PC Gamer review

[Animal_Mother]

Couldn't find it anywhere so I wasn't sure if you guys were aware: PC Gamer magazine has reviewed CMBN--I quote their verdict:

"CMBN is a very good tactical wargame saddled with pre-alpha looks & controls. You really have to want it."

Rating: 73%

I thought it deserved better, but there it is.

[c3k]

Yeah, I was disappointed by that review. Of course, after having been a PCG subscriber for over a decade (wow, I'll check, but it may've been close to 20 years?), I stopped my subscription. Their entire approach has been getting more and more superficial. Eye-candy rules PC Gamer. Andy Mahood is the only one left who looks a bit deeper at the games. The magazine seems to aim for the twitch crowd. And by "twitch crowd" I mean those who rely on twitter for all the information in their lives. Attention spans measured in seconds. It has to be pretty and make them say "oooh", or they look at next shiny object in the window.

PC Gamer died a long time ago. They used to be an independent powerhouse affecting game publishers. They sold out...

RIP, PCG.

(The rating/review is a hard-look. If they took that same stance at EVERY game they reviewed, they might regain some credibility. They don't and won't.)

Shrug.

Ken

[Tank Hunter]

It is however important to remember that reviewers today are expecting a certain standard that applies on a broad main stream gaming front and there the looks rule over depth. It is not strange that magazines such as PCG will give mediocre reviews to games like CMBN because in order to appreciate it you really need to be into the tactical wargaming. The majority of gamers today want fast paced action that feels and looks cool. While I personally would like to see better graphics and interface in CMx2 games I still appreciate the depth that keeps me coming back for more.

Would I buy CMBN if I wasn't into military history and strategy? Most definitely not. That's OK since I don't think BF is aiming at main stream market. IF they do they'll have to improve on the visual side a lot and probably sacrifice realism something that I would never trade.

[Ranger33]

Have you guys heard of Minecraft? Good graphics are not required to make a massively popular game. Just saying.

I haven't read the review, but to be fair, the game does lag behind in pretty much every area besides the actual tactical goodness. Tutorial via manual is straight out of the 90s, multiplayer is the definition of barebones, all save games are thrown in one big folder, can't customize key config from within the game, no cancel button when ending turns, on and on. Just like the review summary says, the gameplay is there, but nothing else is. Still, 73% isn't that bad, plenty of my favorite games have been in the 70-79% range when it comes to reviews.

[Runyan99]

(The rating/review is a hard-look. If they took that same stance at EVERY game they reviewed, they might regain some credibility. They don't and won't.)

Shrug.

Ken

Maybe you just didn't really want a hard look.

You really can't claim that the controls are intuitive, or the graphics are on par with other contemporary games. I don't see a problem with the review.

[StellarRat]

They probably think BLACK OPS is a great game too even though it's just an advanced version of Doom. The problem is that many of reviewers are young twitch gamers themselves. Some games need a good look under the hood and a deep understanding of the subject to really appreciate. My guess is that a lot of reviewers aren't wargamers, aren't interested in history, and/or don't spend the time needed with the game to appreciate it. The best place to get reviews IMO is the Armchair General. Those guys are ex-military/long time gamers.

[Noltyboy]

We should send it to Yahtzee!

A bunch of his review shows here. (Lotsa swearing!)

[noxnoctum]

Have you guys heard of Minecraft? Good graphics are not required to make a massively popular game. Just saying.

I haven't read the review, but to be fair, the game does lag behind in pretty much every area besides the actual tactical goodness. Tutorial via manual is straight out of the 90s, multiplayer is the definition of barebones, all save games are thrown in one big folder, can't customize key config from within the game, no cancel button when ending turns, on and on. Just like the review summary says, the gameplay is there, but nothing else is. Still, 73% isn't that bad, plenty of my favorite games have been in the 70-79% range when it comes to reviews.

Ya Minecraft is insanely popular and has terrible graphics.

I can actually think of several very popular games that have mediocre graphics. (mostly indie stuff)

I think the issue is that it's wargaming, which is much more of a niche than games with worse graphics. And CMBN is without a doubt less "polished" than many mainstream games.

Really though, I take professional reviews with a massive grain of salt... usually it's much more helpful to read player reviews. All of my favorite games except for like 1 got reviews in the 70s-80s range funnily enough.

Professional reviewers place way too much emphasis on polish these days in my opinion, whereas many gamers less so.

It seems that creativity and polish are usually mutually exclusive.

Don't forget though that the old CMx1 games, especially CMBB got VERY high scores from mainstream publications. This was before the obsession with "polish" had fully set in IMO (though CMBB was quite polished tbh)

And yes Yahtzee is great entertainment .

[Tarquelne]

"CMBN is a very good tactical wargame saddled with pre-alpha looks & controls.

Pre-Alpha? No way. Totally unfair. They're well-developed looks and controls from last decade.

[Renaud]

Yes, 'pre-alpha' is an unfortunate choice of words by the reviewer since it implies the game was released before the graphics were complete or fully functional. As far as I can tell, the game was released with fully functional graphics, complete as per the original design and intent. "Functioning as designed", as we say in the software industry. Not looking like the latest FPS is not the same as 'pre-alpha'.

[c3k]

Maybe you just didn't really want a hard look.

You really can't claim that the controls are intuitive, or the graphics are on par with other contemporary games. I don't see a problem with the review.

Actually, I did read the review. (Standing at a magazine rack.)

What controls are intuitive? Right clicking to build a base to manufacture soldiers? No, that's not intuitive. It is, however, an industry "standard". This is not an RTS. Why should it use RTS controls? That's just a twitch gamer pissed that his mad skillz can't be transferred to a new game.

The graphics? Hmm, explosions, flames, some lighting issues (the review did correctly get the difficulty in seeing terrain undulations). Do bright purple elves with big breasts = good graphics? Seriously, LOOK at the game. There are shortcomings, but calling it an alpha? That was the jealous ranting of a jilted lover.

There are many, many, many areas where CMx can be improved. Do a search under my username: that'll highlight a lot of these areas. (Do NOT use the search term "Flare". You've been warned.)

PCG is not the magazine it used to be. This review was harsh. If all their reviews had to suffer under the same actinic glare of the reviewer's focus, PCG would have a chance of returning to being a serious magazine.

The review, standing on its own, is slightly negative. It does highlight some of the superficial failings of CMBN. These are real. Hopefully, they'll be improved upon. It ignores the deep achievements. These, too, are real. They are the heart of the game which sets this series apart from any other game out there. Putting the review into context with all the other reviews PCG has done - I've read almost every review they've EVER published - the reveiw was unfair. The other reviews are often softballs. Bright colors, easy to play, zippy motion, gets a high score. Big-boobed elves are worth 10 points. More if their tops fall off.

PCG is a rag at this point. Hence my lapsed subscription a year ago.

There, that's my review of their review.

[sburke]

We should send it to Yahtzee!

A bunch of his review shows here. (Lotsa swearing!)

This is friggin hysterical. This site is 1000 x more fun than 90% of the games out there, I love this.

[Vark]

Agree with c3K, PCG used to have reviewers who did looked deeper, now they are just an industry stamp for the latest rehash, though Doom is infinitely better than Black Oops!

[ClarkWGriswold]

I haven't read the review, but to be fair, the game does lag behind in pretty much every area besides the actual tactical goodness. Tutorial via manual is straight out of the 90s, multiplayer is the definition of barebones, all save games are thrown in one big folder, can't customize key config from within the game, no cancel button when ending turns, on and on. Just like the review summary says, the gameplay is there, but nothing else is. Still, 73% isn't that bad, plenty of my favorite games have been in the 70-79% range when it comes to reviews.

I agree with you completely. CMBN is a great game, but it lags far behind AAA titles in a lot of key areas. And while the graphics are quite decent (leaps ahead of CMx1) there's still a lot to be desired. The game looks great in screenshots and under certain circumstances, but it doesn't compare to most games released in the last two or three years in the graphics department.

I play CMBN more than every other game I own combined. But that doesn't mean it's without its (large and numerous) flaws.

[Michael Emrys]

PCG is a rag at this point. Hence my lapsed subscription a year ago.

I got it for a couple of years, but stopped about ten years ago. I never thought it was especially good. For me, the best gaming mag was Strategy+. It was kind of amateurish in some ways, but even that drew it closer to its readership and a lot of the time in their own innocent way they had their heads on straight and their priorities right. Not a lot of honesty left in the industry after they got swallowed up.

Michael

[Kat Johnston]

CMx2's UI isn't stellar but it doesn't make me want to throttle the developers, which is what happens each time I see a UI crippled by being designed around the specs of some crappy console with less buttons than the average vibrator, low resolution graphics, little disk space and little working memory... which goes for most mainstream games these days. :mad:

[Mo74]

I haven't read the PCG review but as someone still thinking about getting the game it does put me off a bit - although I appreciate CMBN may not reveal its true depth in a quick play-through.

Yet I am still a little bit put off by a lack of reviews on this game any where. I seem to remember the CMx1 series geting majoy coverage and big scores.

[Thomm]

I haven't read the PCG review but as someone still thinking about getting the game it does put me off a bit - although I appreciate CMBN may not reveal its true depth in a quick play-through.

Just play the demo and see for yourself!

Regardless of the score, I am sure that they do CM:BN a big favor by even mentioning the name!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Magpie_Oz]

Thing is you have to frame your review in terms of your reader demographic. Sorry to say it guys but our fav game is very much a small item in a huge market.

If PC gamer say wow fantastic game everyone should buy it, 99.9% of their reader base will think them idiots for it.

We know it is the seminal work for computer wargames but it is far removed from what the mainstream market wants.

[Sgt Schultz]

One should also consider that review/base copy graphics have little to do with our reality.

The community does the graphic polish to suit their wishes, which is better than having to take what a developer gives us.

[djamesh]

They probably think BLACK OPS is a great game too even though it's just an advanced version of Doom. The problem is that many of reviewers are young twitch gamers themselves. Some games need a good look under the hood and a deep understanding of the subject to really appreciate. My guess is that a lot of reviewers aren't wargamers, aren't interested in history, and/or don't spend the time needed with the game to appreciate it. The best place to get reviews IMO is the Armchair General. Those guys are ex-military/long time gamers.

CMBN scored much higher than Black Ops.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/11/17/call-of-duty-black-ops-review/

I love PC Gamer, the review of CMBN made me try out the demo and ultimately buy the game. The only review of theirs I've disagreed with was for Farcry 2, which scored in the 90s IIRC, and was a crap game.

[Wodin]

Disgusting review. By someone who has no idea what a wargame really is like. God knows what they would give a game liek Squad Battles or something of similar ilk.

He probably can't understand why it doesn't look like men of War or something. With no idea that this is a combat sim wargame not an RTS game.

MainstreamPC websites\magazines haven't got a clue and usually they give out top scores to games they already have some kind of deal with.

We should write a letter to the mag and get it signed by all of us about how we totally disagree with their rather warped and pretty miserbale review.

Maybe if I set up an FB page or something. We really should do soemthing.

The only website worth checking out about PC releases is Rock paper Shotgun and for wargames The Wargamer or Armchair General and maybe Gamesquad.

[C Johnson]

Seeing the attacks on the reviewer, it's clear some folks don't know Rob Zacny's background.

Rob hosts the "Three Moves Ahead" podcast, a show dedicated specifically to wargaming and strategy. He's one of the more thoughtful and articulate reviewers out there ATM. He's quite familiar with wargaming and strategy of all kinds, and although not necessarily a hardcore wargamer like Bruce Geryk, knows the genre and praises intellectually rich and challenging games. He's far from a "twitch gamer" or a "graphics whore".

(BTW - I don't know the guy at all, just appreciate his work)

Just ticks me off reading some of these comments, because it's unfair to the guy. Read the review, not just the score, and I think Zacny gives CMBN a very fair appraisal. I thought 73% was a little harsh, but that score was worse than the general tone of his review. Besides, the 73% score is perfectly valid, depending on which axes you choose to measure. Is CMBN competitive on graphics? No. Is it intuitive to learn? No. Does the user interface follow standard conventions in other games and industries? No. How's the performance of the game in framerate and responsiveness? At release, CMBN was quite sluggish on a high-end system. These are real problems for any audience outside the hardcore niche.

Here's an excerpt from the review's opening which I think better captures the balance of the review:

"I chewed my nails as I watched my infantry charge into a smokescreen under heavy fire, and counted the endless seconds before an emergency fire mission dropped artillery on an advancing tide of enemy soldiers. CMBfN is the archetypal hardcore wargame: a tense and demanding challenge that offers huge rewards to those players who are willing to overcome that strong initial revulsion and enduring frustration."

I love CMBN, but quote perfectly sums up my experience also. Seems quite fair.

Chris

[hoolaman]

Good post. I think people here get blinded to just how much of a barrier the interface and graphics can be to new players. Graphics we can forgive and aren't too bad, but many indi games can manage a much higher bar for graphics and SFX.

The interface still suffers from the same complaints that were a chorus after CMSF came out. Specifically the multi tab hotkeys rate a mention.

I agree the review was very fair, there are plenty of good comments and a sense of the potential of the game, along with an explanation that it will be a very hard slog to get into it.

[LukeFF]

One should also consider that review/base copy graphics have little to do with our reality.

The community does the graphic polish to suit their wishes, which is better than having to take what a developer gives us.

The game's aspects - including graphics - need to stand on its own as released by the developers, not on what the modding community can do with it.