Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

[Darren J Pierson]

I did see, if I'm not mistaken, that Tom Chick authored one of the glowing reviews at GameSpot for one of the CMx1 titles.

[Bahger]

Originally posted by Lurker765:

After seeing the post complaining about complainers I figured things should be evened out and I drug up this 'old' thread to counter the "Good Lord" one. It seems that someone can't point out flaws they would like to see fixed in their paid for copy of the game without being attacked.

Lots of name calling about his last name (pretty immature). He was called juvenile, uniformed and whiney for the review despite it being the precursor of similar reviews.

He was cut down for reporting:

1) LOS tool doesn't exist and isn't accurate

2) Replays are buggy (zombies anyone?)

3) Daring to suggest the code was released early and violating everyone's belief that BFC has a very rigid policy of not releasing a game until its clean.

4) Suggesting that the code was going to be beta tested by the paying users.

5) Many of the orders in WEGO won't queue up

6) Uncons spawn out of thin air (I actually haven't seen this one, but I believe it does exist)

7) v1.01 would have fixed all the problems if he had known to ask for it like the other reviewer that designed scenarios that shipped with the game. From what I can tell I don't think v1.01 has fixed all the problems with the game.

8) Reporting that his machine had graphics and stability problems (ATI or 8800 springs to mind, although of course it could have been a dual core issue as well) and he was torn a new one by people claiming it was his fault for not updating his drivers, etc.

9) Daring to suggest the UI was not up to par. This one is subjective, but it's not like he has been the only one to notice this and have an issue with this presentation.

10) No tutorial shipping with the game.

11) The PDF manual being incomplete for many common questions (how to place your units on a setup turn for example).

12) Imbalanced or questionably designed scenarios. This one is probably debatable as well, but once again he isn't the only person to have noticed this.

13) AI is dumb as a stick. Well, the Tac AI is currently causing a nuclear war on these boards and the strat AI does a crawl of death if you lucky in a QB (otherwise it just sits in the setup zones).

14) Complaining that the real time nature limits the scope of the game (true for multiplayer without pauses).

15) That he was a real time junkie just because he dared post a critical review (when he has actually given praise to CMx1).

16) Complaining about a scenario where the uncons were given few RPG assets to deal with armor and daring to mention that the HEAT rounds used by the RPGs caused the game to rely on luck since a hit a win while a miss or three was a loss for the scenario.

17) No tooltips in the game to help people out since the icons are tiny on high resolution screens.

18) Poor graphics performance (separate from the graphic card crashes)

19) He expected more from this game and was then chewed out and told that if the budget/staffing was higher like other game companies they could have done better -- but they still charge the same amount for the game?

20) Slow camera panning (possibly due to the lag issues fixed in v1.02)

I could probably find more issues, but there really isn't a need to further drive home the point.

So...did anyone ever apologize to Tom Chick about this firestorm?

Anyway, I am withholding judgement on the game. I preordered it because BFC has treated me great over the years. They get a mulligan from me for this one until the patches are completed. It just bothers me when either the fanbois/haters jump on people in this forum (like they did on Tom).

Superb post, IMO.

It seemed to me at first that Tom Chick must have some kind of axe to grind but after getting the game I was distressed to discover that he's basically right in almost every detail; this is a woefully crippled piece of software whose deficiencies are so enormous that I can only assume that the good people at BFC succumbed not only to market pressures to get the game out on time but also to a form of mass denial; they seemed genuinely to believe that the game could measure up to the standard set by CMBO (even in its initial release).

I think CMSF is on life-support. Like Lurker765, I trust BFC to come through in the end, or at least make a very significant effort. Right now the only thing preventing me from writing off the $70 (I went for the special edition, which of course I have not received) and never buying another product from this company is my genuine admiration for their values, notwithstanding a catastrophic product release this time around.

[thewood]

Wow, I just read the forums over there that followed the review. Holy Smokes!

[Truppenfuhrung]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is obvious that Tom doesn't know much, if anything, about contemporary warfare. His comment about helicopters proves that.

That's where I stop reading his review.

[TheNathan]

What distresses me most is that while the forum-goers will stick around for the patches that will inevitably make the game what it was supposed to be in the first place, the negative reviews have already delivered something of s gutshot to CMSF. Seeing as that the people who inhabit this forum are in the vast minority (According to Steve) and the rest are the hidden majority who have probably never set foot on these forums and will not check for patches in the future, the game may look like a giant flop by those who are only being exposed to the reviews and are not reading the explanation being provided by Steve, nor the promises that the game will be fixed in successive patches.

The reviewers, in theory anyway, have dealt a fatal blow to the game by trashing it en masse, and in the reviewing business (At least from what I have seen) they tend not to take back bad reviews even if the game is fixed at a later date.

It wouldn't be the first time a game has had high hopes and some amount of hype, only to release an unfinished version of the game and be utterly ripped apart by reviewers with no hope of redemption.

The case of Battlecruiser 3000AD comes to mind, though CMSF is nowhere near that level of bugginess and Derek Smarts dev arrogance puts him into a league of his own. The game was initially ripped apart by reviewers and casual fans alike due to high expectations and an extremely rough product. Only the hardcore remained to see the series of patches and major overhauls that made the game actually playable, of which the final version was actually rather fun IMO.

But still, the reviewers ripped the game apart to the extent that the game is synonymous with complete and utter failure, and Mr.Smart has become something of a internet meme for dev insanity. The reviewers do not do take-backs, and their verdict is often etched into the minds of the casual fans, and lurking in the back of the minds of the hardcore.

And this is what distresses me the most about the whole CMSF fiasco. I've been a fan of CMBO and Battlefront since about 2000, and have been lurking the forums on and off ever since then, so I'm among one of the more hardcore of the CM fans. The very prospect of Battlefront taking a blow as heavy as this seems to be is saddening as it holds some danger of spiraling into the CM series crashing and burning, or Battlefront taking a credibility hit. I just hope Battlefront can weather the storm and comes out of this OK.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Truppenfuhrung:

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

It is obvious that Tom doesn't know much, if anything, about contemporary warfare. His comment about helicopters proves that.

That's where I stop reading his review. </font>

[Truppenfuhrung]

Originally posted by thewood:

I think you kind of have to show that review a little respect because even reading the comments of people who love CMSF, you see the same issues and discussions on this forum.

Review and ranting are like oil and water - they don't mix very well...

[Battlefront.com]

thewood,

Truppenfuhrung hit the nail on the head. When a reviewer blends his take on the game with his take on a subject matter he well versed in, well... I've got a problem with that.

If you go back and dig out my responses you will see I didn't challenge Tom on his basic opinion, rather on the presentation. Well, except for the stuff that was factually incorrect. I never like it when a reviewer does that EVEN when the review is positive.

He was also using version 1.0 and, as I stated, since people played it somehwere between a few hours and NEVER, it doesn't seem to be a good basis for a review. Fair game for him to write it (and I said so in my first post), but not very useful to the reader.

Here we are 3 weeks post release and most of the big problems have been fixed, though a few of them will remain until we have v1.03 out. Is that the best way to have done things? Nope, but this is an imperfect business we're in. We do our best, but sometimes that isn't quite good enough.

Steve

[DASman]

Oh my god Steve, this thread is out of hand. Tom said pretty much the same things about GI COMBAT and it sold just fine.

Stop feeding this flame and it will go away.

E

[TheNathan]

Originally posted by DASman:

Oh my god Steve, this thread is out of hand. Tom said pretty much the same things about GI COMBAT and it sold just fine.

Stop feeding this flame and it will go away.

E

Uhm...

Quick link I found about the game

"An unrelated video game of the same name was released to poor sales in 2002; it was the precursor of Eric Young's Squad Assault."

[Battlefront.com]

Stop feeding this flame and it will go away.

Well, at least I didn't go over to his stomping ground and point out, once again, he doesn't have is facts straight. Specifically we do not have a military contract and have no reason to hope for one. We've been through the Red Tape before so we're smarter than that. What I did say was that we have many people in uniform (or recently out of it) who love the game.

That said, I've never argued with his basic objections to the game, despite what he says. He also was never insulted in emails, unless having the factual flaws in his review pointed out can be considered insulting

Steve

[Lurker765]

Well...I was just going to do my post and leave. But I have to say that I am not Tom Chick, I have never been Tom Chick, I am not associated with him, I had never even heard of him until I read this thread. Please don't blame him for my post.

Bajeesus though. Saying someone was never insulted is strange since I just stumbled across this thread and found things like:

"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."

or

"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 "

etc

This thread can die again, but I wanted to make sure that Tom does not get smeared for my post.

Sorry about this. I will go away now. I understand this is a touchy subject and I did not mean to call your baby ugly.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Lurker765, you've got to have a thin skin indeed to call those examples insults. Scathing criticism (of the article he wrote, not even him) at worst/best.

Have you read the forum at Tom Chicks place? BFC have been positively angelic by comparison. I would have let Madmatt loose on Tom for less. But then again, I'm evil.

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Lurker765:

Well...I was just going to do my post and leave. But I have to say that I am not Tom Chick, I have never been Tom Chick, I am not associated with him, I had never even heard of him until I read this thread. Please don't blame him for my post.

Bajeesus though. Saying someone was never insulted is strange since I just stumbled across this thread and found things like:

"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."

or

"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 "

etc

This thread can die again, but I wanted to make sure that Tom does not get smeared for my post.

Sorry about this. I will go away now. I understand this is a touchy subject and I did not mean to call your baby ugly.

As far as I'm concerned, he hit the nail on the head with the review. The way people responded to it was disappointing, but not surprising. If a reviewer is not allowed to express a subjective opinion on a game then what on earth is the purpose of a review?

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

Bajeesus though. Saying someone was never insulted is strange since I just stumbled across this thread and found things like:

First, Tom Chick was referring to an email discussion with Martin, 2 other reviewers, Tom, and myself. You are not privy to that discussion unless you are one of those mentioned.

As for my criticism of Tom Chick's article, I don't see what the problem is. I objected to his manner of presentation, presumption that he knows more about modern warfare than we do, and some factual errors. I did not challenge his criticisms about various aspects of the game. If Tom Chick is so thin skined that he can't handle criticism of his criticism, then he has no business writing reviews that are part OpEd. In other words, if he can't take some heat he shouldn't be in the kitchen.

Steve