How is CM:SF regarded?

[LJFHutch]

I'm relatively new to the series I suppose - 1-2 years - so I don't know much beyond anecdotal stuff and my own biased warm feelings for it I've heard a bit about the big angry period in '07 about SF, but I can't really see how anyone could be disappointed with all the improvements.

What do people generally think of SF though? Positive or negative?

[ChrisND]

I'm relatively new to the series I suppose - 1-2 years - so I don't know much beyond anecdotal stuff and my own biased warm feelings for it I've heard a bit about the big angry period in '07 about SF, but I can't really see how anyone could be disappointed with all the improvements.

What do people generally think of SF though? Positive or negative?

Status update on can of worms:

Opened.

[Sivodsi]

I would expect that the answers in this thread will be mostly positive since after all this time those who were pissed off with CMSF would have either given up checking these boards or been banned outright.

Of course there are still a few mopers who only come here to knock the game because they were disappointed that it wasn't a WW2 game... which I find rather bizarre.

As the latest WW2 version is in the offing, I expect that a few more of this kind of person to emerge from the depths of the CMx1 boards, to be here, lurking for news of CM:N, and who knows, may even make an appearance in this very thread (if we're lucky). But apart from them, positive with a few "apart from..." and "except for..." -type criticisms (like the QB system and the lack of kill stats for example).

Go on, somebody, prove me wrong!

Edit to add: I will quickly say that those who were banned were kicked out for personal criticism and other objectionable behaviour rather than for simply being negative about the early versions of the game.

[LJFHutch]

But currently what's it like? Do most following CM regard it with a positive attitude or a negative one? I'm curious because of the effect it may have on CM:N I suppose.

Having just played CM:BO and BB, at a glance the most drastic difference appears to be the WW2>modern setting. I mean in terms of the effect on gameplay.

[scottie]

I would expect that the answers in this thread will be mostly positive since after all this time those who were pissed off with CMSF would have either given up checking these boards or been banned outright. .

... apart from me pissed off is too strong a word to be honest. I love 99% of BF products, been purchasing since CMBO , for me CM:SF was a disappointment on release but 3 things i would add to that:

1) it was full of bugs which i believe are now fixed

2) i didn't enjoy the theatre of war

3) felt i had no control , everything seemed very automatic

So looking forward to CM:N hoping it will satisfy the hole that has been there since CMx1 brand was stopped.

Scott

[Dietrich]

[à la Jeremy Clarkson when introducing The Stig on Top Gear:]

"Some say it's one of the best tactical computer wargames since the original Combat Mission series.

[shrug] Others say it's an atrocity liked only by those whom the game's publishers have brainwashed.

All we know is... [pause for effect] ...it's called Shock Force!"

[scottie]

[à la Jeremy Clarkson when introducing The Stig on Top Gear:]

"Some say it's one of the best tactical computer wargames since the original Combat Mission series.

[shrug] Others say it's an atrocity liked only by those whom the game's publishers have brainwashed.

All we know is... [pause for effect] ...it's called Shock Force!"

Wow Top Gear has made it way over state side ! Did you see the episode with the Apache and the Exige ? ... that article alone sold me the Exige

[LJFHutch]

[à la Jeremy Clarkson when introducing The Stig on Top Gear:]

"Some say it's one of the best tactical computer wargames since the original Combat Mission series.

[shrug] Others say it's an atrocity liked only by those whom the game's publishers have brainwashed.

All we know is... [pause for effect] ...it's called Shock Force!"

Haha CM:SF is certainly harder to play than the others, much less forgiving and requires a whole lot more concentration - though it could be that I play RT most of the time.

[phil stanbridge]

I'll be totally honest when SF was released I was pretty disappointed. I prefer WWII, and I was still playing CMBB/CMAK daily. It didn't really address any of my needs at the time. I tried it a couple of times and couldn't get into it. I found it buggy and very unstable. I shelved the demo, gave up on the forum and went into a deep depression.

I came back to the game 3 years later. I LOVED it. I don't know what happened - but a lot of the major issues I had were fixed, it was *more* stable (but not 100% hehe). I think the modules added a new element to the game for me. It was more topical. It looked and sounded better. Everything had improved.

I now own all the modules, have just bought NATO and am slowly getting into Afghanistan. Just in time to be majorly disappointed with Normandy (Hopefully not!)

[LJFHutch]

Phil, that's pretty much what happened with me too: first played it in like, '07 or '08, the demo - with no idea what it or CM was in general. Of course back then I only had a laptop that didn't support OpenGL (shakes fist in air) so I had to play it on a friends computer (had to convince him to let me use it ). We were anything but impressed, which annoyed me since I was looking forward to it. Tried it again when I got my PC built and fell in love with it. I mean it has it's quirks, but is rather awesome.

[Wodin]

It has become an all time classic game for me...I too held off due to the bad press....then bought it after seeing a winning video entry...soon after I bought both modules....best combat sim at this scale hands down...

[scottie]

you are all tempting me to buy NATO now ..... just need to dig out that copy of SF ... could be anywhere by now

[phil stanbridge]

you are all tempting me to buy NATO now ..... just need to dig out that copy of SF ... could be anywhere by now

Definitely mate. NATO should improve SF by some margin if you consider the gap between SF and Afghanistan.

[Sivodsi]

... apart from me pissed off is too strong a word to be honest. I love 99% of BF products, been purchasing since CMBO , for me CM:SF was a disappointment on release but 3 things i would add to that:

1) it was full of bugs which i believe are now fixed

2) i didn't enjoy the theatre of war

3) felt i had no control , everything seemed very automatic

So looking forward to CM:N hoping it will satisfy the hole that has been there since CMx1 brand was stopped.

Scott

Nah, mate, had you covered

... come here to knock the game because they were disappointed that it wasn't a WW2 game...

As the latest WW2 version is in the offing, I expect that a few more of this kind of person to emerge from the depths of the CMx1 boards, to be here, lurking for news of CM:N, and who knows, may even make an appearance in this very thread (if we're lucky).

However, you sound more open minded than most

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Many feel that CMSF has gotten better over time, and I certainly agree with that. However, and it's a big however, it hasn't kept pace with my expectations of progress. My net appreciation for the game has actually declined.

It hasn't had three years worth of improvements, I feel. It's a brilliant 2007 wargame now. For a 2010 wargame, it really should be a bit better. Some stuff hasn't been improved as much as I had expected or hoped for in the mean time, most notably QBs, kill stats and moveable waypoints.

I can only hope that is because most of the focus went in to improving CM:N. I was shocked at the "water" in CM:A. Stuff like that isn't acceptable any more, and I would regard it as a real let down if we are to see that in CM:N.

CMSF is now fairly good, but if CM:N were to be CMSF but set in WW2 and with QBs, I'm going to be parting company sooner rather then later.

[Erwin]

I think of the CM2 games system as essentially different from CM1, but with a very similar interface that makes it easy to go from one game system to the other.

While CMSF is far better than anything else out there (actually, is there anything else similar out there?), I find that after a few months of intense CM2 play, I really enjoy going back to CM1 as that is a more fun/enjoyable system, easier and has far more scope and variety than CM2. After a few months of CM1 I hanker to try CM2 again.

[WineCape]

... Of course there are still a few mopers who only come here to knock the game because they were disappointed that it wasn't a WW2 game... which I find rather bizarre.

As the latest WW2 version is in the offing, I expect that a few more of this kind of person to emerge from the depths of the CMx1 boards, to be here, lurking for news of CM:N, and who knows, may even make an appearance in this very thread (if we're lucky).

Watch it sonny! I'm a very deep lurker ....

[MikeyD]

My perception: CMSF is a superior "boutique" game. By that I mean some of the 'rules' governing super-fancy big-money mass-market XBox games don't apply. And most players understand that would be comparing apples to oranges. You're willing to do without a bit of flash & dazzle in trade for more depth and nuance.

Basically, if CM games never existed they'd be exactly the sort of fantasy games serious military buffs would kill for a chance to own.

[mike_the_wino]

you are all tempting me to buy NATO now ..... just need to dig out that copy of SF ... could be anywhere by now

Send me a SASE and i will send you mine. Even got the mouse pad to boot.

That genre/ place/ time/ etc. didn't do it for me.

[Wodin]

As I said before I had low expectations on CMSF all the bad press and unhappy CMx1 fans aswell as the area of operations etc made me stay clear of the game. However once I decided to take the chance with it I feel it's streets ahead of any other squad based wargame out there...nothing comes close...I can't think of any other game around that you could even compare it to....it has depth and feels right...it's not arcade in anyway...yes it has some limitations and like anything else could be improved in all areas....HOWEVER as no other developer seems remotely interested in developing a realistic squad level combat simulation then I'm more than happy I have CMSF as it fills that massive gap very well indeed....also I have faith (which as each patch came out seems justified) the game will over the next few releases get better and better until the niggles we have (which are in no way game breaking) will get ironed out and all the extra features we want will become reality.

I am glad that I never purchased the game on release and got it a fair few patch's down the line...maybe I would have felt jaded or let down that much after CMBB I would lose faith in Battlefront and the CMx2 series....it seems that many of the detracters of Cmx2 bought the game at release and where massive CMx1 fans (who wasn't though?)...I've passed the word on to a few people on other forums over the last 12 months about how good I think CMSF is....those who went and bought the game have all really enjoyed it and where very happy with their purchase...so much that all of them went and bought the modules....not one of them came back and said they regret purchasing the game and didn't really enjoy it....which does make me think that my previous comments have a ring of truth about them...

One last thing....atmosphere...this is an area for me that the game excells in....the game is intense and exciting and feels right....it also has oodles of gameplay...with so many developers churning out the same old crap or concentrating on graphics and some games giving you just 15 hrs of play with the same sort of gameplay a hundred other games give you CMSF is a refreshing chnage...it takes me back to when games would last you months if not a couple of years and you still went back for more...god knows how many scenarios I have now but it's alot and I know I still have countless hours of intense combat and tactical brain ache to enjoy for the foreseeble future..

[Battlefront.com]

Con of worms, indeed Without bashing or sucking up to anybody, I think CM:SF has three camps within the community of people that generally like serious minded wargames (i.e. not people who expect hit points and powerups):

1. Don't care for the setting, therefore the game itself is irrelevant. CM:SF could be based on a game system 10000 times better than CMx1 and it wouldn't matter one iota. A pretty big chunk of CMx1's original fanbase falls into this category. And they made that known starting in 2005, long before the game was released. Just like we have CMBO diehards who don't like CMBB.

2. People who were mildly interested in CM:SF when it came out, but were disappointed with either the setting or the game itself. Some abandoned CM:SF and never looked back, some came back later and either remained in this group or moved to group #3.

3. Really like the game itself, with varying degrees of interest in the setting. We have people who LOVE modern warfare and love CM:SF's portrayal. Some love the game, but given a choice between modern and WW2 they would go with WW2. There are also people who aren't head over heals for the game engine as a whole, however they find the experience rewarding enough to keep playing.

Each person decides for themselves which group they associate themselves with most.

When Normandy comes out people will fit into these same three categories. Some will hate the setting and steer clear. Others will find the game doesn't have certain features they want or certain features they don't want, and that this balance will make them less than enthusiastic about continuing to play. Then, of course, there will be the people that generally like/love the game and keep on playing it.

A special note about Modules. These were always designed to appeal more narrowly than the base game itself. As long as a Module appeals to enough people to repay us for making it, then all is right with the world. So far we've been extremely pleased to find out that the Modules have appealed far more broadly than we expected. Which, to me, indicates that the basic game engine's appeal isn't limited to those who have specialized interest in specific content. Comments here on this forum support that hypothesis.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

There's a lot of comment here on how the game played back in 2007. I frankly can't recall how the game played back in 2007. To me the game that's in front of me today is the game. 200(?) scenario, five campaigns, a regular smorgasbord of modern equipment to play with. Granted, as a Beta guy the game that's in front of me is slightly different than the one in front of you. But that oversight will be correctable soon enough

[Erwin]

Back in the day, there was a lot of talk about how a boutique/small niche market company could stay in business considering the small fan base (compared with mass-market games).

It seemed to me that since CM1 had stopped me having to buy 20 other games every year that lasted each maybe a few weeks on my HD, that we should consider games like CM1 as "works of art" and expect to pay a couple hundred bucks for it - since it saved more than that in not wasting money on other games.

BFC has a clever strategy to achieve the same goal of increasing the price of the game, by releasing it in numerous inexpensive modules.

We should be very happy that at least one game company can survive making high quality niche games.

[riptides]

I have been around since dirt. Huge fan of the Battlefront "potential" in the market. Lost interest after Beyond Overlord. Bought CMSF, disappointed with the abstractions, loss of exits, missing kill stats, quick battle selection, all the normal gripe stuff. Still play it, though.

Waiting for Normandy. The potential is in the games, just needs to be released.