Gamespot user review average of 6.9 for Marines

[mazex]

There are only 6 user reviews there with a currently weak average of 6.9. I think that score for Marines is way to low after the great 1.10 patch... It's an influential site so go there and add your opinions if you disagree with 6.9! It requires registration but it's not that hard - m'kay?

Here's mine:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforcemarines/player_review.html?id=610858

/Mazex

[panzermartin]

I was wondering if Gamespot is going to give it an official review since we are talking about a vastly improved game.

[Sivodsi]

The damn site won't let you write a review unless you pay money! Shame.

[Flanker15]

Most of those votes were placed BEFORE the game had even come out, I looked at it on the 23rd and it was about 5'ish.

Just 'tards running through the games giving random low scores usually.

I read the 2 user reviews there and they're both well written.

[The_Red_Rage]

Gamespot reviewing CM is similar to National Enquirer Magazine attempting to write a serious political peice...

I have a hard time digesting reviews by people who have zero knowledge on the subject matter and thus zero appreciation for what BFC has done. On the other hand, Gamespot editors seem to be in awe from garbage like Dance, Dance Revolution , Guitar Hero and Donkey Kong (and those are 30-year-old men writing reviews :rollyeyes: )

So, no matter how good and polished CM becomes to us, your average Gamespot goer will always consider it some sort freeware-indie-semi-independant-release with glitchy graphics and impossible difficulty (WAHT?! I can't charge a horde of tanks across an open field and win?!! not-L337, d00d - not L337 at all), and in the end will go back to his GTA*insert a numer*

/end rant

[SlapHappy]

I think one thing you have to keep in mind here is the mentality of most "mega" game sites out there. It's not about games like CMSF...it's about games like Company of Heroes.

Ever since the "Walmart-ization" of the larger gaming sites, only the big blockbusters get the ridiculous media hype. And I guess it's to be expected...I'm sure focusing on those few titles increases visitation to their sites.

There used to be a magazine exclusively for Computer Wargaming...in fact, I think it was actually called Computer Wargaming, but it ceased publication some time ago. There are still smaller websites that review and discuss computer wargames exclusively...obviously they are not as high profile as Gamespot.

Still, I just can't place too much credence in anything Gamespot or Gamespy have to say about REAL tactical and strategic simulation software.....

Interestingly though, when videos pop up on youtube featuring CMSF, most of the comments from the uninitiated seem to be extremely positive......

[Imperial Grunt]

Gamespot reviewing CM is similar to National Enquirer Magazine attempting to write a serious political peice...

I have a hard time digesting reviews by people who have zero knowledge on the subject matter and thus zero appreciation for what BFC has done. On the other hand, Gamespot editors seem to be in awe from garbage like Dance, Dance Revolution , Guitar Hero and Donkey Kong (and those are 30-year-old men writing reviews :rollyeyes: )

So, no matter how good and polished CM becomes to us, your average Gamespot goer will always consider it some sort freeware-indie-semi-independant-release with glitchy graphics and impossible difficulty (WAHT?! I can't charge a horde of tanks across an open field and win?!! not-L337, d00d - not L337 at all), and in the end will go back to his GTA*insert a numer*

/end rant

Or HBO portraying "Generation Kill" as an authentic documentation about the 1st Recon Battalion.

[aleader]

But based on the two very good reviews on there, I think I will now be picking up the marine module (even though I'm so sick of playing in the desert). You can always tell when it's some adolescent gansta wannabe punk leaving a review...it usually begins with 'this game roKX!!' and\or it's 'sick' or 'off the hook'. I like reviews sometimes from the bigger sites because really, you're likely to run into more FanBoyz (is that how you spell it?) on a dedicated site like this one. You can always tell by the review whether or not they know what they're talking about.

[Battlefront.com]

From a consumer standpoint, I usually don't pay too much attention to user reviews. They tend to be towards the negative side since people are more likely to complain than they are to praise. Certainly true in the gaming world, but it is very true elsewhere

BTW, Michael Bluth is an American Hero!

Steve

[rich12545]

I find a distinction between 1.10 and the Marine module since you can get the former without paying for the latter. So if I were reviewing Marines, I would only look at what's in the module minus 1.10. Maybe the review, then, is accurate. I don't know. I don't care. I bought the module to get all the extra content and I'm happy with it and the price was fairly reasonable.

[aleader]

From a consumer standpoint, I usually don't pay too much attention to user reviews. They tend to be towards the negative side since people are more likely to complain than they are to praise. Certainly true in the gaming world, but it is very true elsewhere

BTW, Michael Bluth is an American Hero!

Steve

My biggest beef with user reviews is that people post reviews too soon after they've purchased the product. I mean what is the point to giving a washing machine a 10/10 rating for reliability when you've only owned it for 3 days? Another problem is the excess weighting game reviewers give to multiplayer. Many of us never play multiplayer because of the time commitment (mainly trying to find decent people to play with), and because I get my butt whipped by those who play for 18 hours a day. Not so much maybe in sims and wargames, but more mainstream games like Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 are good examples. I don't own either for that very reason. Too much emphasis on multiplayer in the reviews...and I'm not into phoney-baloney space shooters, but I digress.

The tables have turned. I remember waaaay back in 1998 when M1 Tank Platoon 2 (a T-72 turkey shoot for sure, but great fun at the time) was reviewed and there was no mention of multiplayer because nobody cared about it (and nobody had high-speed). 'Grogs' seem to like to bash Company of Heroes, but THQ has created a game with great single and multiplayer modes in a very polished, quasi-realistic RTS. Sadly, most of the reviews again focused on the multiplayer. Luckily the demo was good and convinced me to buy it. Anyways, I'm getting off topic here I suppose.

Random thought, Steel Beasts with Shock Force unit models (including infantry) would be the ultimate tank sim. M1TP2 got me thinking about that one :-) Any chance you guys would ever do a sim?

And I would sell my left dangling appendage (or even Season 5 of Trailer Park Boys...not easy to part with) for a Season 4 of AD . There's at least a million quotes one could use from that series (Tobias is gold), but that one sticks in my head. Two and a Half Men stays on the air and AD gets canceled. Can someone please explain that heinous injustice to me?

[MeatEtr]

Actually, besides CMSF, Gamespot has given the CMx1 series great reviews. As did most other mainstream media gaming sites.

Gamespot scores CMBO=91% CMBB=91% CMAK=84% CMSF=45%

As already mentioned, nobody really cares about the user reviews/scores. Usually just filled with haters with an axe to grind or loving fanboys.

[Secondbrooks]

This far i would have give about 6-7 points to marines, as i've been playing only campaign and it literally is making me to go first gray and then bald + mad. expacely 5th mission with objective pooh and tigger (was it Eagle route?) is making me to think about ceasing whole campaign. It's pure hardcore micromanagement-porn. I could enjoy this in platoon or two size. Not in about two company size.

[majorfatal]

But it's not 6,9 but 9.0 suberb

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforcemarines/player_review.html?id=610858

[RiflemanIII]

I've found that Gamespot itself is hardly unduly harsh, but the user reviews are generally useless.

The user average is now up to 7.9, which is what the OP was talking about. Their actual critics haven't yet weighed in, but expansion packs aren't really high on their to-do list.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yeah... the first impression user reviews tend to be just that... people that are wowed by the graphics of a game rush to give it a high score, then only after that find out there isn't any depth to the game they're playing. People who find that it crashes on them rush to give it a bad score, which they later find out is because their system is messed up (outdated driver, latent disk problems, etc.). No way for them to go back and revise their reviews even if they felt the responsibility to do so.

Steve

[Yair Iny]

Well, Dorosh just posted a review with a 3.5 score, with his usual long dribble of text. In the review he claims to have played it 40-100 hours, which is quite a lot considering it was released last Friday. Sad really... Just goes to show how little user reviews on GS are worth...

[Chelco]

"Ok ... I've beaten the game like two times already. Game is like too short!"

You know the great tragedy of all this?

The youngsters that who read these negative reviews are less likely to get initiated in any form of serious wargaming.

[mazex]

Well, as the OP I have to add some thoughts as people seem to frown on main stream stuff like Gamespot. I generally agree that user reviews are rather useless in general - but somehow I tend to look for big deviations between the "real" review and the user reviews. If a game gets a review of 8.5 and the average user review is 6.9 after 150 user reviews I tend to get a bit cautious. Never underestimate the masses. In those cases I pick some random user reviews to see if I find someone that looks like it's written by someone with similar preferences like myself. If I find a number of well written user reviews that give low scores with a motivation that seems plausible - I listen. It's the same way the other way around. A low score on a "real" review written by someone that I realize have different priorities than myself, and some well written user reviews that point in another direction satisfies me that I should maybe take the "real" review with a grain of salt.

When I read a review that says 9.1 and the average of 150 user reviews is 9.2, it's a safe bet to say that the game is a good one. That does not mean it is a good one for me or you! In this case I wanted to rally some of you to bolster the 6.9 as I would have looked at it in the way described above for a game that I was not as deeply involved in as this. We are all interested in increased sales for CMSF - right? If only the grogs on these forums buy Marines we will all lose in the end. We do need fresh cannon fodder to keep BFC in business until we get to old for war games (= dies). If some 18 year old "kid" that has only played Company of Heroes and World in Conflict before gets his eyes on a review on Gamespot (if they do one for Marines) - the risk that he is affected by a bad user review average may cause a lost new fan of the CM series. Young people are more affected by Web 2.0 stuff like user reviews than us old grumpy men that only listen to what is written in a dark corner of a forum known to a few thousand grogs...

I'm also rather sure that a potential reviewer will at least glance at the average user score before putting their own verdict. Why would a professional reviewer do that? They sometimes listen listen to what the masses say, if they don't, they would be out of work rather soon... Would you completely ignore a user average of 9.1 with 500 "voters" if you where balancing between putting an 8.0 or 8.5 score? I wouldn't...

/Mazex

[MeatEtr]

If only the grogs on these forums buy Marines we will all lose in the end. We do need fresh cannon fodder to keep BFC in business until we get to old for war games (= dies). If some 18 year old "kid" that has only played Company of Heroes and World in Conflict before gets his eyes on a review on Gamespot (if they do one for Marines) - the risk that he is affected by a bad user review average may cause a lost new fan of the CM series. Young people are more affected by Web 2.0 stuff like user reviews than us old grumpy men that only listen to what is written in a dark corner of a forum known to a few thousand grogs...

/Mazex

So your asking us old farts to pass the torch onto the young punks? That'll be the day! (for the record, I'm not a old fart but a young old fart)

Problem one: They won't listen, I wouldn't either if I was them.

Problem two: If something doesn't blow up in the first two minutes then their bored. (hence the CoH and WiC examples)

[RiflemanIII]

Young people are more affected by Web 2.0 stuff like user reviews than us old grumpy men that only listen to what is written in a dark corner of a forum known to a few thousand grogs...

Of course, once could argue that an insular community of grogs or indie gamers might buy too much into their own hype. There are people over on the Mount & Blade forum who were absolutely incensed over the official (non-user) Gamespot review of their own pet game, despite that most of what Gamespot said about it was absolutely true (combat is great, macro stuff is a chore, little to no help for new players, etc.).

Of course, putting on the whole "young people today" airs won't exactly help either. Has that ever worked? When I started playing this series of ours, it wasn't because some grog told me that I wasn't playing the "correct" wargames.

[heckler_rider]

Of course, putting on the whole "young people today" airs won't exactly help either. Has that ever worked? When I started playing this series of ours, it wasn't because some grog told me that I wasn't playing the "correct" wargames.

One of the things I think is working against getting younger gamers into serious war games is how technology has changed war gaming.

When I started playing "real" war games it was at a table with other people moving little cardboard chits and lead figures around. While the strategic aspect of the game was fun, the banter around the table was as important to the experience as was how the tactics played out. What a reaction around the room when I announced that my French Cuirassier brigade was charging into the exposed flank of the Austrian Grenadier division (yes, Mack was in charge).

Nowadays with the trend towards war games being computer based, the whole social aspect is gone/changed. We have exchanged the cheers of our game mates and the grief stricken looks of our opponents as the aforementioned Cuirassier routs the enemy from the field for emails, taunts in forums and ultimately victory screens.

I do like computer based war games. The complexity, scope, ease of use and the variety of subject they can simulate is amazing, but I generally view them as an individual experience. Yes PBEM can be fun, but they generally take a while and quite often peter out as the outcome looms.

The console game offers a much more social experience. Don’t knock playing a console game such as Call of Duty with a bunch of friends until you have tried it. It is not a strategy game by any means, but it is fun and it truly can be a social activity.

We won't expand our hobby by enticing younger gamers to buy our favorite games due to a score of "10", we will get them playing wargames games by showing them the fun that can be had by playing them.

[ShaneO]

That seems a little self-contradictory - if computer wargames are a solo pursuit, then high review scores (and other impersonal marketing) are exactly the way to entice newbies into trying them, since they're not going to be playing Magic: The Gathering or whatever in the corner of the room and wander on over because you look like you're having fun.

However, my own experience of Combat Mission is different. The vast majority of my play has been Hotseat and while due to the fact that one person's hanging around while the other's concentrating and vice versa it's not as sociable as, say, Guitar Hero (which is great, even when you're old enough to know better), it's still not without some of the tabletop atmosphere. And some of its own, like one person hunched over the monitor going "Come on... come on... ROTATE THAT TURRET YOU USELESS [hot-dog\felafel\sausage\garlic\cabbage\maple syrup\nice-cup-of-tea-and-a-biccie] EATING CRETIN..." *boom* *crunch* "YES! YES! UH!" and the other person sitting in the room sighs and says "I assume that means you found my vehicle-question-mark."

People still play table-top wargames too, of course.

And certainly the kids-these-days card doesn't do anyone any favours. Tell people they should play your favourite game instead of theirs because yours is better makes them defensive. Telling them they might like it because of the similarities, and extra cool stuff, and because you like their game too so your tastes are obviously similar, that's far more effective. In fact arguably it was a variant of that which got me into Combat Mission originally, and it's how I've been working on getting folks into Shock Force.

[aleader]

And certainly the kids-these-days card doesn't do anyone any favours. Tell people they should play your favourite game instead of theirs because yours is better makes them defensive. Telling them they might like it because of the similarities, and extra cool stuff, and because you like their game too so your tastes are obviously similar, that's far more effective. In fact arguably it was a variant of that which got me into Combat Mission originally, and it's how I've been working on getting folks into Shock Force.

Nicely put. My 8 year old (while quite young obviously) is a perfect example. Already we play CoH LAN together against the AI. No, he's not great at it, and we don't play very often as I believe getting him outside for sports and activity is far more important than gaming (and my wife hates games), but he loves the game, asks me questions about the men, armies, equipment, etc. and watches the Military channel with me now, not just hockey and football ;-) I started with Panzer General and wanted everything wargame\sim after that. The original CM demo is something I wouldn't even have bothered with had PG not hooked me.

[aleader]

When I read a review that says 9.1 and the average of 150 user reviews is 9.2, it's a safe bet to say that the game is a good one. That does not mean it is a good one for me or you! In this case I wanted to rally some of you to bolster the 6.9 as I would have looked at it in the way described above for a game that I was not as deeply involved in as this. We are all interested in increased sales for CMSF - right? If only the grogs on these forums buy Marines we will all lose in the end. We do need fresh cannon fodder to keep BFC in business until we get to old for war games (= dies). If some 18 year old "kid" that has only played Company of Heroes and World in Conflict before gets his eyes on a review on Gamespot (if they do one for Marines) - the risk that he is affected by a bad user review average may cause a lost new fan of the CM series. Young people are more affected by Web 2.0 stuff like user reviews than us old grumpy men that only listen to what is written in a dark corner of a forum known to a few thousand grogs...

/Mazex

Also well put. Same thing I do when scanning reviews. If I know I would hate the game to begin with (i.e. dungeon\fantasy games), I wouldn't seek the review out in the first place. Generally if it's reviewed highly on a reputable site, the average of the user reviews are pretty close. If not, dig into it, find some reviews that match your preferences, and find out more. Shunning the 'big' sites like Gamespot isn't going to help anyone. Go on there, post your own reviews, and help people out that want to read an intelligent perspective. If I recall, the first review I read of Combat Mission was on Gamespot. It was very good, I immediately downloaded the demo, and bought the game the instant it was available. I'm sure several others did the same thing. That likely wouldn't have happened had it only been reviewed on The Wargamer and CGO websites.