I am confused by this CMSF review

[thewood]

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2008/10/combat-mission-shock-force-marines.html

This is the same guy who gave CMSF 1.0 an 8/8 on release and then went on to defend the game for a while on BFC's boards. Now, with even BFC diehards admitting CMSF was pretty bad out of the box, he gives its expansion a 5/8.

So no mention of his love for CMSF in 1.0 and his quibbles are for what he thinks is a module that is $5 over what he thinks its worth. So dropping $65 for the deluxe CMSF 1.0 that basically is loaded with bugs and takes almost a year to even out gets an 8/8 and dropping $25 for extra content that works out of the box gets a 5/8. I am confused.

 

[British Tommy]

your not the only one mate!

 

[Redwolf]

Not saying I agree with him, but his point is that the new stuff in CM:Marines isn't worth a 1/2 game price.

You could argue that the number of new vehicles etc. is so incredibly low compared to other games (CMx1 and more mass-market games) that it isn't worth the money and that the code enhancements are just bug fixes that should be free. But then you do get the 1.10 patch for free if you have CM:SF.

I think the guy suffers from selective memory.

 

[thewood]

Actually, his complaint is that CMSF Marines is priced $5 too high for what is included.

My point is he didn't complain about $65 for CMSF and it wasn't even ready. In fact he gave it a strong buy rating. At least Marines seems to be ready. So you drop $65 on CMSF and give an 8/8 when its screwed up. Then you drop $25 and give Marines a 5/8 when it is in pretty good release state.

I mean, come on, he didn't even delve into the issues resolved by all the patches. He really glossed over it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, he got a free copy the first time and rated 8/8. He paid $5 too much the second time, no gratis copy, and he rated it 5/8.

What part of the reviews do I need to reread to understand why you're still confused?

 

[JaguarUSF]

Actually I got Marines for free as well.

As I do with all expansions, I am rating on what it adds to the base game, which I feel Marines does in lackluster fashion. Just because I liked the original game doesn't mean I'm going to automatically like the expansion.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Actually I got Marines for free as well.

As I do with all expansions, I am rating on what it adds to the base game, which I feel Marines does in lackluster fashion. Just because I liked the original game doesn't mean I'm going to automatically like the expansion.

I gave Marines a 3.5 at Gamespot and a 4.5 to CM:SF, so I'm just kidding with you a bit. My review was more of the game system rather than the game itself, though I agree with you in principle that Marines is not good value for the money. Seems like a long drop from 8/8 but of course, you really had no place else to go!

I think for people just looking for a platoon shooter, though, the mainstream sites will look at it more favourably - you kind of identify that hardcore "military" people will enjoy this - I'm not sure that is the case. I think hardcore military sim enthusiasts may even be less forgiving. I personally think it has strayed from the original CM vision. But I also know a lot of hardcore military types are on the beta test team and swear this is the cat's meow.

 

[thewood]

So you really still think CMSF is an 8/8, even with BFC admitting all the issues with and the fairly significant changes that needed to made.

 

[JaguarUSF]

I would say that my 8/8 rating on CMSF was overzealous.

 

[thewood]

thank you...

 

[Mad Russian]

I would say that my 8/8 rating on CMSF was overzealous.

Just to clear things up for the uninformed, what is the underzealous rating you would give it now?

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[BlitzCanuck]

Surely we've all made our minds up about CMSF by now.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

My Gamespot review of MARINES was removed by a moderator who said it would make a good blog entry - too much about the community and too little about the game itself. I expect one of the beta testers complained, but on reflection, I agreed and have no quibble. I simply rewrote a new review there, and downgraded my score to 3.0. Having spent some more time with 1.10, and having spent the weekend in the field with a real infantry unit training in a replicated Afghanistan village, it occurred to me how little CM:SF really captures the flavour of what modern units do. Don't get me wrong - if BFC would just come out and say, hey, this is just a game, I could see it, but they keep saying that this 1:1 rep is the best thing going. I think the game looks like crap - the guys don't look like they're actually running, the drills get ridiculous looking, especially at close quarters, and they're still shooting through the sides of walls and stuff. 10 patches and counting and collision detection and pathfinding is still a concern? Maybe I just don't understand what the game is supposed to be. Count me as one of the guys on Steve's list of fellows who "don't get it." It's a long list from what I gather.

I went through a close quarters training house on the weekend using simunitions, which was a lot of fun, learning to fire "controlled pairs" (what the US Army no longer calls "double tap") into mannequins, followed by a round to the head at close range. They also talked about the Canadian Army's Gunfighter program. Don't know if it is classified stuff or not, but basically it's applying common sense weapons drills to tactical situations. Stuff like Tiger tank crews used to do - presenting your best armour facing to the enemy, in a sense, was one of the things they talked about, so you stand with your chest straight on to the enemy rather than the traditional firing range stance, since it only allows a rifle round to enter under armpit and transit all your major organs instead of hitting the front of your body armour.

Spending a single weekend in the field watching real soldiers convinces me even more of what a mess CM:SF and it's so-called 1:1 representation is. It's a cartoon game, which is fine - so is Call of Duty and Company of Heroes and they are popular and making lots of money. Just call it what it is.

 

[Redwolf]

I just almost puked by a) more action spot complexity and b) the thread where somebody desperately tried to get a battalion-owned sniper team that has been lent to a company-sized scenario to be in command. What's BFC thinking? That a sniper team refuses to talk to the company commander it's assigned to?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I just almost puked by a) more action spot complexity and b) the thread where somebody desperately tried to get a battalion-owned sniper team that has been lent to a company-sized scenario to be in command. What's BFC thinking? That a sniper team refuses to talk to the company commander it's assigned to?

They are known for being individualists... :wink:

 

[Geordie]

I went through a close quarters training house on the weekend using simunitions, which was a lot of fun, learning to fire "controlled pairs" (what the US Army no longer calls "double tap") into mannequins, followed by a round to the head at close range. They also talked about the Canadian Army's Gunfighter program. Don't know if it is classified stuff or not, but basically it's applying common sense weapons drills to tactical situations. Stuff like Tiger tank crews used to do - presenting your best armour facing to the enemy, in a sense, was one of the things they talked about, so you stand with your chest straight on to the enemy rather than the traditional firing range stance, since it only allows a rifle round to enter under armpit and transit all your major organs instead of hitting the front of your body armour.

Spending a single weekend in the field watching real soldiers convinces me even more of what a mess CM:SF and it's so-called 1:1 representation is. It's a cartoon game, which is fine - so is Call of Duty and Company of Heroes and they are popular and making lots of money. Just call it what it is.

Its been a while since I did any streetfighting and house to house stuff. The thing that I always remember was that the Squadies I was with always carried their fair share of extendible ladders. The object was to try and go top to bottom, get to the top floors asap and work your way down. Or blast a hole in an end gable wall and get in fro there. Doors were definitely not the best way to enter a building for obvious reasons.

Lots of grenades and flashbangs too, the object was to either nade or flash a room, then give a good amount of auto fire into the corners. Its long, hot hard work.

Ive never encountered the SF view of house fighting where the object was to run into a huge room full of opposition, then start shooting your enemy. Thats said, Im told its supposed to be abstract but although this works to some extent in CM-1 games with 1-1 it simply feels daft.

However, in open country venues it feels a wee bit better as if you leave all the Javelins behind you can have an enjoyable time of find, fix, flank and push through your objectives.

As ive said, its an enjoyable little game, but in no way is it a simulation, approximation is closer I think.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Agree on all points - bear in mind the difference, I think, in a deliberate assault on a city, and a street patrol, which I think is telling. I'm actually inclined to give BFC the benefit of some leeway here insofar as assuming any urban combat depicting in-game is as a result of patrolling activity.

But we shouldn't, since they say the game is not an Iraq War game but depicts full intensity warfare.

But isn't that the problem - on all levels? They don't know what they are trying to portray. Why the insurgents and unconventionals then? I can buy their argument that they would be found on the conventional battlefield, but why then no conventional engineering tasks, say, or the street fighting stuff you mention? Mouseholing was discussed as far back as CMX1 and indeed - every manual I've ever seen on urban combat - and they go back at least as far as the 1970s - says you work bottom to top. I know they did that in the Second World War also, but I've held the 1970s manuals in my hands, and that experience, where those manuals came from, came right out of Ortona and Stalingrad and Aachen.

It isn't so much that it isn't a game or isn't a simulation - it keeps trying to be both, and confusing the crap out of everyone. My latest review of MARINES says that it wants to be a gim. A game AND a simulation - but you can't do both successfully.