IGN Review

[Capitaine]

It's astounding that some people coming from CM feel that concentrated terrain and tiled maps are *more* realistic and exciting than PCK's authentically scaled historical maps.  Sometimes folks should just stop and think about what it is they're doing and what makes a simulation, any simulation, worthwhile.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
read em and you will see he is not some mainstream hack.  He even comments on subpar graphics and still gives CMBB a 9.0.

Doesn't anyone work out the math on this? To get a 9 overall in 5 categories would mean a total of 45 out a possible 50 total points. If graphics was subpar it would get a 5 or less. There is the 5 points down right there. All other categpries would have to be a 10 or better. One of the categories being Sound. Does CMBB have it score played by the bloody London Philharmonic Orchastra or something?

[Spechtmeise]

After a long hiatus I have fired up CMBB once again in order to compare graphics. Although at first I was not impressed with PCK graphics I have to say that PCK is superior by far.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
read em and you will see he is not some mainstream hack.  He even comments on subpar graphics and still gives CMBB a 9.0.

It's important to keep IGN's policy in mind. It's stated pretty clearly in their review guidelines. They review based on what's "out there" when the game is released and they don't review "within a niche". So if they re-reviewed CMBB right now, it would probably score a 4.0 in graphics, but back then a higher score was justifiable. I still think that "state of the art" should be considered as far as what's available within a genre, not just what is possible anywhere with any budget.

[thewood1]

CMBB sound for what it tries to convey is very good. You can actually tell the type of weapon firing. Voices are pretty good as well. BFC expended a huge effort on sound, to the point of getting MGs and resording thier sound.

[thewood1]

Here is the CMBB breakdown copied and pasted:
 




8.5
Presentation
It's a mixed bag with few frills but lots of depth. Though the interface and setup are a bit gummy in places, the detail is unbelievable. Love the manual.

8.5
Graphics
While it's not as impressive as a lot of recent RTS games, the scope of what's been accomplished in terms of variety is commendable.

7.5
Sound
Slightly better than average. Voice cues are dead-on and combat sounds are believable. The lack of music options is distressing.

9.5
Gameplay
It's utterly captivating in a way that's hard to explain. The dual/hybrid format of the game is quite refreshing and utterly captivating.

9.5
Lasting Appeal
Lots and lots of missions and a brand new scenario designer give this one exceptionally long life.

9.0
Outstanding
OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)
 
Actually got a low score on sound.  Taking 4.0 away from graphics and it still is 8.0 overall.
 
Keep in mind he only really reviewed the main engine, not any of the editors and random generators.  The campaign stuff is where PCK outshines CMBB completely and I think he mentioned that as a positive.  I still think CM's main combat engine is better than PCK.  I also think the lack of an integrated scenario editor and map editor is a big step down from CMBB.  CMBB's scope is also larger.  You can pick individual things to say PCK is better than CMBB, but I still think, overall, PCK is still one step behind CMBB.  If campaigns and modding unit data is more important, then the balance tips the other way.  I may not have scored PCK that low, but each reviewer has different priorities.  Also, a big plus for PCK is that it is still supported and not dead ended.  At the rate Matrix is going, I imagine the next release will probably tip PC over the top and surpass CMBB/CMAK.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

It's astounding that some people coming from CM feel that concentrated terrain and tiled maps are *more* realistic and exciting than PCK's authentically scaled historical maps.  Sometimes folks should just stop and think about what it is they're doing and what makes a simulation, any simulation, worthwhile.

Well, obviously you read way more into my post than I wrote because nowhere did I compare this to CM. So there's nothing astounding about my statement at all. It's a very generic observation that the atmosphere of the game seems lacking. Maybe as I get into more complicated scenarios my opinion might change but as of now but something that probably won't is the very plain green background that they optimistically call the ground is dull. My troops look they are just skating over it.

Now if you read the rest of my post you will see that it is not a serious detractor for me. The game itself seems to be very interesting despite a few minor issues I've had with it (like it locking up).

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
CMBB sound for what it tries to convey is very good. You can actually tell the type of weapon firing. Voices are pretty good as well. BFC expended a huge effort on sound, to the point of getting MGs and resording thier sound.

I agree. We did the same for SPWAW and my goal is to get to that level for Panzer Command as well. I think adding sound tags to all the unit XMLs will go a long way towards making this possible and opening things up further for modders too.

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: Joram

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

It's astounding that some people coming from CM feel that concentrated terrain and tiled maps are *more* realistic and exciting than PCK's authentically scaled historical maps.  Sometimes folks should just stop and think about what it is they're doing and what makes a simulation, any simulation, worthwhile.

Well, obviously you read way more into my post than I wrote because nowhere did I compare this to CM. So there's nothing astounding about my statement at all. It's a very generic observation that the atmosphere of the game seems lacking. Maybe as I get into more complicated scenarios my opinion might change but as of now but something that probably won't is the very plain green background that they optimistically call the ground is dull. My troops look they are just skating over it.

Now if you read the rest of my post you will see that it is not a serious detractor for me. The game itself seems to be very interesting despite a few minor issues I've had with it (like it locking up).

If anything this points out the most obvious asset CM has over PC; a map editor. You don't like the "concentrated" terrain, change it. I play a lot of the historical scenarios in CM and many times google earth the map before playing. I don't really see this concentrated terrain issue.

In fact, I am thinking of taking a PC scenario, converting it to CMBB and compare the two for playability and historical outcome just to highlight the strengths of each.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
In fact, I am thinking of taking a PC scenario, converting it to CMBB and compare the two for playability and historical outcome just to highlight the strengths of each.

You know, that's a great idea and would be a very interesting comparison.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
In fact, I am thinking of taking a PC scenario, converting it to CMBB and compare the two for playability and historical outcome just to highlight the strengths of each.

Try it the other way around. Convert a CMBB to PCK so we can all play.[:D]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: z1812

Very interesting. Just so you all have something to compare to. This fellow gave review points at first release to the following as below:

Combat Mission Shock Force: 5.2

Theatre of War: 7

Company of Heros: 9.4

If I'm not mistaken, CoH is the only RTS game. If so, I'm not surprised it got the highest score simply because of its genre.

For the record, I have CoH/OF and had the CM anthology, including Barbarossa, which was the last (and lamest) of the three CM installments.

It would be a shame if Panzer Command got nipped in the bud on account of this one review.

[thewood1]

Unfortunately, you don't have a map editor in PC so I can't do it that way.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Unfortunately, you don't have a map editor in PC so I can't do it that way.

Well, you could either find a CM scenario that already has a map that's pretty close to one of the existing PCK maps, or you could take a look in the Mods forum for some info on how to make a PCK map with free 3D tools (if you're good at that sort of thing). Or just do what you were originally planning.

[thewood1]

That is the beauty of a map editor.  No 3D editor, no xml, not much "close enough".  How about Mobius do it the other way around and we compare.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

ORIGINAL: Joram

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

It's astounding that some people coming from CM feel that concentrated terrain and tiled maps are *more* realistic and exciting than PCK's authentically scaled historical maps.  Sometimes folks should just stop and think about what it is they're doing and what makes a simulation, any simulation, worthwhile.

Well, obviously you read way more into my post than I wrote because nowhere did I compare this to CM. So there's nothing astounding about my statement at all. It's a very generic observation that the atmosphere of the game seems lacking. Maybe as I get into more complicated scenarios my opinion might change but as of now but something that probably won't is the very plain green background that they optimistically call the ground is dull. My troops look they are just skating over it.

Now if you read the rest of my post you will see that it is not a serious detractor for me. The game itself seems to be very interesting despite a few minor issues I've had with it (like it locking up).

If anything this points out the most obvious asset CM has over PC; a map editor. You don't like the "concentrated" terrain, change it. I play a lot of the historical scenarios in CM and many times google earth the map before playing. I don't really see this concentrated terrain issue.

In fact, I am thinking of taking a PC scenario, converting it to CMBB and compare the two for playability and historical outcome just to highlight the strengths of each.

Very easy to provide a "map editor" when you only provide a cheesy tiled map set. I realize that many players of that game neither want nor deserve realistic topographical maps, but that essentially begs the question.

PCK elected to utilize a map system based on realistic terrain, so I won't apologize for defending it here on the developer's own forum. And I don't think you should be telling people very pleased with the product that *they* are the ones who have to "change it". I'd just like to see some of the critics of the terrain or "environment" present photographic proof of how this game doesn't depict Russia adequately. But maybe I don't get it -- CMBB already showed exactly what Russian terrain at this level looked like. [8|]

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

"We'd also wish that the designers had more distinctly separated moving the movement of the entire platoon and its leader. The way the current system is, every order you give to your platoon leader is immediately followed by all of the units he's leading."

This only happens if you change the platoon base order. Once you're already in the base order, you can make adjustments without resetting the entire platoon. I'm sure we can make this a bit more user-friendly though, but we tried to explain this in detail in the manual.

While I strongly disagree with the overall rating given in the IGN review, the criticisms listed above is a valid one in my opinion. There should be a way to change the order for the platoons base squad without changing the orders of all the other squads in a platoon. It is tedious to have to replot the orders of all the squads in a platoon when all you want to do is change the orders for the platoon HQ.

However, this is a minor complaint (and one which will hopefully be remedied in a future patch) about an otherwise excellent game.

[mossicon]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: z1812

Very interesting. Just so you all have something to compare to. This fellow gave review points at first release to the following as below:

Combat Mission Shock Force: 5.2

Theatre of War: 7

Company of Heros: 9.4

If I'm not mistaken, CoH is the only RTS game. If so, I'm not surprised it got the highest score simply because of its genre.

Theatre of War is RTS as well. Albeit quite a serious RTS! It's a very nice looking game, and quite fun to play too. If I had access to a PC with more horsepower I'd give it a lot more time.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: thewood1

ORIGINAL: Joram




Well, obviously you read way more into my post than I wrote because nowhere did I compare this to CM. So there's nothing astounding about my statement at all. It's a very generic observation that the atmosphere of the game seems lacking. Maybe as I get into more complicated scenarios my opinion might change but as of now but something that probably won't is the very plain green background that they optimistically call the ground is dull. My troops look they are just skating over it.

Now if you read the rest of my post you will see that it is not a serious detractor for me. The game itself seems to be very interesting despite a few minor issues I've had with it (like it locking up).

If anything this points out the most obvious asset CM has over PC; a map editor. You don't like the "concentrated" terrain, change it. I play a lot of the historical scenarios in CM and many times google earth the map before playing. I don't really see this concentrated terrain issue.

In fact, I am thinking of taking a PC scenario, converting it to CMBB and compare the two for playability and historical outcome just to highlight the strengths of each.

Very easy to provide a "map editor" when you only provide a cheesy tiled map set. I realize that many players of that game neither want nor deserve realistic topographical maps, but that essentially begs the question.

PCK elected to utilize a map system based on realistic terrain, so I won't apologize for defending it here on the developer's own forum. And I don't think you should be telling people very pleased with the product that *they* are the ones who have to "change it". I'd just like to see some of the critics of the terrain or "environment" present photographic proof of how this game doesn't depict Russia adequately. But maybe I don't get it -- CMBB already showed exactly what Russian terrain at this level looked like. [8|]

While somehow I don't think we are all on the same page, I happen to agree with both you and Thewoods opinion there.

[thewood1]

So is this what I get for trying to be balanced?  Some people can't take it that either CMBB or PC may be a little weaker than the other.  Erik, the publisher seems to a little more level headed than some of PC's customers.
 
Am I to be criticized for actually trying to present a balanced picture.  Do I only get harsh responses for actually saying non-glowing things about PC.  Erik, tellme  this won't become like the BFC forums.
 
Also, Capitaine, please reread my post after cooling down a little.  I was saying with a map editor you can change the map.  I never said change anything in PC.  Next time actaully read the post twice if it really works you up so can get the real gist of it.