out with v1.01, so you'll not be able to compare and contrast

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I saved this comment from Mr.Wombat simply because it central to who we are and what we do:

He's part of the community of gamers that Battlefront is clearly trying to reach with games like Shock Force--interested in military stuff, willing to try something beyond RTS. What this group of gamers is not willing to do, however, is deal with games that don't measure up as they see it to the "state of the art" in terms of interface, functionality, and design.

Which is why CM:SF is not targeted towards RTS/FPS players If it were, then I agree with Tom... we really screwed the pooch. I'd even go further and say that if we were aiming for the RTS/FPS crowd that CM:SF would be amongst the worst RTS games and poorest excuses for a FPS bar none (OK, I can think of a few stinkers that would beat us ) Fortunately, that isn't what we tried to do.

CM:SF is targeted towards the same basic group that CMx1 was; people interested in thinking more than twitching. That puts us, almost by definition, at odds with the RTS and FPS crowds. We know that, we accept that, and we are happy about it. There are tons of RTS and FPS games out there, so why do what everybody else does?

The difference between CM:SF and CMx1 is that we've enhanced some of the things that the RTS/FPS crowd like to see. Primarily, RealTime. It isn't C&C3, it isn't Quake, but it isn't Steel Panthers either. Therefore, we expect more people to cross over than last time. Oh, I dunno... say 0.000045% of the total audience instead of CMx1's 0.000023% RTS/FPS appeal

CM has always been a hybrid, and always will be a hybrid. We'll never fully satisfy any one particular gaming crowd, no matter how many times someone speaks like we are supposed have done just that. Different strokes for different folks.

Steve

[Bahger]

Well it appears that Bruce Geryk has taken against the game too, and plans to say so in CGW (albeit in only 250 words) according to the comments section of Troy's blog here:

http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2007/07/20/the-eyes-of-the-innocent/#comment-73401

I'm not fazed by any of this. There are always pathfinding and AI bugs in tac-sims that are at the mercy of tremendous variables in terms of movement and tactical options. AI will never "think", it will only simulate thought, at least for the foreseeable future and most experienced tactical gamers understand this.

I've been eager to find a modern battlefield sim that takes its high-fidelity tactical gameplay even more seriously than the need to deliver eye-candy and visceral thrills yet is still entertaining to play. My demands seem fairly modest but it's amazing how rarely they are met: I just want gameplay to reflect and reward real-world company-level tactics. I don't expect the game to be highly polished but, precisely because it's not corporate product, lowest common denominator console portage or a movie franchise but is instead the progeny of true hobbyists I kind of know deep down that a really sincere attempt has been made to foster true tactical gameplay.

Recently I've played Company of Heroes and admired it, but it's over-scripted in SP. I'll take occasionally goofy AI over scripting any day. I am not snobbish about tac-shooters and I look for tactical opportunities in those games but ArmA's SP campaign is slapped together and an insult to my intelligence and GRAW 2 is a highly polished corridor-shooter with only occasional opportunities to experience the freedom of choice of a small-unit spec-ops commander.

So...I'm sure CMSF will have its bugs, its annoyances and its detractors. But these devs are on my wavelength and that's why I refuse to see the glass as anything but half-full.