Alan8325 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 About the Syria setting, it really makes no difference from an equipment and maybe training standpoint what middle-eastern country or terrorist faction is the antagonist in this game. The game includes almost all generic Russian military export equipment that potential or current U.S. opponents, other than Russia itself or China, would have. If you prefer Iran as the bad guy, mod in some Iranian uniform and vehicle skins and there you have it, Iran as the bad guy with all its toys. If you want Al-Qaida or Taliban, the already included unconventional units and equipment pretty much already cover it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 About the Syria setting, it really makes no difference from an equipment and maybe training standpoint what middle-eastern country or terrorist faction is the antagonist in this game. The game includes almost all generic Russian military export equipment that potential or current U.S. opponents, other than Russia itself or China, would have. If you prefer Iran as the bad guy, mod in some Iranian uniform and vehicle skins and there you have it, Iran as the bad guy with all its toys. If you want Al-Qaida or Taliban, the already included unconventional units and equipment pretty much already cover it. I honestly have no idea if the reviewer was pining for WWII or just missed the quick battles, multiple nationalities available, random map generator, etc. I also have no idea if the reviewer wanted a WWII setting or China, Russian or Iranian opposing forces. This is why I didn't like the review very much -- it wasn't very detailed. It was better than his "review" of CMSF (the original release). If he did want Iranian hardware I don't think you can just mod the Syrian stuff. Iran fields tons of different equipment including old school stuff like the Chieftan as well as new in house tanks like the Zulfiqar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 It's clear he didn't do too much with it, he listed it as having no multiplayer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I don't know the review seemed overall very positive to me, at least that's the impression I first got. The reviewer still misses some of the features from CM1 and definitely doesn't like the Syria setting, but apart from that it was kudos to BFC sticking it out and making the game better. The only quibble I have with the review is it was very short on substance. In the end BFC is still the only game in town for this market. Now where's WWII again? Ron 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta228 Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 yeah, i agree Ron. I thought the review was really positive, especially considering that PCGamer (not Games Radar) gave the base CMSF a 75%. In short, the review basiclly says that it is a huge improvement over the base game, which I assumed was good news.... Also, where are all you guys getting the "this game sucks because its not WWII and thats all BFC can do well" part of this review? i did not pick up on this at all. I took the part about the "dissapointing venue" to mean that the module essentially just added units and fixes to the base game, rather than a new part of the globe to fight on. But in all, I think it is a pretty accurate review. Also remember that in the PCGamer scale, an 8 is an "excellent". It's not like a school grading system where an 80 is a B-. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 He didn't say that BFC can only do WWII well, but he was disappointed in Syria as the setting, said the game lacks the charm of the CMx1 games (all set in WWII), and he said he wants panzers. From that I infer he would prefer a WWII setting. But he doesn't elaborate. I also want WWII, but I wouldn't knock CMSF because it isn't WWII. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Also, where are all you guys getting the "this game sucks because its not WWII and thats all BFC can do well" part of this review? i did not pick up on this at all. Check out Steve's post on the same page as your post. He quotes one of the two places in which they said it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta228 Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 Check out Steve's post on the same page as your post. He quotes one of the two places in which they said it. I took the PCGamer quote to mean more of the: CMSF lacks some of its predecessors great features. I didn't take it so much as the "WE WANT A WWII GAME!" thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 .... and Smaragdadler. It's not a time issue. It is a "What interests you?". For example here's what I prefer to spend my wargaming time on: WWII >> WWI >> 1980's NATO/Soviet conflict >> Medieval Warfare >> Roman Era wars (including Carthage etc) >> Greek City-State Era Wars >> American Revolutionary War >> Napolenonic Wars >> Civil War >> Vietnam War >> current Middle East Conflict Of course it's all about what interest you. The point is, that in wargaming, if something has interested you before, one can asume that you have 'made your homework' (researching what the tec is capable of and how to apply it with your tactics). If you have made that for one 'topic' it is easy to jump in another 'chapter' of that 'topic'. And the 'topic-line' follows a tec-schedule, which HAS a 'time issue': 'Ancient Style' ('gunpowder tec' has no or negligible impact on tactics): Greek City-State Era Wars Roman Era wars (including Carthage etc) Medieval Warfare 'Cannon and Musket' (muzzle loader tactics) American Revolutionary War Napolenonic Wars Civil War Prussia 'Early modern' (the machine gun arrives big style) WWI 'classic modern' ('mechanized tactics without rocket tec and electronics) WWII (Korea) 'modern' (mechanized with rocket tec and classical electronics) Vietnam War 1980's NATO/Soviet conflict post modern (microtechnology arrives and has a big impact) current Middle East Conflict And it is absolutly correct for a reviewer to assume that some of his readers are not willing to do 'more homework' and want to stay with the 'topic' they know. For them the words 'no panzers' are enought to make it clear... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 After all the negative reviews CMSF garnered on its release, this review at least adds a positive piece of press. Some of these review sites/magazines refuse to re-review a game after its patched; I think we can all agree that CMSF has been harmed by its initial state and a review of v1.11 (or the soon? to be released v1.20) would be totally different. This review seems almost to be a way around that policy. It seems to be a way to review CMSF in its current, very polished, state. The fact that it calls itself a review of CM:Marines is almost beside the point. Regardless of its brevity and the WWII comment, the rating is good. I'm sure there's a residual impact from the initial CMSF score; I'm sure that rating has brought down the Marines rating somewhat. It's still positive. Now, when will they print it in a hard copy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabal23 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I will agree with the reviewer. I think it is a fair review considering the amount of polish the game needed to be complete. I mean Marines shored up a hole bunch of holes left from the vanilla version. So I think it was fair and perhaps the WWII cmx2 will be reviewed even better because all the kinks will have been worked out by then hopefully, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrocles Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 He didn't say that BFC can only do WWII well, but he was disappointed in Syria as the setting, said the game lacks the charm of the CMx1 games (all set in WWII), and he said he wants panzers. From that I infer he would prefer a WWII setting. But he doesn't elaborate. I also want WWII, but I wouldn't knock CMSF because it isn't WWII. well said! I think most of the folks here are a bit sensitive to any (perceived or actual) negative CMSF comments. The reviewer gave a thumbs up the game (8/10) and they are not happy! go figure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Leto, Modules should have lots more toys, features and units (I always compare the value of modules to the ASL series modules... a few improvements in the engine and a schwack of new shiny units that offer diversity and new tactical opportunities. Marines does... it's just that apparently he's not that interested in it Because of the shortness of the review we all have to read into it something since, as Lurker pointed out, there's really not much there to begin with. As I said before, overall it is a positive review so I'm only quibbling with this one point that I've already mentioned and Pvt. Ryan summed up again quite nicely: He didn't say that BFC can only do WWII well, but he was disappointed in Syria as the setting, said the game lacks the charm of the CMx1 games (all set in WWII), and he said he wants panzers. From that I infer he would prefer a WWII setting. But he doesn't elaborate. I also want WWII, but I wouldn't knock CMSF because it isn't WWII. The implication is that CM:SF and its Modules are inherently less interesting than WW2. For someone who is a big fan of WW2 and not modern warfare, that's an understandable opinion. For someone who likes Warcraft it's understandable that he wouldn't like the modern Syrian setting either What place does a reviewer's personal genre preference have in a review? As I said before, there is an implication that WW2 is somehow superior to modern and I don't think that is a justifiable stance to take in a review (I also think customers shouldn't be so snobbish either ) any more than someone reviewing CM: Normandy and saying "what we're really waiting for is Space Lobsters". Again... minor quibble all in all. I have to listen to you customers quibble all day long year after year so I think I'm entitled to quibble now and then Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 People should be glad that somebody re-tests the game at all. And I interpret the "Panzers" comments like this: a) lots of different Panzers, not just 1 kind of tank on one side (U.S.). even strength of tanks on both sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Oh, and the lack of depth in the review makes this one conclusion of his a puzzler... * Not an essential entry in the series Where is the definition of "essential" and what isn't? Since the CM:SF series is set in Syria, I'm not sure what would be "essential" if adding forces to it isn't As someone else said, it looks like that the reviewer doesn't seem to understand the Module concept. Modules build off of the primary game, in this case CM:SF's modern Syrian setting. So yeah... it's still Syria because it's still CM:SF. That's only a negative point if you don't like the setting, which obviously (as we knew 6 years ago) a lot of WW2 buffs don't. Which gets back to my point... it's not his place to declare what sort of setting wargamers should want or not want. The CM:SF game series is designed to please people who want modern arid warfare, not people who want temperate WW2 combat. That's what CM: Normandy is for Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Redwolf, People should be glad that somebody re-tests the game at all. It's a new release, he's a reviewer, it's his job to review it And I interpret the "Panzers" comments like this: Nah... if that were the case he wouldn't have used the word "panzer" and would have instead used "tank". But whatever the case is... he would have liked something that CM:SF Marines wasn't intended to be. That point is clear, even if his reasoning behind it isn't explained well. I'll say again... it's a minor quibble. I've yet to see a review of ANYTHING (game or otherwise) that I don't have some quibble with, so on that count the review is pretty good. I think most people can say the same thing Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 My $.02... I interpret "Not an essential entry in the series" to be an opinion about CM:SF in relation to CMx1 rather than CM:SF Marines in relation to CM:SF. Many Reviewers have expressed opinions about the interests of gamers when reviewing sim-type games. Just about every review of Dangerous Waters, a game I bought from Battlefront, that I've read has contained some type of warning about it not appealing to gamers who are unwilling to invest the time necessary to enjoy it, or who may not enjoy the naval sim genre as a whole. In this tightening economy I think those types of warnings might be appreciated by gamers and not appreciated by game developers... I whole-heartedly agree the review was too brief. As one who has just started messing around with the Marines kit, I think he completely distorts the value added by the module. However, the fact that he bulletpoints elements of the improved gameplay since his last review and upped the score to an 8 is a good thing when you consider that there are those who look at conclusions prior to reading reviews... (well, there's at least one person who does that) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassplayer192837 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 It's clear he didn't do too much with it, he listed it as having no multiplayer. what i think he meant is that it has no local system multiplayer. Most other consoles like Xbox 360 for example has seperate information on local multiplayer and online multiplayer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helm123 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 what i think he meant is that it has no local system multiplayer. Most other consoles like Xbox 360 for example has seperate information on local multiplayer and online multiplayer Didn't realize they now had a console version of CMSF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Leto, Marines does... it's just that apparently he's not that interested in it Good to know... I may buy the Marines module when I can finally get my copy of CMSF to work... anyone know what the computer specs needed to run it is offhand? Maybe my 2.33 Pentium / ATI Radeon 2600 set up is not boss enough? (I also think customers shouldn't be so snobbish either ) any more than someone reviewing CM: Normandy and saying "what we're really waiting for is Space Lobsters". LOL! Good luck! Man, you are quibbling... pretty much all consumers are snobs... that's just how the market works: individual taste. Figuring out how to cater to all those different tastes is the sweet spot we all swing for... I will thus retain my right to continue to be a snob and paw at you for CM Normandy... give me some credit for buying CMSF and working on that in the meantime... ; ) Again... minor quibble all in all. I have to listen to you customers quibble all day long year after year so I think I'm entitled to quibble now and then Steve Yep, that's the unfortunate tale of most game developers. That less than stately Raven will be perched above your pallid bust of Pallas right above your chamber door... forevermore! ; ) Cheers! Leto 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 sfhand, I whole-heartedly agree the review was too brief. As one who has just started messing around with the Marines kit, I think he completely distorts the value added by the module. My experience is that the people who say that the Marines don't have much new to offer the game experience aren't the ones actually playing with the Marines From the people who purchased and play with Marines I usually see comments which state the exact opposite. Leto, LOL! Good luck! Man, you are quibbling... pretty much all consumers are snobs... that's just how the market works: individual taste. Figuring out how to cater to all those different tastes is the sweet spot we all swing for... Not us... the old adage is that if you try to please everybody you wind up pleasing nobody We don't have a problem with the WW2 customers not wanting to purchase CM:SF in large numbers since that is what we expected the day we made the decision to make a modern wargame. It's the WW2 customers that had a problem with us not making a WW2 game. I understand them wanting us to make only games they like, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to oblige. Plus, WW2 gamers can't agree on what is the best setting anyway, so whatever we pick is going to annoy a big segment of the WW2 guys anyway. And people think making games for a living is fun To be fair to this reviewer, having someone review something and say "this x would be better if it was something else entirely" is a pet peeve of mine generally speaking. Movies, games, books, music, whatever. Something should be reviewed within the context of what it was intended to be, not what the reviewer would have rather liked. If after an in-depth and knowledgeable review, within the context of what that something is trying to do, offering up advice for specific market segments makes sense. For example, a reviewer of the movie The Fifth Element could end by saying "if you're a hard-nosed science fiction lover, who eschews campy action flick elements, then you might want to pass on seeing this one". It doesn't imply that the movie would be better if it was more serious, rather it correctly says that it's not designed for that audience. Still, as I've said it's a fairly minor quibble Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfred66 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Well. if the bulk of CMX1 fans have purchased CM:SF, you are on a winner and should stick to the modern era. If not, you better get crackin' on WW2. A lot of potential money going to waste;) Too much posting, not enough working 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Wow, that isn't disrespectful at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaneO Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 having someone review something and say "this x would be better if it was something else entirely" is a pet peeve of mine generally speaking. Like all computer games, Combat Mission: Shock Force would be improved by the main character being Minsc from Baldur's Gate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ...and Boo can play the part of the Hamstertruppen or whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.