Why so few reviews?

[Batou]

Outside of some Euro sites I find it odd there are so few reviews of CMBN, I can understand the mainstream sites (IDN, GameSpot, etc.) but, don't understand why there are no reviews from the Wargamer, OutofEight, or others?

[Michael Dorosh]

I can understand the mainstream sites (IDN, GameSpot, etc.)

I can't (to quote an old acquintance of some repute).

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that it made some sense, but we are well past release now. Even if no preview copies were sent out, there has been plenty of time.

But I noticed a thread at VGG that some "no name" guy named Whytefang wrote to BFC for a review copy, and they sent him one, no questions asked.

So even there, I get the impression that it wasn't a case of anyone refusing to send out preview copies, or the game being unavailable for review to the mainstream. Videogamegeek got a copy just like that.

[dalem]

I don't think many in "the biz" are very interested in it, and I suspect the few that are are mainly dismissive.

-dale

[Redwolf]

A lot of reviewers lost a lot of credit when they reviewed CMSF. Not eager to repeat the mistake.

Competent ones probably wait for a patch so that they know whether they can bash the flaws or not. It looks idiotic if you bash flaws in a review that's up 5 years but they got fixed 2 weeks after you published.

[dalem]

It looks idiotic if you bash flaws in a review that's up 5 years but they got fixed 2 weeks after you published.

Why? I don't understand your attitude of "the release version can be complete crap as long as it is eventually fixed." Never have.

-dale

[KG_Jag]

I suspect that the lack of reviews, now a month after release, may be attributable to one or more of the following factors. First, game reviews from wargaming oriented sites appear to be at an all time low. For example, this site has done only one game review so far in 2011. Even the independents like Mike Kreuzer have/has not been posting on his site for about six months.

Second, BF did not do themselves any favors by attacking Tom Chick for posting a less than favorable review of early CMSF. Could be that BF has "earned" being ignored by some in the gaming/wargaming industry.

Regardless, there was certainly more reviewer feedback about CMSF. See:

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthre...eviews-of-CMSF

[Michael Dorosh]

A lot of reviewers lost a lot of credit when they reviewed CMSF.

Can you give an example of this?

Competent ones probably wait for a patch so that they know whether they can bash the flaws or not. It looks idiotic if you bash flaws in a review that's up 5 years but they got fixed 2 weeks after you published.

I wonder. I know a lot of people talked about reviewers that bashed the 1.00/1.01 CMSF. One or two reviewers did come back and revisit the game after the patches, to their credit. I think in the interim, the review sites became less relevant - this was at the same time that the whole twittersphere/blogosphere took off, and the idea of "professionals" doing the speaking went into the dumper in favour of everyone with a keyboard just mouthing off into the ether, as indeed we are doing now.

[Rule_303]

Sigline worthy, Michael!!!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Sigline worthy, Michael!!!!

I'm flattered, but I'm not in favour of the movement!!! (The sig line I'm cool with, the new twitterverse, not so much)

[Batou]

A lot of reviewers lost a lot of credit when they reviewed CMSF. Not eager to repeat the mistake.

Competent ones probably wait for a patch so that they know whether they can bash the flaws or not. It looks idiotic if you bash flaws in a review that's up 5 years but they got fixed 2 weeks after you published.

I don't think so, CMSF was bad when first released and most of the reviews were spot on. Hell, I still remember Battlefront doing a lot of back peddling in those days and even calling out some reviewers! They defended the QB system for years and only now after three expansion packs they admit they should have done more to improve it!!!