• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
08-01-2007, 07:24 AM,
#1
The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
Someone has just posted this in the CMC section of the BFC forum:

Quote: I'd download the CMBO demo. Valley of Death was one of those 'special' moments in my life.

Pathetic, isn't it?

Chances someone will be saying that about CMSF in six or seven years? imo 0.0013% at best.

CMx1 is a truly brilliant and elegant piece of game design. Alas I do not think Battlefront understand the nature of what they achieved with CMx1 because they have totally failed to replicate this with "Cm"x2. Im not saying "CM"x2 is bad, just that it falls far short of the epic success that is CMx1.

What tips me of about BFC not understanding in essence what made there CM so unique, is there frankenwegorealtime UI in CMSF. IMO the way this is implemented does not demonstrate elegance in design and clarity in conception.

There is one design feature that makes CM stand out like a beacon against the dark tide of computer gaming mediocrity, e.g. WEGO. There are trillions of Real time games. WEGO is the ephemeral magic of CM and why CM is the true HD survivor. I think Battlefront have overlooked this totally and again this demonstrates that they dont understand why there own product appealed so much to the gaming public.

Let us not forget that CM broke out of its wargamming niche and got a good deal of popular broad market support. Will CMSF do this, no way imo. CM was so good its appeal was as universal as a game that deep could ever hope to be. Again, I would say this has to do with the WEGO design which is the central design philosophy of the CMx1 series.

Battlefront have a thread calling Gamers whingers, but I can remember them doing some whinging of there own. They whined that they were bored of WW2 and didnt make enough money out of CMx1 because of its longevity (this is why they have switched to a modular design).

Well this might come back to bight them on the ass. All they had to do was design a decent graphics engine with 1 for 1 representation and realistic urban environments and a campaighn and then put this on top of the basic gameplay of CM and they were quids in, even more so if they had stuck to a WW2 setting.

I am honestly hoping that CMSF is a bit of a debacle for Battlefront (not unlikely imo) so that it forces them back to the drawingboard and allows them to become fully cognisant of what made CMx1 so special, so that they can make the design decisions to go forward and replicate that success in the future. Imo this must involve WEGO, that is the essence of the CM magic, no more frankenwegorealtime.
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 07:35 AM,
#2
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
I agree completely. The game AI now Ive looked at it in a little more depth is laughable. The thing is... all through development everyone and I mean everyone said we wanted a new updated CMx1 based in WW2.... then they came out and said it was gonna be based in Syria and there was anoher outcry. Me amongst them... sad thing is we still all went out and lined their pockets by hoping that the game would be groundbreaking like CMx1 was... and it is simply not.

It may appeal to other gamers and it has some great visuals etc. but for the rest of us old grogs who were brought up on CMBO this just doesnt cut the mustard.

And as for their modular content.... I really dont think that will work now as a lot of dissappointment has been in the air since this release.

On a personal level I have 3 copies of each of the CM games... well except BB (I only got 2 as I sent Vulture a copy... LOL)... I would never in a million years envisage me buying this game 3 times for whatever reasons.

CMx1 will be around for a long time unless BF decide to update it with the same successful framework as the original and thats the only way I can see that CMx1 will ever be replaced.

Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 07:41 AM,
#3
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
Bootie Wrote:On a personal level I have 3 copies of each of the CM games... well except BB (I only got 2 as I sent Vulture a copy... LOL)... I would never in a million years envisage me buying this game 3 times for whatever reasons.

You never know you may have an emergency need for three more coffee mug coasters. ;)

cheers
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 08:57 AM,
#4
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
All you have to do is read my post on BF forums to find out how I feel about my wasting 50 bucks on the greatest Bug story since Starship Troopers...

It's a total lost cause, it can't be a RTS because the UI is so Wego style, yet the wego system is barely implicated and makes massive PBEM files.. notably 1 meggers just to send passwords back and forth LMAO

BF has put out 2 crappy games in the past 4 months.. I don't look for them to survive in the wargaming business for too long after this.. They wanted a RT shooter game and screwed the pooch both ways leaving a innovative Wego system in the dust and trying to make a FPS out of the dumbest TacAI system to grace the PC scene in a LONG time.

I got a chuckle out of my hoping matrix will buy the CMx1 source codes and make it better post :)

Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 11:22 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-01-2007, 11:29 AM by PoorOldSpike.)
#5
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 11:32 AM,
#6
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
I actually enjoyed the demo.
Now if they just improve the TACAI so that baby-sitting is not much needed.
Do not expect this to be the same or even an improvement of CMx1.
A totally different beast and gameplay experience.
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 12:01 PM,
#7
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
Aim for higher objectives...
Total victory is not enough.
Aim to win a battle without losing someone.
Now that's the challenge (due to the dumb TACAI)!
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 12:51 PM,
#8
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
MANUAL p. 33 - The computer opponent can be quite formidable when you are just starting to play CMSF,but is no match for an experienced human player because unlike a human the AI is not capable of learning from its mistakes or adapting its gameplay to its opponent(s).


PS -Does anybody know how I can cut and paste bits from the pdf manual?
Its in Acrobat and I don't know how to hilite the text I want to copy..
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 01:20 PM,
#9
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
The demo lasted about 5 hours on my computer. I fiddled with things for a bit one day intending to play later in the day but my 11 year old son was laying the boots to the AI the next time I looked in on him and that did it for me. I will be waiting for a major update to appear before I even consider picking this up. I amy have to look for another copy of BB & AK myself, just to feel safe.
Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2007, 02:00 PM,
#10
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
If anyone on this board fails to get total victories on the demo scenarios on the first try at veteran level or better, they should destroy their computers and stick to knitting forthwith. It was taking candy from a baby.

The problem is that modern spotting equipment is too good and the desert is a bit short on cover....you will spot defenders and be able to hammer them.

The potential for decent scripted strategic AI should be more apparent on the offensive, not the defence....although as the Syrians I had no trouble smashing the US forces in the big demo scen as they trundled forward into the gap and drew flank fire from the T72s.

It really strikes me as hard work to lose to the AI. The value in this game will be, as always, against other humans.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)