CMSF Marines review up at IGN

[George MC]

I would even suggest a kind of CMx1 flag system for those quick games you dont really want to bother reading briefings but just have a clear indication of score and victory conditions that make the game a "fight till death" and much more gripping in head to head with objectives changing hands etc. It would look more "gamey" but I dont see the damage in the prestige of the simulation aspect of the game if the current more sophisticated system is also retained for scenario building.

You already have this in CMSF - just make the objective visible to both players - this is done in the editor by the designer. Personnaly I like the differant ways the deisgner can create victory conditions. The flags in CMX1 pretty limited what you could do, and more often than not were there to guide the AI into an objective. In H2H well it just becames a charge for the flags IMO

Cheers fur noo

George

ps never did like football!

[panzermartin]

You already have this in CMSF - just make the objective visible to both players - this is done in the editor by the designer. Personnaly I like the differant ways the deisgner can create victory conditions. The flags in CMX1 pretty limited what you could do, and more often than not were there to guide the AI into an objective. In H2H well it just becames a charge for the flags IMO

Of course, flags are limited. I'm not against the new victory conditions by no means. It is just that flags make your goals intantly recognizable and add the wargame flavour back in the simulation. It was satisfying to see the flag changing colors, now you dont really grasp the importance of your goals. Also, the neon green painted area just doesnt fit to a WW2 era atmosphere imo.

ps never did like football!

Blasphemy!

[c3k]

Getting back to what Other Means said a few posts earlier, "...And as you know the core of my argument is that yes, all the information is there, it's just not easily accessible..."

I refer you to these threads: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84655 and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74868

A bit of work on the UI would do wonders. The game is good, but the user feedback could be better. Broken? No way.

So, if indeed there may be a some tweak that Steve hinted at earlier, I'd be VERY happy!

Thanks,

Ken

[MarkEzra]

Personally I cant go back to CMx1 style gameplay, no matter how infected I was back then.

Me Too. I have thought about my personal "why is that?"

I continued to play SPWAW all through the CMx1 series. But within 60 days of playing CM:SF I had deleted all 3 CMx1 and SPWAW, too. 60 days! and we all know how emmmm...dysfunctional... CMSF was back then. I think the thing is that CMx2 gets to the one man with a weapon representation I really want to see in Wargaming. The idea that I can see each man in a company act and react in individual ways is big step forward.

Fans of other genres like FPS are obviously delighted with their product choices. But I have always found them lacking in accuracy to such an extent that I think of them as arcade games about war...not a "War Game" Fun, but not instructive. Immersive but not reality based. I can enjoy them at that level but my wargaming soul remains untouched. CMSF points the way forward like no other game since CMBO... I was a fanboi for it's possibilities then like I am for CMx2 now.

[Kwazydog]

Guys, Im not going to go searching for reviews as I dont have time and to be honest I cant be bothered, but I can assure everyone that CMBBs graphics engine was rather dated for its time. I can go into technicalities if you like, but the simply lack of dynamic lighting on its own is an important one. IL-2 had this and much more for instance, and released something like a year previous to CMBB.

As I said above i think the graphics were certainly serviceable for the time, but I am surprised anyone is suggesting that they were state of the art or even comparable with other games of the time. As we move to WW2 we can likely make some considerable improvements to the overall look of CMx2, particually with regards to terrain. CMSF was our first release with the new engine and we have learnt a lot along the way.

Dan

[Lurker765]

Kwazydog,

I agree with your statements. This small tempest began because I disagreed with the quote:

If you look back at reviews of CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK almost all of them (even the oens that gave it a very high rating) made critical, even insulting, remarks about the state of the graphics.

There is a big difference between 'score slaughtering' and 'insulting' and not state of the art or top of the line. I think CMBB graphics were very good for the war gaming niche and adequate for the general gaming world at the time and I believe that the vast majority of critical reviews agree with that statement.

You mentioned dynamic lighting not being in CMBB despite IL-2 having it years ago as an important issue in the sub-par graphics of CMBB. Wasn't dynamic lighting only added to CM:SF in the patch 1.05?

Anyway, I think I will go back to occasional lurking. I think my quota of posts for the year has been met.

[Kwazydog]

Kwazydog,

There is a big difference between 'score slaughtering' and 'insulting' and not state of the art or top of the line.

As the person who did the bulk of the graphics for CMBB and thus was looking out for such things I can assure you that many reviews were critical of the graphics, with some being insulting. I have a more than a few magazines stored away with just such reviews. That sentiment was echoes on the forums too, even before release!

You mentioned dynamic lighting not being in CMBB despite IL-2 having it years ago as an important issue in the sub-par graphics of CMBB. Wasn't dynamic lighting only added to CM:SF in the patch 1.05?

Errr no, its been in since the first alpha.

Dan

[Lurker765]

Sorry. I must have gotten confused in the patch readme for 1.05 with the line "One of the many new features added with the latest v1.05 patch were all new Dynamic Lighting effects."

And if you did the bulk of the graphics for CMBB I'd like to say I appreciated your work. I modded things quite a bit, but the out of the box CMBB graphics were good.

Anyway, thanks for the replies Kwazydog. Take care.

[Kwazydog]

Sorry. I must have gotten confused in the patch readme for 1.05 with the line "One of the many new features added with the latest v1.05 patch were all new Dynamic Lighting effects."

New Dynamic lighting effects were added, but the dynamic lighting engine has always been in game along with shadowing. This is why the surfaces of vehicles angled towards the sun are lighter whilst ones angled away are darker. In CMx1 this didnt happen adn all surfaces were rendered with the same brightness at all times of day which, in my opinion, lead to a model having a somewhat 'cardboard cutout' feel.

In 1.05 we added in additional lighting for burning vehicles, gun fire, etc.

And if you did the bulk of the graphics for CMBB I'd like to say I appreciated your work. I modded things quite a bit, but the out of the box CMBB graphics were good.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed them!

Dan

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[panzermartin]

Given the low art budget of CMSF and the flexibility of the map maker, graphs are actually really really good with a nicely balanced pallete and even a classy feel that I much prefer over the glossy World in Conflict visuals for instance.

Any chance we will ever see the horizon blending with the table map in CM? I would like to see distance haze set as default feature that will help map edges blend with the rest of the world and even make elevations stand out more clear(eg a hill close to our POV will contrast with the hazy valley beyond it). Theatre of war has done it quite nicely with atmospheric depth of field, map edges extending beyond game area and landscapes flourishing with light. Its very pleasant to wander around the maps, they seem so real (Of course they had the Il-2 engine heritage). Generally I think TOW can give CMSF some ideas about world graphics with nicely detailed touches here and there. Hanged clothes, hay stacks, carts, interesting and varied buildings come to mind. CMSF 3d models are richly detailed but TOW's landscapes make you want to call some friends and lay down on the grass to have some picnic

[Battlefront.com]

Since it appears that Lurker's position and ours has been narrowed, I'll just comment on these two things he said:

Once you choose to compete with the graphics you have moved to the big pond.

We have no choice BUT to compete (at least to some degree) with other 3D games out there unless we want to be relegated to appealing to a number of people insufficient to keep us in business. We must change with the times and graphical change is not optional. Of course we are limited in how much we can compete with the games that have millions to throw at art, but considering that I think CM:SF looks superior. In other words, if you reduced a big budget game concept down to one programmer and a couple of artists... my guess is CM:SF would come out looking damned good in comparison.

Just, please, stop slamming CMx1 to make CMSF look better.

I've never done that. What I've objected to is people using a fantasy view of CMx1 to make CM:SF look worse than it is. The only way to correct this unfair and factually flawed argument is to point out where people's perception of what CMx1 was differs from reality so the REAL CMx1 can be compared to the real CM:SF.

Steve

[GSX]

I've never done that. What I've objected to is people using a fantasy view of CMx1 to make CM:SF look worse than it is. The only way to correct this unfair and factually flawed argument is to point out where people's perception of what CMx1 was differs from reality so the REAL CMx1 can be compared to the real CM:SF.

Steve

No fantasy view here, I think SF looks way better than CM-1, but the original still plays better and feels better right now. Yes, different theatre of war and differing premise, but the reality remains that CM-1 is still a more immersive game.

I know, its like comparing apples and beans but SF has no longevity, already the pace of technology is passing it by, whereas ww2 is set in stone technology wise.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

No fantasy view here, I think SF looks way better than CM-1, but the original still plays better and feels better right now. Yes, different theatre of war and differing premise, but the reality remains that CM-1 is still a more immersive game.

My opinion of your opinion is that there's nothing for me to really argue with. You like CMx1 better than CMx2. No problemo. There's no reason for me to "bash" CMx1 because you like it better. In fact, I'm glad you like it so much because I spent a lot of time and energy making that sucker

I only have a problem with comparisons to CMx1 when they are unfair, untrue, or far too extreme to really matter to us. Telling me that CMx1's graphics were fine and we should have stuck with them, and because we didn't that's one reason why CM:SF sucks, is not the same thing as what you did.

When I correct the record of CMx1 I am not bashing it, just correcting. The only thing worse than having your work unfairly compared to someone else's work is to have your work unfairly compared to your own work I am not at all interested in trying to live up to expectations that are built on distortions of reality, therefore I set the record straight. If someone accuses me of "bashing" something that I'm very proud of, they can go right ahead and do it. But it only makes whatever argument they were making even weaker by doing that. In fact, to me it is a sure sign that the other person isn't interested in an honest assessment of CMx2 since insulting me isn't a sturdy basis for an argument.

I'll give Lurker765 some credit here... he actually tried to shore up his position with some fact checking. As limited and self selective as it might have been, he at least tried.

Steve

[Lurker765]

I'll give Lurker765 some credit here... he actually tried to shore up his position with some fact checking. As limited and self selective as it might have been, he at least tried.

Steve

Well....thanks for the kudos on my trying to prove my point that at the time CMBB came out the graphics were lauded by the majority of the critics (and players).

Why can't we let this die? My supporting quotes and links were not limited and self selective. I went to two major game ranking web sites that scour the major game review sites and aggregate their scores. I then picked the first few links that worked and quoted from them. If you have a better idea of how to find evidence that mainstream reviewers liked the game and graphics I am open to suggestions.

Your stance was that:

If you look back at reviews of CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK almost all of them (even the oens that gave it a very high rating) made critical, even insulting, remarks about the state of the graphics.

and also that:

I think the problem with Lurker765's selective quoted reviews shows this quite clearly. When CMx1 games were reviewed by guys who were into/used to wargames we generally got excellent reviews EVEN on the graphics. Same with our customers. But when the reviewers and gamers were more mainstream we got criticism that ranged from mild to score slaughtering.

When I asked you to defend this you posted one link to a Dutch website that is no longer in business and based on your selected quotes the reviewer doesn't even know how to play a war game.

And you call my links "limited and self selective"?

Anyway, here we go...I went to gamerankings.com and Metacritic to find their aggregate critical reviews and followed the links that still worked.

ugo.com:

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=130131

"The graphics of CMBB have ramped up the look with both sharpness and detail. The tanks, in particular, look fantastic. As they rumble along, you can see the detail in the treads, as well as the decals on the side. Soldiers themselves feature a ton of detailed items as well as crisper textures. Buildings look grimier, with splotches of caked-on dirt on some of them, and even elegrant brick and marble on some of the gaudier houses. Most improved is the foliage, which now looks authentic, and no longer like it was built out of Lego blocks. The game now also features neat effects, especially that of smoke. You can tell you've done something good when you can see a pillar of black, translucent smoke emitting from where you were firing your artillery. There is also a ton of weather as well, from a clear morning day to a nighttime blizzard, all nicely rendered."

gwn.com

http://www.gwn.com/reviews/gamereview.php/id/346/p/0/title/Combat_Mission_Barbarossa_to_Berlin.html

"Unit graphics are improved as well. The tanks are absolutely gorgeous...Getting back to the graphics, you'll notice an appreciable difference over the previous game in that you'll see better explosions, dirt fragments from near misses and realistic craters from artillery blasts. I do think the overall terrain needs to be smoothed out a little as it seems too blocky. It makes line of sight targeting overly laborious."

gamespy.com

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=121353

"Don't let the great sounds and graphics fool you into thinking that this is an arcade game, or simply an RTS dressed in WWII clothing."

gamespot.com

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=234156

"The graphics are much improved since the first game's quaint in-house-artist look, which was more concerned with fidelity than flair. They were the kind of graphics only a crotchety old wargame veteran could love. But this time around, the foliage is more complex, the textures are sharper, the special effects like fire and smoke don't look so homegrown, and the vehicle models feature more detail and animation. You'll spend more time getting in close to study the replays just because they look so good. With the possible exception of its stiff little infantry models, Combat Mission now looks like a big-budget game."

gameplanet.com

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=112206

"All in all the graphics are realistic and effective and are a trade off for the ability to zoom and view form any angle."

dailygame.net

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=299955

"Graphically, CMII might not be the prettiest girl at the prom, but she’s certainly the most accurate. For example, the troops move like something out of "Stick Figure Theater," yet their helmets, uniforms and weapons are absolutely perfect matches for the real thing. A tank may look chunky and funky to you, but there won’t be a single incorrect marking, railing or weapon mount on it. Attention to detail is what captures the heart of hardcore wargamers, and the exacting level of detail applied to every unit in the game will guarantee CMII a place in every wargamer’s heart." Graphics Rating was 7.5 out of 10.

ign.com

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=114662

"In fact, the entire graphics palette has undergone a much-needed rehaul. It still fails to compete with the big names in 3D strategy (titles like Age of Myth or Warcraft III) but, for what it is, it's fantastic. The environments are much better rendered this time around with believable trees, time of day effects and realistically dense cities. While the vehicles look great, the soldiers are still a bit cartoony and suffer from stuttering animations. While it's not as impressive as a lot of recent RTS games, the scope of what's been accomplished in terms of variety is commendable."

gamezone.com

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=108163

"Graphics: 7.5 (out of 10)

Combat Mission is not the best looking tactical simulator out there with it’s rather odd looking characters but the grandeur of the environments are really something to behold. Just moving the mouse across the field reveals the environment be it a massive field or towns. The characters don’t look quite right with their misshapen head (but they do have great facial features) and awkwardly hilarious movements (when they run, you’ll swear you’re watching an episode of South Park)."

entdepot.com (entertainment depot)

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=132820

" Graphics: 8/10

A quick peek at the screenshots might lead one to wonder what all the fuss is about with regards to Combat Mission's graphics. After all, compared to such big-name RTS titles as Age of Mythology, it can seem less than impressive. However, in wargaming terms, Combat Mission is easily the best-looking title in the genre, even more so than its predecessor. The graphics have been noticeably improved, and now look decidedly more professional, with stronger textures, better effects, and a more fleshed-out environment. The soldier animations are still a bit off-putting at times, but when you consider the sheer scope of the game and that so much of it is represented in-game - and rather nicely at that - it's easily overlooked."

firingsquad.com

http://www.firingsquad.com/games/cmbbreview/

"The graphics may be limited, and the sound might not get enough chances to showcase itself, but both are good enough to let players suspend all disbelief and get totally sucked in. Although it would be a stretch to say that CMBB fell from the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, it would be fair to suggest that it got more than its fair share. Keeping in mind that ugly nowadays is far better than pretty was a scant 4 years ago. The sting is softened when we consider just how many models are in the game, done to scale and function rather flawlessly across so many different terrains. There are other mitigating circumstances, like the game having to run anywhere from ten to over a hundred units at a time. While it won’t win any awards, the graphics engine does manage to impress at times. It is difficult to think of a specific effect, but there are moments where the game comes together and provides a very immersive experience."

pgnx.net

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=109517

"The game's graphics are obviously not its strong point. The graphics won't make you want to play the game, but if you get into it, they won't want you to stop neither. The battlefield, soldiers and vehicles look decent and are modeled after actual WWII counterparts." Graphics score 6 out of 10.

OK. That was ten minutes of copy/paste that seems to prove my point that the critical reviews were not "almost all of them making critical, even insulting, remarks about the state of the graphics" and even the few that did not praise the graphics gave CMBB good points on the graphic ratings with the lowest score a 6 out of 10. That was EVERY link that still worked (I didn't search archives because I have already wasted enough time on this) including the ones that were at the bottom of the reviews for CMBB.

Is that less limited and selective?

The revisionism is not mine on the rating of CMBB and its state of the graphics when it came out.

CM:SF needed to improve the graphics to compete in today's world -- there is no denying that. The question is how much and at what cost to other game play features and mechanics.

My only point in this whole argument is to quit rewriting the history of CMx1 coming out as critically slammed and buggy. It was not.

What I've objected to is people using a fantasy view of CMx1 to make CMx1 look worse than it is. The only way to correct this unfair and factually flawed argument is to point out where people's perception of what CMx1 was differs from reality so the REAL CMx1 can be remembered.

I am sure that somewhere in da interweb a reviewer trashed CMBB's graphics. Every single game will have a detractor out there that doesn't like it. Although, I did not find any such review at the two major review aggregate sites I looked at. My point is that BY FAR most reviewers LOVED the game and at the least thought the graphics were good for the niche and at best thought the graphics were great for the times.

You have mentioned in the past year how buggy CMBO was with twelve patches (it was only 8 and many of those did not correct bugs but actually added free gameplay such as TCP/IP play) and also how ill-treated CMBO was in the press (I disagree and present the above links as proof). These seem to be revisionist viewpoints based on all evidence that I can find.

It just irks me to watch you slam a game that was great for its time with unsupported attacks. Even when presented with factual counter arguments it seems this topic can't die and you try to dismiss my presentation of every reviewer (not cherry picked) I could find in a quick search.

I guess I'm done. I won't post in this thread again since there doesn't really seem to be a point anymore. I don't think anyone besides me really cares about this anymore, and I think I have burned out my last feeling on this revisionistic history of CMx1.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

It just irks me to watch you slam a game that was great for its time with unsupported attacks. Even when presented with factual counter arguments it seems this topic can't die and you try to dismiss my presentation of every reviewer (not cherry picked) I could find in a quick search.

Did you read through the Archives like I suggested? Did you check the reviews that were poor? How about print ones that aren't online? Different languages?

You have mentioned in the past year how buggy CMBO was with twelve patches (it was only 8 and many of those did not correct bugs but actually added free gameplay such as TCP/IP play) and also how ill-treated CMBO was in the press (I disagree and present the above links as proof). These seem to be revisionist viewpoints based on all evidence that I can find.

It's not just the press I keep talking about but also customers. Again, there are the Archives to check out, though you can't check out the Steel Panthers and Close Combat areas that were slamming us and our graphics because those sites are long since dead.

I'll say this again, very clearly...

At the time when CMBB came out the graphics were criticized. That is a fact and spending a couple of minutes checking over the old Archives proved that. Therefore, in 2002, Charles and I were very hesitant to make CMAK because we knew we couldn't improve the graphics. It was at that point we realized that the graphics in CMx1 had to go and we had to update them.

I ask you... are you saying that Charles and I based this major decision on absolutely nothing? Do you think we invented negative reviewer and customer perception of the graphics of CMBB in order to justify years of hard work correcting a problem that didn't exist? Do you think we almost nixed CMAK for make-believe reasons?

I'm sorry Lurker, there is no other conclusion to come to other than we knew in 2000 that we were on borrowed time with our graphics, 2002 confirmed that, 2004 reinforced that confirmation. Well, I guess you could also accuse me of lying or being delusional, but I suggest those aren't the real reasons.

So what's your answer? All in our heads, lying, or perhaps we were paying far more attention to the marketplace and the reception of our games than you were? I mean, it is pretty odd to think that you would spend as much time on this issue as we would, what with the decision affecting whether or not we had jobs or not while it making no difference to you what-so-ever.

And in any case, this is a silly argument. I never once said that CMBB's graphics were bad. I said they were dated for their time and that they would be laughed at now. That is not a slam on CMBB, AK, or BO... it's a statement of reality. We don't have the luxury of being able to keep our heads in the sand about things like this. Game companies that don't innovate go out of business or are made irrelevant, no matter how good their previous products were.

Steve

[GSX]

Seems like a correlation to me. CMBO and CMBB graphics werent up to the standards of the day, neither are CMSF graphics. Look around at modern games and they graphically blow SF away.

But, thats never been the point, is it? Gameplay has always been paramount and you heve provided this, and in my opinion continue to do so.

CMSF will never be as good as CMBB gameplay wise, if the 2 games came out tomorrow and I could only buy one, it would be a CMBB no brainer. One is specific and the other is all encompasing. One has longevity and the other is pretty much throwaway, I mean you have guys that may like to play the Nazis over and over, but not so for the Syrians, no mystique there!

That said, Im looking forward to the mystique when CM returns to Normandy and beyond.

[MikeyD]

I sometimes wonder why this obsession with the 5-6 years of WWII over the other 2 millenia of history that's out there. Steel pot helmets and bolt action rifles, does this really sound like superior gameplay to RPG rockets, body armor and M32 grenade launchers? For me CMSF is vastly more entertaining and satisfying than CMx1. admitedly CMx1 was broader (300 different tanks) but also shallower (3 figures 'represent' a full squad). The primary difference appears to be that CMx1 was WWII, and WWII has been fetishized. Battling jack-booted SS is somehow 'different' than other opponents. Its like peoples emotional rsponse to WWII has more to do with the old movie 'the Night Porter" than any historical narrative.

[birdstrike]

CMx1 graphics were compared to RTS games - CMSF graphics are compared to FPS games.

Up to the graphical standards or not, IMHO any tactical game which is put into the same graphical league as FPS games does something right .

[panzermartin]

So many reasons WW2>Syrian for a tactical wargame. I needed and wanted the shift to a modern setting but now I'm ready to go back

Tank battles suck in CMSF. Its overkill and they are over in a matter of seconds. I miss the gripping >1 min duels from CMx1. I tend to play only inf battles in CMSF because I dislike everything from ATGMs to auto-cannons. Too accurate and fast. You may have more toys in a contemporqary setting but they all more or less behave the same. Also infantry squads like the marines or javelin equipped army units pretty much own everything in the battlefield to the point tanks, MGs, support become insignificant. Combined arms tactics are no longer a necessity.On the other hand a well positioned MG42 in a ww2 scenario will always be a puzzle to solve and thats the magic of the setting. Now you can just bring down the whole building with a 13 man squad and laught at it.

Slower pace..atmosphere, balance..water! And so many modding opportunities. Not suprisingly, I havent seen a single tank mod for CMSF.

[ChrisND]

Not suprisingly, I havent seen a single tank mod for CMSF.

You need glasses then.

[panzermartin]

I mean a real mod, not adding an extra hatch on the turret I know there are some out there but you just cant compare them to the vast variety of ww2 camos. Really hope BFC includes some kind of multi-skinning for the Normandy release.

[hcrof]

Who plays red v red here, because suddenly everything feels a bit more vulnerable!

The great thing about the Syrians is that they have such a variety of equipment available so republican guard v regulars or regulars v reservists becomes quite an interesting fight.

Pit the syrian regulars against insurgents too and you have an interesting battle.

I think people who only play as the Americans are missing out on quite an interesting part of the game.

[ChrisND]

I know there are some out there but you just cant compare them to the vast variety of ww2 camos.

I think that is the first time I've seen seen goal posts go super-sonic.

[Sergei]

you just cant compare them to the vast variety of ww2 camos.

Would this be enough variety for you?

Junk mail Abrams