If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So are they just introducing movable waypoints and Armour fire arcs in the CM2 engine? I know the new engine is completely different than the old CM1 one. But darn that seems like a step backwards. I mean CMBO had movable waypoints and CMBB introduced armour fire arcs. And that was what ten years ago?
Good review Jag and 6 out of 8 is reasonable. I like your idea of adding an organization chart to instantly find and pick the unit you are looking for. It would appear though if they are going to add a few new features to each new standalone and then charge you to update the past ones it would be better to just wait until they get to the last one and then buy it and hopefully the others before it will be at a discount. I'm still sitting on the fence of course because I am wary of this.
Want is the foundation of impatience, a step without thought can be a drop without end
Dbeves: And LMFAO - didnt you just have to work battlefront into your response somewhere - you are priceless.
Posts : 529 Joined: 25 JUL 2010 Location: US, Boston
Status : Offline
If you wait till the 2.0 update is available for CMBN, then buy it, will the version you buy be at the latest version? I like the series, only thing holding me back is the price, but CMBN is 45 now, which is more reasonable.
Love the graphics of the Armor, especially the Stuart, the weathering awesome... I do prefer live vs turn based, think that's what bummed me out about Pz O on my laptop.. On my gaming computer it's more enjoyable, because waiting for the turn to 'start' isn't as long. but with CM you can do that live action, with the space bar for pausing, which is good.. maybe on 'huge' scenarios, turns would be better, as too much going on. I really like AP, but the UI is really bad!
Posts : 1852 Joined: 19 FEB 2006 Location: US, Michigan
Status : Offline
Your reviews are excellent Jaguar.....your time and effort are appreciated. I play the three original games in this series but price has kept me back from these newer ones. But I enjoyed your review anyway!
Seems like a pretty fair review to me... Highlights the positives and negatives. Some people my pooh pooh the negatives since it is probably the best at what it does, but a good review doesn't doesn't just ignore them. I'll probably take the plunge on one of these once I get windows8 or a new machine, but I'm not using up on of those activations knowing that's in the near future for me. No clue why they think their game would be any more pirated than Matrix titles and have such craptastic DRM....
You've applied stringent, tough love, graphical criteria to this game while awarding a 7/8 to 'Conflict of Heroes' a rather crude looking port of a board game. And I've noticed much less clipping, virtually none, in CMIF compared to previous Battlefront titles.
Also, I found this comment odd:
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
You've applied stringent, tough love, graphical criteria to this game while awarding a 7/8 to 'Conflict of Heroes' a rather crude looking port of a board game. And I've noticed much less clipping, virtually none, in CMIF compared to previous Battlefront titles.
Also, I found this comment odd:
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
You mean like in, er, an actual battle?
Rather Crude looking port, which seems very well received by the wargaming community....
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
You mean like in, er, an actual battle?
Jag, are you using mods like the 'real effects' ones which alter tracer, fire and muzzle flash?
I find that the CMx2 engine (CMSF and CMBN) show incoming fire quite well because a compromise has been made to display large tracers to aid in situational awareness.
I do not have CMFI, so if the tracers have been toned down there and you're not using mods, perhaps it is indeed hard to see where incoming fire is from.
In previous iterations of the series there was no such thing IMO, as long as you do not load those 'realistic tracer' mods.
Originally Posted By FlickJax (12 AUG 2012 2:53pm)
Rather Crude looking port, which seems very well received by the wargaming community....
And more power to them. But wargaming centerfold material it's not. I cited it because Jaguar seems to stress the importance of graphical purity.
I do agree that series could use a UI facelift- which Battlefront has declared a priority. And that they should join the modern world with some kind of matchmaking lobby.
Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (12 AUG 2012 2:35pm)
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
That one comment - and why you cant see thats a good thing in terms of what combat mission is , says everything. That, and the organization chart thing - as you obviously dont now - that omission is deliberate - and has been since cmx1 for reasons battlefront have explained a million times.
Originally Posted By FlickJax (12 AUG 2012 2:53pm)
Originally Posted By PeterC (12 AUG 2012 12:27pm)
You've applied stringent, tough love, graphical criteria to this game while awarding a 7/8 to 'Conflict of Heroes' a rather crude looking port of a board game. And I've noticed much less clipping, virtually none, in CMIF compared to previous Battlefront titles.
Also, I found this comment odd:
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
You mean like in, er, an actual battle?
Rather Crude looking port, which seems very well received by the wargaming community....
Well, much less so now than it was at first blush ...
Do NOT use the WSAD keys. They make camera control choppy and cumbersume.
Also, do NOT use the 'mouse cursor to edge of screen' method. That is slow as well.
Instead, hold the left mouse button and move your mouse. The further the mouse from the center of the screen, the more sensitive the movement is.
For rotation, use the right mouse button.
Use the mouse wheel to alter elevation of the camera.
Smooth as can be and not very archaic, perhaps only something you are not used to.
The only thing I do agree on is the cumbersome zoom function which you need to do with X and Z.
Still, if you have one hand on your mouse and the other on your keyboard, the camera controls are actually quite comfortable and well thought out.
For example, I rather have the height of the camera on my mousewheel than your suggested Zoom function.
Because I more often check FOV by raising and lowering the camera from the unit / terrain elements than I do so while needing to zoom in or out.
I certainly do not want to be condescending, but it just seems like you have not put enough time in getting to adapt to the controls yet. It's all there, explained in the manual and the tutorial. A bit different than what you might be used to, sure, but a big point (at least one of the major things in your review) to criticise the game on, I don't think so.
As for the interface itself , I don't really understand what your gripe is.
All the orders can be given quickly with the numberpad keys, while order tabs can be switched by mouse or F5 - F8 quickly.
Control is quick and efficient.
And the new waypoint movement feature is a huge improvement over a big gripe of earlier CMx2 games. What else would you want improved? Merely the graphics of the menu or the panels of the interface?
Finding specific units is easy because of the different unit icons floating above your units. And if you lost some important unit in the field my bet will be that your tactics need improvement anyway!
(just a little joke)
P.S. I do NOT have CMFI, but the game is the same (apart from the tweaks to the orders system) to CMBN in function.
Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (12 AUG 2012 2:35pm)
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
That one comment - and why you cant see thats a good thing in terms of what combat mission is , says everything. That, and the organization chart thing - as you obviously dont now - that omission is deliberate - and has been since cmx1 for reasons battlefront have explained a million times.
DBeves,
I think it's perfectly fine what he's saying, and it's not a personal affront to you that he doesn't hold the game in the same regard you do. Also, it's NOT a reviewers duty to try to follow all developer comments on why something works they way it does. Please don't try to put down James just because his review differs from what you'd hope... Maybe that's not what you're going for, but it sure reads that way.
I can understand his comment on the bullets. Now, I don't think it should just blindly show that info, but... if the *troops* know where it's coming from, isn't it acceptable that the game make it easier for the player to see?
Originally Posted By smittyohio (13 AUG 2012 9:04am)
Originally Posted By DBeves (13 AUG 2012 2:34am)
Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (12 AUG 2012 2:35pm)
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
That one comment - and why you cant see thats a good thing in terms of what combat mission is , says everything. That, and the organization chart thing - as you obviously dont now - that omission is deliberate - and has been since cmx1 for reasons battlefront have explained a million times.
DBeves,
I think it's perfectly fine what he's saying, and it's not a personal affront to you that he doesn't hold the game in the same regard you do. Also, it's NOT a reviewers duty to try to follow all developer comments on why something works they way it does. Please don't try to put down James just because his review differs from what you'd hope... Maybe that's not what you're going for, but it sure reads that way.
I can understand his comment on the bullets. Now, I don't think it should just blindly show that info, but... if the *troops* know where it's coming from, isn't it acceptable that the game make it easier for the player to see?
Fine - but I am also entitled to disagree with his comments - I dont take it as a personal affront at all - its just a game - just that its only his opinion and there is nothing sacred about that. I am also perfectly entitled to put down a review if I think it makes points that misunderstand the reasons for things being the way they are - that is after all part of a reviewers responsibilities - so I disagree. Reviews are reviews - and I suspect he doesnt write them cause he likes the sound of his own voice but to cast and opinion on a game and help others reach a conclusion about it too - otherwise whats the point in writing it... quite possibly altering their buying decision - so there IS a responisibility on a reviewer to "understand" the game. I am not disagreeing with everything he said - just the things he got wrong.
I sometimes find James' reviews a bit odd sometimes... for example he gave the original CMSF an 8/8 when it was a complete disaster and the below was his comment about "wargame european escalation"
"Unrealistic plateau-heavy terrain, unlocking gives experienced players access to more units, no difficulty settings for repetitive and poorly designed campaign with static enemy positions, interface lacks a comprehensive list of all your units, no formation options, limited skirmish features, maps don’t scale to player count"
Which is pretty much a trashing of all but the multiplayer aspect of the game - but it still got a 7/8 ... which given the trivial nature of his comments about CMFI makes me understand the 6 even less.
I watched his lets play video and to be honest the only thing clear about it was that he doesnt really know what it is.
I think if someone puts themself up there to review other peoples work then they have to take the flak - and others shouldnt go around telling me to treat his words as law...
The tracers from incoming fire are visible, some feel they break immersion and have modded them to be less intrusive. I think the author wants a return to CMx1's targeting lines, an artifact from that systems borg spotting, and not relative to CMx2's relative spotting and more sophisticated system.
I mentioned it in the other closed thread but this review really lacks context and comes across as an opinion piece. It misses the point of what the game is attempting to do and who the target audience is. It is one thing to say you prefer the mouse wheel to do one thing but to knock it for not doing what you want without realizing it's current function is extremely useful for the majority of users would be inconsequential in a good review, not a reason to knock something. Commenting on what *should* have been included originally in the way of features is another opinion, condenscending even. Sure we all want our cake and icing now and no saying otherwise...
I think more time actually reading the manual or learning the product would have been more useful here. Especially in light of the fact CMFI is by far the most polished and refined game in the series, as anyone who has spent time with the product knows.
Originally Posted By smittyohio (13 AUG 2012 9:04am)
Originally Posted By DBeves (13 AUG 2012 2:34am)
Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (12 AUG 2012 2:35pm)
Also, the game never clearly shows where the bullets are coming from...
That one comment - and why you cant see thats a good thing in terms of what combat mission is , says everything. That, and the organization chart thing - as you obviously dont now - that omission is deliberate - and has been since cmx1 for reasons battlefront have explained a million times.
DBeves,
I think it's perfectly fine what he's saying, and it's not a personal affront to you that he doesn't hold the game in the same regard you do. Also, it's NOT a reviewers duty to try to follow all developer comments on why something works they way it does. Please don't try to put down James just because his review differs from what you'd hope... Maybe that's not what you're going for, but it sure reads that way.
I can understand his comment on the bullets. Now, I don't think it should just blindly show that info, but... if the *troops* know where it's coming from, isn't it acceptable that the game make it easier for the player to see?
Fine - but I am also entitled to disagree with his comments - I dont take it as a personal affront at all - its just a game - just that its only his opinion and there is nothing sacred about that. I am also perfectly entitled to put down a review if I think it makes points that misunderstand the reasons for things being the way they are - that is after all part of a reviewers responsibilities - so I disagree. Reviews are reviews - and I suspect he doesnt write them cause he likes the sound of his own voice but to cast and opinion on a game and help others reach a conclusion about it too - otherwise whats the point in writing it... quite possibly altering their buying decision - so there IS a responisibility on a reviewer to "understand" the game. I am not disagreeing with everything he said - just the things he got wrong.
I sometimes find James' reviews a bit odd sometimes... for example he gave the original CMSF an 8/8 when it was a complete disaster and the below was his comment about "wargame european escalation"
"Unrealistic plateau-heavy terrain, unlocking gives experienced players access to more units, no difficulty settings for repetitive and poorly designed campaign with static enemy positions, interface lacks a comprehensive list of all your units, no formation options, limited skirmish features, maps don’t scale to player count"
Which is pretty much a trashing of all but the multiplayer aspect of the game - but it still got a 7/8 ... which given the trivial nature of his comments about CMFI makes me understand the 6 even less.
I watched his lets play video and to be honest the only thing clear about it was that he doesnt really know what it is.
I think if someone puts themself up there to review other peoples work then they have to take the flak - and others shouldnt go around telling me to treat his words as law...
But he doesn't. We all know reviews are subjective.
The tracers from incoming fire are visible, some feel they break immersion and have modded them to be less intrusive. I think the author wants a return to CMx1's targeting lines, an artifact from that systems borg spotting, and not relative to CMx2's relative spotting and more sophisticated system.
Right. The tracers provide an alternative to the Red lines. But, in the chaos of battle, they're a less precise, more impressionistic tool. particluarly if they arrive from different points- and especially in real time. The command lines, present in CM1, were useful too. But added too much prescision and, by imposing a hideous overlay on the map, would violate BF's move to more pleasing graphics. Pace Jaguar.
