• 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


Messages In This Thread
The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Fullhouse - 08-01-2007, 07:24 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-01-2007, 07:35 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-01-2007, 08:57 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 01:43 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 01:55 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 06:52 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 07:47 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 07:54 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 08:42 AM
RE:��The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 08:53 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 11:12 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 10:48 PM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-05-2007, 07:38 PM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-05-2007, 07:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 20 Guest(s)