Okay, more to the topic of this thread, and the one thing that does seem a bit hinkey, though, is the reviewers that are getting these preview copies. I just got the battlefront newlsetter, which finally announces the preview in "gamerswithjobs".
Who are these "no name" indie previewers? Do they carry as much weight as previews done by Gamespot, say?
I can see an argument for the "indies" having more intimate knowledge of niche subject matter - the reference to Catigny Park and the 1st Infantry Division museum kind of suggests that, in this one. Hard to see a 'mainstream' reviewer getting that reference. I know the argument has been made in the past that larger reviewers were reluctant to look at CM material after CM:SF, but I presumed that was because the modules were simply add-ons and not full-blown releases.
Anyone that's ever been associated with a product that delivered less than stellar results will understand BFC's problem here. CMx1 had a track record. It was a pretty good one overall.
They had some issues with CMBO but they patched it up and got the series going. And they kept the series going and the subsequent releases were pretty clean.
They had some well earned publicity dollars to spend for the release of CMSF. When the reviewers got their copy of CMSF I can't believe they didn't raise issues. I can hear the response now, "We fixed CMBO when it wasn't 100% and we'll fix CMSF too. Not to worry. Just look at the core game."
Which is also the correct answer. All game companies do it to some greater or lesser extent.
Where it all started falling apart was how long it took.
Now, there maybe some reviewers, that said how good CMSF looked, that don't want to take BFC advertising currency any more. BFC may have spent it all on the CMSF release.
I would think that CMBN would be a much better release if for no other reason than what happened with CMSF. I would think this one, of all those BFC has ever done, will be one of their best releases. They could use some genuinely good press.
Good Hunting.
MR