trek Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I thought I'd pass along to the forum this link to a positive review of CMBN from a New Zealand website. Apologies, if this has already been posted elsewhere, although in a brief search of the forum I didn't see this article: Link: //nzgamer.com/pc/reviews/1399/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Still don't get why we have yet to see any reviews from non-obscure places. I would have thought Rock, Paper, Shotgun would have done one for sure considering how they posted a couple previews as well as announced when the demo came out, but no review. If you aren't familiar with the site, they review just about every indie PC game that comes out and have a pretty big following. Other sites that you would expect to do a review, like Out of Eight and SimHQ, never did one either. Did BFC ever send out review copies? I know CMSF was reviewed by tons of sites, but CMBN reviews are nowhere to be found. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Ah, I do like it when a game review gets the screenshots right! The screenshots in this review look like how I see the game, down in the trenches (literally) and not hovering 30 feet up and 30 feet back as though it was a boardgame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOSwas71331 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The review is interesting and full of praises for CM:BN. The accompanying reader comments are a mixed bag, with the ones by MichaelDorosh and killroy very hostile, both to the game and to Steve personally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The review is interesting and full of praises for CM:BN. The accompanying reader comments are a mixed bag, with the ones by MichaelDorosh and killroy very hostile, both to the game and to Steve personally. Steve should just not alow Mr MichaelDorosh and his gang to buy anymore product from Battlefront. They are on such a war path to try and demishish all the game has accomplished and want to place themselves as the judges of what it should be. That I personnally think they should not be allowed to have anymore of a product that they have chosen to try and discredit. Because, I can see them jerks playing it even with all the ranting they give. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Steve should just not alow Mr MichaelDorosh and his gang to buy anymore product from Battlefront. They are on such a war path to try and demishish all the game has accomplished and want to place themselves as the judges of what it should be. That I personnally think they should not be allowed to have anymore of a product that they have chosen to try and discredit. Because, I can see them jerks playing it even with all the ranting they give. Mr Michael Dorosh and his gang?? Could you please name his gang members so we can all mark them down as trouble makers. Also, not every review of CMN will be all sweetness and light. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Mr Michael Dorosh and his gang?? Could you please name his gang members so we can all mark them down as trouble makers. Also, not every review of CMN will be all sweetness and light. Being the number one minion, I think you can best answer that question yourself. No, not all reviews will be sweetness and light for various reasons. However, this one was positive. The game is out there and stands on its own. An informed person can judge it for themselves, reviews or demo, and see some of the dismissive reader comments for what they are - petty axe grinding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOSwas71331 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Mr Michael Dorosh and his gang?? Could you please name his gang members so we can all mark them down as trouble makers. Also, not every review of CMN will be all sweetness and light. The only two screen names I got from their critical posts were "MichaelDorosh and killroy." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Took me a moment to figure out what they meant with the Hornet. Hornet or in German Hornisse which became better known as Nashorn which to translates Rhinoceros. But yeah, what is up with the lack of more mainstream reviews. It is September now! Not even Rock Paper Shotgun? Then something really has gone wrong. If I were BFC I would contact Tim Stone who now has a regular column at RPS. Though I am pretty sure Mr Stone drops by these pages occasionally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Steve should just not alow Mr Michael Dorosh and his gang to buy anymore product from Battlefront. They are on such a war path to try and demishish all the game has accomplished and want to place themselves as the judges of what it should be. That I personnally think they should not be allowed to have anymore of a product that they have chosen to try and discredit. Because, I can see them jerks playing it even with all the ranting they give. I note that killroy wrote: I totally agree with Michael Dorosh. It's no longer Combat Mission it's some tinker toy for kids 12-13 years old. Real time kiddie clickfest bs. Where's the combat lines? I should have known after CMSF was so bad and dropped to $4.98 so fast it would make your head swim that this game would be no better. All this version is is a milking machine and just a breakdown of Combat Mission Beyond Overlord. Do yourself a favor and just get that game and CMAK. This one rides low on the real wargame meter. Also, I'm wondering if STEVE ever ATE that forum page he said he would eat if someone could prove publsihers/developers still supported games for FREE that were 8 years old+. We proved it and he didn't eat it. So when yah gonna eat your words STEVE? Oh that's right you don't keep your word do you? lmao. Well, if you follow the premise that everyone who doesn't hate and vilify Michael Dorosh is part the Michael Dorosh gang then Michael Dorosh and killroy are in the Michael Dorosh gang. Of course, on that premise I am also in the Michael Dorosh gang. On the subject of my membership in the Michael Dorosh gang I am not going to admit whether I am in the Michael Dorosh gang or deny that I am in the Michael Dorosh gang (the first rule of the Michael Dorosh gang is that you don't talk about the Michael Dorosh gang). However, slysniper, even if Michael Dorosh has formed a Michael Dorosh gang (and I submit there is no good evidence that Michael Dorosh has formed a Michael Dorosh gang or that a Michael Dorosh gang exists) then how is it inappropriate for Michael Dorosh or members of the Michael Dorosh gang to post comments about CMBfN. Please note, I am not suggesting that Michael Dorosh be permitted to post his views on the game in this forum. But the internet is free and logically there is no such thing as an invalid opinion. If Michael Dorosh or members of the Michael Dorosh gang choose to air their opinions of CMBfN on other forums (and in the case of members of the Michael Dorosh gang "their opinions" of course would be the opinions of Michael Dorosh rather than the personal opinions of the individuals who are members of the Michael Dorosh gang) that would appear to be entirely consistent with the object of the internet. Of course, there is an argument that the object of the internet is to facilitate the publication of ill informed and half arsed opinions. One may extrapolate from this that, give Michael Dorosh was a beta tester on CMBfN, the opinions of Michael Dorosh on CMBfN are, by definition, not half arsed or ill informed: therefore the opinions of Michael Dorosh on CMBfN are not consistent with the object of the internet and it would be inappropriate for the opinions of Michael Dorosh to be to posted on the internet (and this anti Michael Dorosh opinion theory would hold true whether the opinions of Michael Dorosh were posted by Michael Dorosh personally or whether the opinions of Michael Dorosh were posted by members of the Michael Dorosh gang). It is a thorny problem. On the one hand the opinions of Michael Dorosh (whether expressed by Michael Dorosh personally or expressed by members of the Michael Dorosh gang) are internet inappropriate because they do not meet the half arsed ill informed opinion test. On the other hand the opinions of Michael Dorosh (as expressed by Michael Dorosh and members of the Michael Dorosh gang) are internet appropriate because the internet is free and open to the ignorant and enlightened alike. Regardless of which theory of the internet is true, I consider the opinions expressed by slysniper on Michael Dorosh and the Michael Dorosh gang to be internet appropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Being the number one minion, I think you can best answer that question yourself. Post evidence here or apologise to me although I doubt your mature enough to do that. User38, that made me smile! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I note that killroy wrote: Well, if you follow the premise that everyone who doesn't hate and vilify Michael Dorosh is part the Michael Dorosh gang then Michael Dorosh and killroy are in the Michael Dorosh gang. Of course, on that premise I am also in the Michael Dorosh gang. Do you have any specific colors or tattoos to declare membership? I heard it was going to be feature in a Gangland episode. Right after Hell's Grannies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 OMG!! they are coming out of the woodwork now. The message board is infected with them and it's all the fault of MOSwas71331. Ban the trouble maker! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medex Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Things must be a bit slow over at GS today. Elvis and Dalem must be on holidays so there is not much to read and laugh at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Things must be a bit slow over at GS today. Elvis and Dalem must be on holidays so there is not much to read and laugh at. Didn't you know? they are the same person. I thought everyone knew that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Guys, none of this please. It's not okay to attack and vilify people when they can't effectively defend themselves. That goes for review comment threads, and forums people don't visit, alike. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I would say that "without compromise" is a step too far. The rest of the review is fair, but compromises have been made - there is no denying it. It's still an awesome game with far fewer compromises that any other similar game out there, be they generated by design decisions or ability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 But the internet is free. Well **** me. I've been paying $39/month for it. :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 A sim without compromises is a sim unplayable on any commercially available computer system. Personally, I'd rather have a sim I'm able to play on my imac than a fantasy 'ideal' game that's unbuildable, and probably not much fun to operate if it was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Well, that was a few laughs, at the expense of the said gang that I should not comment about because they cannot defend themselves here. Shall I start calling him" He who shall not be mentioned "or whatever that line is in Harry Potter. This is the perfect place to have fun at his childish actions. I do not have to hear his educated rebuttal. He can say and have an opinion all he wants, he can post it anywhere he thinks it matters. I on the other hand can comment on such remarks as for what I see them to be. He has been offended and has decided to do what he can to fight back. Why, only he truly knows, I do not see what it will get him other than how he is making a fool of himself too many others. It is not that there are good points in what he wants to prove as short comings. But by God this is a game someone else developed and made the decisions and choices as to how to make it work. He wants perfection of a game which he could not design but which in his own mind thinks they should be able to provide and cannot accept the fact it does not exist. Many of us would like to see things differently in the game. But it is no call to try and attack the company that has done the best job out there to try and provide it. It is an immature action with an outcome that solves nothing. Thus it deserves the same type of reward as if it was a child throwing a fit. Thus my earlier comment, whether right or wrong , it is how I feel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 A sim without compromises is a sim unplayable on any commercially available computer system. Personally, I'd rather have a sim I'm able to play on my imac than a fantasy 'ideal' game that's unbuildable, and probably not much fun to operate if it was. A sim without compromises would end up with most of us very very bored. Personally I'll stick with the sim I can play in my living room where my greatest discomfort is trying to time my bathroom break with all the compromises that immediately implies. If folks really want the ultimate in realism, they are free to sign up with the army. (No disrespect to those players who have or are serving.) As it is this is one of those "the glass is half full" issues. Von Kleist and I are winding down our Bois de Baugin PBEM and I think we are both intensely impressed with how the game has functioned. Yeah I had an AT gunner waste a few rounds hitting the same tree, but heck he was firing from an orchard at a target fairly distant. This is not an unexpected result. As one can tell from my posts in the screenshot thread, every single turn in this battle produced yet another fairly stunning vignette. If this game had only come packaged with the Bois de Baugin scenario I have already gotten well over 100 hours of very intense game play time. Meanwhile Broadsword and I have launched into a game with an OP layer and map that is frankly stunning. The play time/game cost value chart curve is going up at an extremely sharp angle and is only getting better. The point of all this? I could care less what anyone says in a review good or bad. I'm too busy enjoying this game like I have no other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Well, that was a few laughs, at the expense of the said gang that I should not comment about because they cannot defend themselves here. Shall I start calling him" He who shall not be mentioned "or whatever that line is in Harry Potter. This is the perfect place to have fun at his childish actions. I do not have to hear his educated rebuttal. He can say and have an opinion all he wants, he can post it anywhere he thinks it matters. I on the other hand can comment on such remarks as for what I see them to be. He has been offended and has decided to do what he can to fight back. Why, only he truly knows, I do not see what it will get him other than how he is making a fool of himself too many others. It is not that there are good points in what he wants to prove as short comings. But by God this is a game someone else developed and made the decisions and choices as to how to make it work. He wants perfection of a game which he could not design but which in his own mind thinks they should be able to provide and cannot accept the fact it does not exist. Many of us would like to see things differently in the game. But it is no call to try and attack the company that has done the best job out there to try and provide it. It is an immature action with an outcome that solves nothing. Thus it deserves the same type of reward as if it was a child throwing a fit. Thus my earlier comment, whether right or wrong , it is how I feel. Try reading Phil Culliton's message before posting next time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 So, what's been going on here? I was over on another chat group trashing Farmville for being insufficiently realistic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 So, what's been going on here? I was over on another chat group trashing Farmville for being insufficiently realistic. now that's funny. Do they have hedgerows in farmville? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 "...but building interiors are empty shells" = True "...and infantry cannot ride on tanks (despite the fact historian Michael Doubler insisted the 2d Armored Division did just that as a reaction to the challenges of the bocage)." = True "Two-foot tall hedgerows in the game are impassable to 20-ton tanks," = True " and the same-old pathing problems from CM:SF have reappeared, as they show off their vulnerable flanks to go finding the long way around. " = True "Headquarters units still lead attacks. The AI leads attacks with headquarters units (and there are a lot of them with the new order of battle and command/control structure)" = True "As for the history - German paratroop units, some of the major defenders of the Normandy front, are not included." = True "Tiger tanks are, despite not having been present in Normandy versus the Americans. Hornets are not included, neither are the SS. We have to wait and pay for the add-on modules." = True "This definitive game depicting Normandy also doesn't include a single parachute, glider, landing craft, beach assault or custom fortification, be it a Tobruk or an H677 bunker. No Army Rangers. No DD tanks." = True Before you ask I am not!!! Mike has expressed his opinion and the points he raises are true. Of course he does not balance it with all the good stuff but that is his choice. After walking a fair bit of Normandy it is a pity that no beach scenarios could be included especially the fortifications like tobruk pits which are a fairly common feature. But I understand why they are not there and accept that they might never be. To me it is the only game in town but all that has been noted would be great if it could be included or addressed. Obviously lots of commercial choices made and that is fair enough as BTS made the game their choice to make. You see people think 10 years there should be more but reality does always meet what people hope for. Not sure what Killroy was talking about but Mike made some fair points (perhaps in an aggressive manner) but fair points. Good to see more positive reviews and I hope one day these boards will buzz with same hum as CMX1... Now where is the Brits module.... That might get Mike back here.... 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.