PC Gamer review

[c3k]

I read the quoted passage in the review, then I looked at the score, and then I saw the "pre-alpha" graphics comment. There is a major disconnect between the reviewer's self-professed ENJOYMENT of the game and the score. 73% is not a good score.

All the stated imperfections are real. They are shortcomings. I'd love for them to be improved upon. That does not change the issue: the reviewer liked the game but doesn't like the controls. Nor does he like the graphics. If PCG rated all games on the same hard-hearted scale as they just rated CMBN, then PCG would be a better magazine. They don't. They aren't. They won't be.

[Rosseau]

Computer Gaming World was a good mag in its heyday. But even at 73%, somewhat critical publicity is better than none at all.

[ClarkWGriswold]

There is a major disconnect between the reviewer's self-professed ENJOYMENT of the game and the score. 73% is not a good score.

Frankly, I thought the score was pretty generous. I love this game, but it simply does not hold up against other modern titles when it comes to some of the most up-front, apparent aspects (mainly, the graphics and GUI). That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter how deep the gameplay is or how accurate the historical details are when 90% of the game buying public wouldn't give the game a second look based upon their first impression (not particularly pretty, steep learning curve, confusing UI, etc).

WWII grognards might be this game's target market, but it's not PCGamer's target market. They are reviewing for their market, not BFC's.

[Tarquelne]

73% is not a good score.

IMO it's not even a believable score. Assigning even vaguely useful % scores to something as subjective as a game requires either a major effort in defining the criteria and method or a willing suspension of disbelief. The magazines don't do the first two and I need to save up all of the last one for the election.

(OTOH, I sympathize with the magazine's attempt to remove literacy as a requirement to subscribing. But I think they could go a lot further with using colors and shapes. Instead of "73%" they could have a sort of purple octagon with fuzzy edges, where 100% is a red circle. You've got 2 degrees of freedom (color and shape) rather than one (score), immediate emotional/visual impact, and you don't get people wondering why 73 rather than 74 and 3/5s. How many % points would color-coded or labeled end playback/end turn buttons be worth?)

[Sixxkiller]

Well I have seen some of the alpha's for this game and in no way does it look like an alpha now haha. Anyway PC Gamer used to be a good magazine but hasnt been in many years. I would give them a 50% whereas in the past they were in the 90's. I also dont really view a 73% as such a bad score. This game is for the few so it's understandable that it just gets an average score to some and an excellent one from other. Besides, we know there's always something more to do better.

[Rambler]

I think 73% is a very fair score. That's probably around what I would give it. I really enjoy the game, but there's quite a few issues, gfx and functionality wise, that leave a lot to be desired. The CMx2 series are some of the most bi-polar games I've played. In some areas, the game is up to current day standards, if not more so, and in many others it feels like it's stuck in 1995.

[Sixxkiller]

and in many others it feels like it's stuck in 1995.

And a lot of wargamers still wish it was in hexes and die rolls too.

[BletchleyGeek]

I wonder what would have been the score in the review if all the content planned for the future CM:BN modules would have been available upfront.

I mean, classical reviewing makes more sense for those games who are released in a "classical" way. That is, the whole thing is on the table at release, buggy or not.

Battlefront model of develoment is quite different, with its Families and Modules. Is CM:BN complete? No, very much like CM:SF wasn't "complete" until the release of NATO and 1.32 patch.

Rather than charging us 100$ up front, we'll eventually be paying that amount as modules are released. Here, very smartly, Battlefront is aiming at obtaining a steady income stream, rather than risking to put up a very expensive game that takes even more time to develop that CM:BN "vanilla" has needed. I'm pretty sure that somebody buying all modules at release will be paying more than 100$ dollars at the end. As a business model, it makes a lot of sense.

So what did the reviewer do? He, consistently with the usual practice, reviewed CM:BN as he would have reviewed a release made under a "classical" business model. And compared to that, certainly CM:BN lacks the polish of many other titles out there.

What a reviewer can't do either, is to take at face value the promises by Battlefront of continuous patching and delivering modules at a regular pace. Why? Because they're just promises and expectations not facts. He's to made the review with what he has at hand, not with what he will eventually have at hand.

So CM:BN got a 73%? Is that bad? What would be "right" score for you guys? I think it's fair.

In my book, CM:BN "vanilla" 1.00 should get a B, and probably, when we've everything on the table - content, patching the odd stuff we've all seen and experienced, making a few UI improvements - it would get an A+ and make it into the Hall of Fame of computer wargaming.

Is B a good mark? It depends on how liberally you rate stuff. I wouldn't event put a B- to most AAA releases in the last year, to be honest.

[Thomm]

I do not think that the user interface will change significantly within the CM:BN family, nor will the graphics engine. So the base game should be good enough for making a review, especially now that the core engine is pretty solid within her constraints.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Derfel]

@Rambler: Spot on! I too think I would give it around 75%, the game really is "bipolar" so many good thing and a few really strange ones (my pet peeve is of course the lack of multiplayer in WeGo mode and the lack of a pause function in the real-time MP, but there are others)

@Bletchley Good point, when all the modules and patches are in place it will hopefully be more like 90%, CMSF really took great strides with each module so there's plenty of reason to hope for the best (even though I fear my personal peeves might not get addressed).

-Derfel

[Statisoris]

@Rambler: Spot on! I too think I would give it around 75%, the game really is "bipolar" so many good thing and a few really strange ones (my pet peeve is of course the lack of multiplayer in WeGo mode and the lack of a pause function in the real-time MP, but there are others)

@Bletchley Good point, when all the modules and patches are in place it will hopefully be more like 90%, CMSF really took great strides with each module so there's plenty of reason to hope for the best (even though I fear my personal peeves might not get addressed).

-Derfel

Do you not consider PBEM games "multiplayer in WeGo mode"?

[Derfel]

@Statisoris: No, I do not.

A matter of definitions, to be sure, perhaps I should use the phrase TCP/IP multiplayer We-Go or something like that.

PBEM is simply to cumbersome to be a real alternative to the way we (my little group of gamers) prefer to play. Not knocking those that like or prefer PBEM of course, to each their own.

-Derfel

[The_Capt]

Back in the day I wrote a few reviews and putting myself in the reviewers shoes the first question you ask yourself is, "who is the audience?"

For PC Gamer the audience is far broader and general than the niche hardcore wargame set so the reviewer has to take this into consideration.

The flip side is also, who is producing the game or what is the overall context of the game itself and what market is it aiming at?

In the case of BFC it is at a small (and hopefully not shrinking) niche market. The review as posted would appear to be leaning farther towards the audience and away from the context but I would say drastically or unfairly so.

For the hardcore wargaming market where modern-styled production values mean less than an accurate simlulation this game would probably rate in the 8.5 to 9.0 scale. To the average player on the street who is used to a much simpler interface and flashier explosions they would rate it lower.

What is a little unfair is to expect the same level of flash out of a small developer as you would see out of a large one. That logic takes us down the road of pushing the small developer out of business altogether as they simply cannot compete on a lot of development axis compared to a large developer with millions of dollars in the warchest and large staff.

BFC can improve on a lot of areas but at the end of the day the really should stick to their strengths because that is what keeps them and possibly the niche market alive.

[ClarkWGriswold]

What is a little unfair is to expect the same level of flash out of a small developer as you would see out of a large one.

I completely disagree. Look at indie games like Braid, Angry Birds, Limbo, Cogs, Machinarium, World of Goo, etc. These are very polished, universally praised, major sellers and they all came from very small developers. With the Internet, Steam, the App Store, XBox Live, and other digital distribution methods, small developers have more power than they've ever had. They can develop what they want to and bring their game to market without an outside company mucking with their concept. Today, a small developer can bring a game to market that's just as good as a AAA title from EA or BioWare. Indie games might not be as grand in scope, but indie developers can and do make some of the best games you can buy. Being small is no excuse for poor craftsmanship.

[Cyrano]

Why in blue blazes would you expect PCG -- a sad shadow of its former self -- to "get" CM:BN? I'm shocked they covered it at all. I haven't subscribed since they killed off Coconut Monkey, but the coverage of the market at which the CM series is aimed has wandered off into its niches.

I'd love the BF's of this world to live in the luxury that comes with success in the console/shooter/twitch market, but I would also like a pony and a trip to Europe.

Best,

Jim

"Cyrano"

:/7)

[The_Capt]

I completely disagree. Look at indie games like Braid, Angry Birds, Limbo, Cogs, Machinarium, World of Goo, etc. These are very polished, universally praised, major sellers and they all came from very small developers. With the Internet, Steam, the App Store, XBox Live, and other digital distribution methods, small developers have more power than they've ever had. They can develop what they want to and bring their game to market without an outside company mucking with their concept. Today, a small developer can bring a game to market that's just as good as a AAA title from EA or BioWare. Indie games might not be as grand in scope, but indie developers can and do make some of the best games you can buy. Being small is no excuse for poor craftsmanship.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The games you have listed are nowhere near the level of complexity reqr to produce a 1:1 tactical wargame. You point is true that indie developers can produce first rate products but few if any are as ambitious in technical detail as the CM series.

In addition a lot of indie developers license big-developer engines to build off. BFC not only has to put out a very complicated product, it has to create its own game engine from the ground up.

You are correct being small is no excuse. Being small, building large & complex, building independently and corner-stoning a niche market does mean that trade-offs need to be made in order to stay marketable.

This is not "poor craftmanship" and to suggest so is downright insulting. This suggests the guys are sitting around with their feet up:

"Hey you think we should put more polish on the interface or the graphics?"

"Naw, why bother, these losers will will buy any old crap we ship anyway...heh heh"

Absolute nonsense.

[scottie]

not read much of this thread admittedly really just the first post but IMO the PC gamer review is way of the mark , they have failed to understand the complexity of the software and are focusing on the elements that larger games developers spend millions on that smaller developer cant but what smaller developers do is focus on game-play and IMO BF get 10 out of 10.

[Wodin]

CMBN is a wargame...not an RTS or even in the same genre as Company of Heroes. So you have to compare this game to other wargames and compared to ALL of them it looks superb.

The problem we have is way too many people comparing the game to other games that are really in a totally different genre as I said.

It's getting unjustly compared to those games because it looks so damn good for a wargame that it's confusing people on what it actually is.

So compare it to Squad Battles or Panzer Command Ostfront or Combat Command etc and we then see it is the best looking wargame out there.

The reason 73% is unfair is because it's 73% compared to what? It has to be compared to other games in it's genre and using the best game as a yardstick otherwise it's a pointless score. I mean you wouldn't get a reviewing Squad Battle Red Victory and use Red Orchestra 2 as a yardstick to what percentage to give the game. Sadly thats what has happened here. Even more distressing is people on this forum are more or less doing the same.

[Childress]

Agree, Wodin. I'd award CMBN 85%+ now, before the inevitable march of patches (people forget that CMBO had,what, twelve?) and the upcoming modules which will expand the scope. And I think it's damn good looking compared to other sims within the genre and especially given what goes on 'under the hood'.

Dorosh hasn't been helpful damning the game with faint praise on any reviewing site he can find.

[Frankster65]

Dorosh hasn't been helpful damning the game with faint praise on any reviewing site he can find.

He also uses this game to further sales of his own products.

[Michael Ivan]

The problem is that a 73 is barely a "C", barely a passing grade no matter what the mag claims. I would expect a game with a score of 73 to be worth a single play if I could get the game for free.

The real question should be how good is the gameplay. 73 says that the gameplay is barely adaquate. At least that is what 73 should mean, what I would expect. Reading the review it looks like flash and dazzle were worth at 15 to 20 points. He said he was on the edge of his seat playing the game. Edge of the seat games I would say would be 90 to 95.

In the end the trouble was the rating number, I rarely even read a review below 80 unless it is a game I am really excited by.

[Chek]

It's a challenge to learn and it's a challenge to play.It treats me like I have at least a modicum of intelligence.

That alone puts it in it's own genre.

[ClarkWGriswold]

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The games you have listed are nowhere near the level of complexity reqr to produce a 1:1 tactical wargame.

The complex tactical pieces are not what is garnering criticism; The basics like UI, control scheme, etc. are. Even simple things like those that have been highlighted in other threads (using the same button to end the replay phase AND the command phase, for instance) could have been fixed early in the design process. It doesn't take any longer to code a good UI than it does to code a poor one. It simply takes a little more effort to design it right in the first place (effort that is more than made up later by not having to fix the whole thing).

This is not "poor craftmanship" and to suggest so is downright insulting.

Insulting or not, it's an opinion that's shared by a lot of people. The whole game needs to work well as a cohesive experience. It's not good enough to only have some of the game work well (It's apparently good enough to get sales from the types of guys like us who are on this forum, but not good enough to get sales from most gamers or garner high scores in non-military sim specific reviews). The guts of this game are simply amazing. The TacAI is great, the ballistics modeling is superb, multiplayer works very well, etc. But the way that the player interacts with the game is very confusing and a huge turn-off for many, many people.

[The_Capt]

Insulting or not, it's an opinion that's shared by a lot of people.

I am not sure where to start exactly, considering your opening arguement was to compare CMBN to a game where one throws cartoon birds at cartoon pigs, but lets try and find common ground if we can shall we?

First off the UI is not perfect but it is nowhere near as bad as many have ranted about. I am willing to accept that the developers took conscious, game engine-centric decisions to lay things out a certain way based on what are probably a number of competing interlinked factors.

You like many seem to think that: "It doesn't take any longer to code a good UI than it does to code a poor one. It simply takes a little more effort to design it right in the first place (effort that is more than made up later by not having to fix the whole thing)."

That sweeping statement from anyone except someone intimately involved in the CM engine or at least a game developer himself simply screams ignorance. It does so because it lack any real depth or even perspective...it is at its root the analytical tool of the mob. "Down with Bears!! Down with the Bear Tax."

The UI is "clunky". Not broken, not shattered and not a sign that BFC is happily spending our money on hookers and blow while a chained one legged monkey with an eye patch is churning out the next title as Charles puts out cigars on its ass.

The "many" you described are a disgruntled minority that have some legitimate points but often the communication of those points is somewhat ham-handed and lacking.

Any game on the market has trade-offs and no game is perfect in its balance. Every player on the planet has to accept that. For instance in Angry Birds, why can't I play the pigs? Some may cry that it is a gross short-changing of the customer on content and "how can you possibly have a bird tossing game without the pig-defence?!".

For a small team with limited budget I would argue they need to get the centerpiece right. If this game had a perfect interface, wonderful graphics and a tactical wargaming model slightly left of World of Warcraft..well it wouldn't be Combat Mission would it?

Will they work on UI, sure. In a review, should the reviewer take this into account? Yes.

[ClarkWGriswold]

First off the UI is not perfect but it is nowhere near as bad as many have ranted about.

That might be your opinion. My opinion is, the UI is the worst I've seen in a very long time. Not trying to overstate things or be dramatic, that's just how I feel. Thankfully, the terribleness of the UI is made up for by the tasty, cream filled center of the game.

You like many seem to think that: "It doesn't take any longer to code a good UI than it does to code a poor one. It simply takes a little more effort to design it right in the first place (effort that is more than made up later by not having to fix the whole thing)."

That sweeping statement from anyone except someone intimately involved in the CM engine or at least a game developer himself simply screams ignorance.

While I haven't worked on CMBN itself, I do work in the software development industry. So, I think I might know a little bit about which I speak. Doing it right the first time is always preferable to doing it right the second time.

The UI is "clunky". Not broken, not shattered and not a sign that BFC is happily spending our money on hookers and blow while a chained one legged monkey with an eye patch is churning out the next title as Charles puts out cigars on its ass.

I see your strawman and raise you an ad-hominem. Your mother dresses you funny.

The "many" you described are a disgruntled minority that have some legitimate points

I'm not so sure that it's a "disgruntled minority" at all. The number of people complaining about various UI issues on this very board seems to be fairly large. Consider the number of people who own the game and are not on this board (or are complaining about issues on other boards). Then consider the people who didn't buy the game at all because of the "clunky" nature of the UI in the demo (or even in past games, since the UI is basically a carryover from CMSF). It's quite possible that the people who feel these issues are pretty bad outnumbers the people who think the game is great. It's hard to say without hard numbers. But even if the people who think there are problems ARE a minority, does that make their opinion any less valid?

For a small team with limited budget I would argue they need to get the centerpiece right.

Agreed. But I maintain that this is not an either/or proposition. Addressing these issues early in the development process requires LESS time/work/energy than fixing them after everything has been coded. I think the biggest problem here is that we're saddled with poor design decisions that were made 6+ years ago (during the development of CMSF). This far down the road, it's far too late to change course.