In response to poorly thought out reviews

[sluggy2010]

Without going all fanboy on this,

Like many here having played Harpoon, and Action stations many years ago we all know that this software is well towards what we all wanted.

So chin up Devs' - remember there is always some twerp willing to put you down, but they often build nothing themselves.

Seems there are others that recognise Commands' value too....

[MaB1708]

+1 [:)]

[Meroka37]

+1

[LuckyJim1010]

+1 [&o]

[mikmykWS]

Thanks guys!

Mike

[ParachuteProne]

ORIGINAL: sluggy



Without going all fanboy on this,

Like many here having played Harpoon, and Action stations many years ago we all know that this software is well towards what we all wanted.

So chin up Devs' - remember there is always some twerp willing to put you down, but they often build nothing themselves.

Seems there are others that recognise Commands' value too....

Totally agree

[Mac Linehan]

sluggy -

Very well spoken, Sir!

Mac

[Hertston]

The trouble with this sort of software is that it is more or less impossible to review well, particularly so soon after release. What really matters is how well the game simulates real-world tactics, the particulars of the execution of those tactics, and a realistic spread of outcomes. If a wargame does that well for both shipped and user generated scenarios (with MP as a massive bonus), its an absolute must-buy regardless of UI quirks, missing shortcuts, editable databases or anything else. Unfortunately, because it takes many hours - even hundreds of hours - play to assess whether a complex strategy game does deliver in that respect or not, even by those qualified to do so, early reviews necessarily largely focus on the trivial.

If any consolation is needed, there's one review of a tank sim in a British gaming mag I still remember. The reviewer - something he presumably was/is paid for - said, I almost quote, that it would be more realistic going out in the garden and looking through a drainpipe, and scored 23%. The game... Steel Beasts. I wonder what happened to that one. [;)]

[BKLANDIN]

That one, is on my SSD. Sometime this week v3 will finaly be on my drive.
"What really matters is how well the game simulates real-world tactics". I believe it does so very well.
Weirdly, some of those who decry the game, seem to be clueless even with a provided game manual.
There are some valid criticisms and there are some cheap shots being delivered. This is the world
that has been cultivated, where too many see themselves as victims, so they flail away.
This game as it is today is great, but it is not perfect by any measure, however tomorrow, it will be even better.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

The trouble with this sort of software is that it is more or less impossible to review well, particularly so soon after release. What really matters is how well the game simulates real-world tactics, the particulars of the execution of those tactics, and a realistic spread of outcomes. If a wargame does that well for both shipped and user generated scenarios (with MP as a massive bonus), its an absolute must-buy regardless of UI quirks, missing shortcuts, editable databases or anything else. Unfortunately, because it takes many hours - even hundreds of hours - play to assess whether a complex strategy game does deliver in that respect or not, even by those qualified to do so, early reviews necessarily largely focus on the trivial.
[;)]

That doesn't really seem right. A game (or literally any product) is reviewable the moment you slap a price tag on it and start selling it. It's odd to use a metric for judging a wargame that's completely divorced from the player experience - it's no consolidation to know that you are getting a 100% accurate representation of Naval Air warfare if you can't interact with it!

Of course you can't review a game based on what it's game state will be like in 3 years time, but that isn't really unfair given that you are asking for my money now and not in 3 years time!

[erichswafford]

+1