Two Reviews of CMSF

[KG_Jag]

According to a poster at ACG:
-----------------------------------------------------
Two reviews posted online.

Scored very poorly (could be driver/patch issues):
http://www.quartertothree.com/


Scored very highly:
http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/07/combat-mission-shock-force-review.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

It is most interesting that the first [poor] review is by the well known PC game and PC wargame reviewer Tom Chick.

According to Chick and by his [James Allen's] own admission, the second [good] review is by a scenario designer for CMSF.

[Palantir]

First- the second link is not working.

Just from the first SF review it doesn't sound good.

I have no interest in modern warefare but am interested in how BFG is developing their games (CM x2 comes to mind).

But CM in real time? Then it's not CM it's some other type of game with the name CM slapped on it.
CM is what it is, in BO, BB, AK it is not "real time."

I hope this doesn't slip over into CMC.

[KG_Jag]

I tried to repost the link to Allen's review, but for some reason I could not do so. The link to it is:

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/07/combat-mission-shock-force-review.html

The link to the page in the ACG on which it was originally posted is:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=732803#post732803

[Palantir]

My 2 cents,
I did find it questionable that a designer (Allen who did the second review in "out of 8") is given credibility & allowed to review his own work as if its by an independent reviewer. I'm not suprised he gave SF 8 out of 8.

Oh well I won't play it anyway...

[KG_Panzerschreck]

My 2 cents,
I did find it questionable that a designer (Allen who did the second review in "out of 8") is given credibility & allowed to review his own work as if its by an independent reviewer. I'm not suprised he gave SF 8 out of 8.

Oh well I won't play it anyway...

LOL, does that suprise you Kerry?

[KG_AGCent]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001711;p=1#000 023

That is the link to the BFC response to the Quarter to Three review.

I am also currently doing my best to add to the server traffic refreshing my DL link.

[KG_Jag]

Well Rob, I guess we've identified your next project...

[KG_Soldier]

I mean really... the premise of this game is downright silly. Don't you think if we got into it with Syria that Israel would be right there with us, that we'd bomb them into the stone age like we did Saddam in '91 before we committed any troops. PLEASE! someone make this game go away.

And what the hell do they mean by saying that the difference between a three-week-old version and the new one are worlds apart? What have they been doing the past three years? "Yes, here at battlefront we work so fast that three weeks of tweaking a game that's been in development for three years makes all the difference in the world."

Even if everyone in KG loves this game, I'll NEVER own CM:SF.

[KG_Jag]

I'm confused--the inferior version of the game that Allen "objectively" reviewed was a version no later than the one Chick reviewed. Yet it was already so good that Allen gave it his highest possible rating.

[KG_Jag]

Here are some more reviews:

http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2007/07/20/the-eyes-of-the-innocent/

and

http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_pc/Combat_Mission_Shock_Force_PC.htm

[KG_AGCent]

Ther version both reviewed came from the Gold Master 1.0. Some three or four weeks old by the time the reveiwers got it. One reveiwer play that version without asking any assistance with rough spots, drivers etc. If he had, like the other reviewer did, he would learned that v1.01 was available, and other driver issues could have been solved for him. Develpoment teams work on tasking, in an order determined by the project leader. Generally graphics are cleaned up in the final stages as the last bit of polish going in so it isn't surprising that the graphics were a little rough in a gold master 3 or 4 weeks old.

DL page still not up as of 6:48am Pacific....

[KG_Kharkov]

Other than the shiney new graphics (which apparently stress out your PC), it doesn't sound like much of an upgrade from CM. The AI still seems terrible and there is no tutorial or play-aids.

I agree with Soldier that the setting is absolutely preposterous -- they would have been better off with a fictional NATO/Russia conflict.

The lack of helicopters is very strange. Even in the abstract, helos would have been nice. It really sounds like a game that hasn't advanced much thought-wise past CM (e.g. "modern warfare has helicopters, you know. Well, that's too tough to simulate -- let's stick with the CM model of doing things with tanks, armor and arty.").

I'm expecting this game to be solidly mediocre. It won't bring enough CM players because of the ridiculous setting to give it critical mass and it will be too non-accessible for non-CM players. Why dump $50 on this game if you are a non-CM player?

[KG_Jag]

Battlefront and Paradox (their distribution partner) have no right to whine because a reviewer did his review on the copy of the game that was sent to him for that purpose. If a later version became available, it is incumbent on Battlefront/Paradox to communicate that to the people to whom they had sent advance copies for purposes of doing reviews. Their failure to do so does not say kind things about their level of business competence.

Battlefront says that there will be tutorial in the 1.01 public release version. Off course until then, who knows how valuable it will be. It is amazing that they would release a game version without it to the reviewing class.

Other than that, it difficult to disagree with JJ's observations and predictions.

[KG_AGCent]

Other than the shiney new graphics (which apparently stress out your PC), it doesn't sound like much of an upgrade from CM. The AI still seems terrible and there is no tutorial or play-aids.
If you play CM already, what kind of play aids could you possibly need aside from a 200 page color manual?

I agree with Soldier that the setting is absolutely preposterous -- they would have been better off with a fictional NATO/Russia conflict.
Doesn't do much for me either, but it ought to be fun anyway as I don't usually play any "historical" scenarios in any CM game. Blue on Blue or Red on Red will be fun.

The lack of helicopters is very strange. Even in the abstract, helos would have been nice. It really sounds like a game that hasn't advanced much thought-wise past CM (e.g. "modern warfare has helicopters, you know. Well, that's too tough to simulate -- let's stick with the CM model of doing things with tanks, armor and arty.").
Helo's ARE in the game.

I'm expecting this game to be solidly mediocre. It won't bring enough CM players because of the ridiculous setting to give it critical mass and it will be too non-accessible for non-CM players. Why dump $50 on this game if you are a non-CM player?
eh... because Company of Suck, et al bore you to tears.

[Palantir]

I'm so glad I have no interest in playing CM:SF.

Bill, you had some good comments & observations over at GS.

posted by "jaguarusf" at GS
"To clarify...
I'm not a scenario designer per se: I designed some scenarios for fun while I was playing the preview beta to test out the editor, and I sent them to the developers. They decided to include some of them in the release after they cleaned them up for a bit. I had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the game. If someone makes third party scenarios using the editor, does that make them part of the development team? Of course not, and that's what I did. I just did them early enough to be included in the game."

reply by KG-Jag
"... I conclude from your comments that you are James Allen... That said, you did not design just one battle, but 5 of the 18 that come with the game. Further, since the game and its editor are not to being released to the public until today, you obviously were/are on the inside as the game was being developed. If you were what not on the development team per se, then what precisely was your role and level of involvement? Did you or will you receive any compensation for your contributions? If so, what is it?"


Heck I'll admit it: I'm a third party DESIGNER of CM scenarios "per se" using the CM editors supplied (no matter how good or bad they are) even if I DON'T have "5 of the 18 scenarios" on the CM:SF disk officially published by BFG- give me a break Mr. Allen.

I have serious questions about the quality of CM:SF battles if some guy is just goofing around with the editor & comes up with 1/3 of the official scenarios. What the heck were the offical "scenario designers" doing all this time?

Heck thats what I do! I can see the dollars rolling in soon!! HA!!

Talk about trying to secretly pump up PR for your own game that sounds like it's in trouble before it hits the stands.

(Based on the usual squeeky level of BFC's official response on their forum:)
There's no way BFG should be making excuses for their design by saying "we don't have the funds or man power to do it right." Don't blame the public for noticing EXACTLY what type of game you specifially decided to create and sent out to players.

[KG_Jag]

Two more reviews; one bad (of the 1.00 Paradox released version):

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=80542

The other--very good:

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=44744

[KG_SSpoom]

here is a link to the first AAR I have seen for CMSF

http://forums.mzocentral.net//index.php?showtopic=18238&pid=248352&st=0&#entry248352

doesnt look bas except for the mis-alignment of a prone MMG that is firing while the gunner is 3 ft to the
right of the gun.

I have played through the training scenarios without any Issues.
I also played the 1st campain battle and got a minor loss as Americans.
In trying to keep my casualties down I wasnt able to force my way down a road that was covered
by 300+ troops a few bunkers and 20+ tanks arriving piecemeal.
I killed almost 200 badguys and knocked out 21 tanks.
I had 23 injured no dead, lost 2 strykers and had 3 of my 4 Abrams tracked.
The game felt quite accurate compared to what I have heard/read about combat in Iraq
it had a very "real" feel to it.

[KG_Scout]

My little review:

The graphics are beautiful, the vehicles are very detailed. Love the Camel-backs and gas masks on the soldiers.

The gameplay is a little more fast-paced, on a small scenario its nice to have a real-time feature, on a large scenario forget it.

It has a lot of bugs my mouse is very jerky and freezes when I hit shift to click and drag, hopefully patches will fix most of the bugs. The AI could use a little help. My vehicles never seem to be able to spot stuff thats not right in front of them, which is insane because almost every vehicle we have today has a 360 degree cupola or seperate commander's viewer. I know that with the hatches closed I can look over the sides and back of my tank and even back it in and out of alleys at the same time my gunner is looking forward.

It lacks the depth of previous CM games. I liked being able to pick forces for multiplayer, and I can't seem to find any random map generator or quick scenarios. Over time custom made scenarios will hopefully help with this.

It just seems like less of a thinking man's game and more like a click-point-click and watch things go boom game.

Reinforces my opinion that Strykers suck and im dissapointed in my army for putting our soldier's in them. Im very happy to be in an Abrams and not one of those rolling coffins.

Can't really compare it to combat in Iraq, maybe like 2003-2004 time frame but it seems like all im doing here now is driving in circles getting hit by IEDs and snipers who are experts on hiding within the local population. Maybe I need better AI because I have rarely been able to spot them.

Overall? Its fun. I wouldn't call it a "waste" of money... But when I want some serious CM action, especially multiplayer, looks like Ill be going back to the previous games.