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.
This is why reviews should never have a number evaluation attached to them. People get too worked up over them and they're subjective. If people want to know whether it is a good game or not then they should read the review and then base their decision on that, not on an arbitrary score.
Posts : 1857 Joined: 19 FEB 2006 Location: US, Michigan
Status : Offline
Originally Posted By Canuck (13 AUG 2012 5:09pm)
This is why reviews should never have a number evaluation attached to them. People get too worked up over them and they're subjective. If people want to know whether it is a good game or not then they should read the review and then base their decision on that, not on an arbitrary score.
I never looked at it that way before, but I have to say I see your point and find myself in agreement. I don't mind subjective opinions in the text, i.e. poor camera controls, complicated interface, etc.....but a final rating number, not really necessary.
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.
With regards to scroll speed, the fact that you need to do several things and workarounds means that it needs fixing and optimizing. No biggie as you can learn the tricks but this behavior has been there since CMSF.
As for the scoring, the way I see Out of 8's number rating makes sense to me (maybe not for others). Each number has a description and 6 (Buy it if you like the genre) is just right. It doesn't mean that it is a bad game. It's actually a great game. It's just not catered for general consumption or a must-have for existing players. See... even Yskonyn haven't bought the game.
With regards to scroll speed, the fact that you need to do several things and workarounds means that it needs fixing and optimizing. No biggie as you can learn the tricks but this behavior has been there since CMSF.
How is this a workaround? It works as intended, out of the box. Its a feature, not a workaround. People just need to have some patience and learn the controls instead of trying WSAD, seeing the controls are choppy and discard it as a poor interface.
Indeed, the WSAD controls are choppy, but the mouse method is not. At all.
The WSAD keys are good for a thing though; incremently change the camera when you're looking down low close to your units.
So, for example, I 'mouse-slew' the camera to the position I want and when I am all zoomed in I can use the WSAD keys to quickly fine tune the camera, without running the risk of selecting units of giving orders by using the mouse.
I agree with Yskonyn re the camera controls, no 'workarounds' are required. They are working as designed and once learned are seamless. However, I believe BFC have stated it is their intention to make the controls customisable for player preference at some point.
Really, I still find it ironic and indicative these nitpicks are so prominent and virtually nothing on the actual gameplay or simulation itself. Do people really care if the tactical map floats against a monochrome background? More pertinent imo is do the 'impressive array of specific commands' allow the player to deal with the tactical challenges a real life commander would face in a realistic manner with realistic outcomes?
If something is working as intended, it says nothing about the smoothness. Perhaps the engine is limited this way and so keyboard camera control is jerky no matter what.
They acknowledge its not ideal, so therefore you have the mouse method. It's the primary method, with the keys as an option for those who want it. Working as intended, smooth or not. So I disagree.
Of course reviews always have subjective parts. We are all human and view a product as one. We have emotions, experience and preferences. This is bound to shine through in reviews some way.
The point being made, though, is that from *this* review fairly small points are made to be big negatives in the view of the reviewer, while they -in all honesty- do not contribute either way to it being a good or bad game. They are nitpicks.
This gives the article a bit too much of a focus on the negatives (in the eye of the beholder at least), while in the end the grade is higher than the points being made in the text would expect it to be.
Prety certain that if no combat mission game had ever existed previously to this, and CMFI was released with its pretty much elite level infantry fedility, good graphics and playibility all from an indy developer it would be scoring a 9.
This score has everything to do with narratives attached now to the CM brand and nothing to do with the game itself. I mean seriously, a game of this level is never a 6 in a vacuum, never and I am talking entirely in the context of the scores of this reviwer given to other games (8 for CMSF).
Of course there may be wrinkles, but thats indy development for you. The amount of games from indy developers that achieve this level of fidelity attached to a decent over all gaming packing in terms of graphics etc are like hens teath. This score of 6 is all about subtext.
Originally Posted By fullhouse (14 AUG 2012 3:51pm)
This score has everything to do with narratives attached now to the CM brand and nothing to do with the game itself. I mean seriously, a game of this level is never a 6 in a vacuum, never and I am talking entirely in the context of the scores of this reviwer given to other games (8 for CMSF).
The game doesn't exist in a vacuum though. It's a CM game and the brand has a history. It's going to be judged within the overall context of the brand.
I own Both CMFI and Achtung Panzer. If twelwe years ago, someone would have predicted I would have on my disk 2 very detailed tactical wargames about WW2 with at least more than decent 3D gfx and a dedication to put a as real as possible simulation of tactical warfare, I would have been among the first to consider him as a fool.
From time to time, it would be better if some ceased to argue constantly about the GUI weaknesses of indie games when it's easier to put RTS games with orks or space battleships ( at least, no is bickering about armor thickness realism for space cruiser) or to complain about prices of these games. If I understand high price may force some to pass the game, or the GUI to darken the game pleasure, it's high time to remember what we may regret from Blizzard or Creative assembly is maybe a bit unfair for small teams developping niche games destines to our pleasure, when they aren't complete lemons like...I would quote some, having lost all vainglory, But I will keep mute.
I agree Chilperic. Sometimes there is far too much politicking and far too little appreciation of the game and its amazing details.
But each to there own. They can cut off their noses to spite there faces. I am having a ball.
I actually played company of heroes today and now that CMFI is around I almost cannot stand it.
I know that's arse about for a lot of people here, but in all honesty before CMx2 and achtung panzer there really
was nothing in the genre apart from theatre of war that came close to a realistic depiction and a cerebral challenge
in the genre. That is to say in the company and battalion level depiction of infantry warfare.
My observers actually saw these tanks and I saved the game and moved my men to there doom. 3 75mm American Shermans vs two 50mm PzIII and one PzIV 75mm = dead especially when the attack is carried out in an uncordinated fashion. My MkIV lagging behind
as it seems to be much less mobile. But I had run out of time this night and just wanted to experiment really.
My observers after being in position for a while start to show their worth. Spotting an AT gun. AT guns are always tricky.
Been using the Observers Kubelwagon after dropping him off to ferry small squads about.
My observers moving into postition. Ground is of supreme importance of course.
Medieval Real Time, Mount and Blade style Historical Combat.
Originally Posted By fullhouse (14 AUG 2012 3:51pm)
This score has everything to do with narratives attached now to the CM brand and nothing to do with the game itself. I mean seriously, a game of this level is never a 6 in a vacuum, never and I am talking entirely in the context of the scores of this reviwer given to other games (8 for CMSF).
The game doesn't exist in a vacuum though. It's a CM game and the brand has a history. It's going to be judged within the overall context of the brand.
Sure, but then that need to be more explicit in the review and not be subtext. Elements specific to the game in a vacuum are used to mark it down, when in fact its elements relating to the history of the brand that are causing the score not to be a 9 (which it would surely be if it was the first ever CM game).
Posts : 8733 Joined: 24 MAY 2006 Location: 0, Texas
Status : Offline
Originally Posted By Canuck (13 AUG 2012 5:09pm)
This is why reviews should never have a number evaluation attached to them. People get too worked up over them and they're subjective. If people want to know whether it is a good game or not then they should read the review and then base their decision on that, not on an arbitrary score.
Good point; and the Wargamer stuck to this philosophy over the years, despite a lot of criticism and request for change.
"And They shall know no fear, for they are fear incarnate"
Originally Posted By Chilperic (26 AUG 2012 4:35am)
I own Both CMFI and Achtung Panzer. If twelwe years ago, someone would have predicted I would have on my disk 2 very detailed tactical wargames about WW2 with at least more than decent 3D gfx and a dedication to put a as real as possible simulation of tactical warfare, I would have been among the first to consider him as a fool.
From time to time, it would be better if some ceased to argue constantly about the GUI weaknesses of indie games when it's easier to put RTS games with orks or space battleships ( at least, no is bickering about armor thickness realism for space cruiser) or to complain about prices of these games. If I understand high price may force some to pass the game, or the GUI to darken the game pleasure, it's high time to remember what we may regret from Blizzard or Creative assembly is maybe a bit unfair for small teams developping niche games destines to our pleasure, when they aren't complete lemons like...I would quote some, having lost all vainglory, But I will keep mute.
Just my 2 cents.
Agree fully. I would hate to see us run CM ont out of town on a rail. Overall, the series has been on top of the heap in terms of wargaming goodness.
"No, No, mix them all up. I'm tired of state's rights."
Union General George Thomas' reply to his chaplain, when asked if the dead from the Chatanooga campaign should be buried by state as had been done at Gettysburg.
Originally Posted By fullhouse (28 AUG 2012 3:20am)
Sure, but then that need to be more explicit in the review and not be subtext. Elements specific to the game in a vacuum are used to mark it down, when in fact its elements relating to the history of the brand that are causing the score not to be a 9 (which it would surely be if it was the first ever CM game).
You do realize that the site is named OUT OF EIGHT for a reason right? I assume not since you keep inssiting it should have gotten a 9...
Originally Posted By Spharv2 (28 AUG 2012 10:24am)
Originally Posted By fullhouse (28 AUG 2012 3:20am)
Sure, but then that need to be more explicit in the review and not be subtext. Elements specific to the game in a vacuum are used to mark it down, when in fact its elements relating to the history of the brand that are causing the score not to be a 9 (which it would surely be if it was the first ever CM game).
You do realize that the site is named OUT OF EIGHT for a reason right? I assume not since you keep inssiting it should have gotten a 9...
Maybe he's saying CM should get 9 out 8, like it's so good it scores a 110%.
The campaigns have been a blast in CMFI, definately worth the price of admission on their own.
Posts : 315 Joined: 16 MAY 2005 Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline
My complaint with Mr. Allen's review has been the same since I saw his preview video of the same game, viz.: to what can he possibly compare CMx2 other than itself?
I freely grant I'm a CM fanboi of the first order of magnitude, but there's nothing anywhere that does anything close. What Battlefront has been working at since day one is a definitive tactical simulation of modern warfare in a 3D environment. They'll never get there because your definitive is my "almost there" but, seriously, who's even trying to do this in a game offered to the broad market?
In that light, the bulk of his complaints, to me, vanish.
UI: It has improved, it is improving, and they continue to work on it, but it works out of the box. Considering everything they're simulating, I think it's very well done.
Control scheme: Never had a problem. Try going back to CMx1 after long CM:BN sessions -- which I do pretty regularly. Just not being able to drive WASD will drive you nuts.
Musical Score: Dig it rotten and I'm never around on those screens long enough for it to become grating.
The "floating terrain" thing: show me an alternative in a similar game at this level of simulation and I'll agree.
Lack of MP matching: When I have a problem finding an opponent I'll agree.
Lack of More-than-two Multi-player: An absolute screeching tragedy of the first order. BF has said, however, that, in their model, the investment isn't worth the effort. I am in no position to gainsay them.
Again, if there were someone doing anything close to this, we might all benefit from the comparison and the, hoped for, competition. We might also be able to assess whether or not BF is moving the ball forward sufficiently. There, however, is not and I wonder, therefore, whether any review of this system is rating it on how much we wish it did as opposed to what it can reasonably be expected to do.
It's of a piece with being angry at the car dealership because the new Mustangs cannot yet fly.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
"Gentlemen songsters off on a spree, damned from here to eternity, God have mercy on such as we..." -- The Whiffenpoofs
I keep hearing people thow AP1943 or PCO in there to compare with CMx2. Now these games might be in the same genera as CM, but it's like comparing DCS A-10C to Strike Fighters. Strike Fighters might be fun to many folks due to the abstraction, but it's boing to me.
It's simple, if you want the DCS A-10 of tactical combat simulation get CMx2. If you want more simplicity and less simulation go with the other 2.
Like Cyrano stated we can sit around complaining about the things we wish CM had, but the meat of the product is unsurpased and that is tactical combat simulation......enjoy it for what it is.
Originally Posted By Spharv2 (28 AUG 2012 10:24am)
Originally Posted By fullhouse (28 AUG 2012 3:20am)
Sure, but then that need to be more explicit in the review and not be subtext. Elements specific to the game in a vacuum are used to mark it down, when in fact its elements relating to the history of the brand that are causing the score not to be a 9 (which it would surely be if it was the first ever CM game).
You do realize that the site is named OUT OF EIGHT for a reason right? I assume not since you keep inssiting it should have gotten a 9...
