SIM HQ Review (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

adek670 -> SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 1:49:32 AM)

Guys,

There was a critical review earlier on Sim HQ that has been pulled. Reference in the link below:

Sim HQ Forum - CMANO

Whilst I'm not from the 'land of the free', I'm sure that freedom of the press exists in most western democracies and I would like to make my own mind up as to its worth.

At present, I'm struggling with the game. So much requires fixing to make it anything like a finished product.

This feels like the time I bought a new car and it broke down 3 miles from the garage forecourt. I then had 2 months of Vauxhall having it in and out of the garage - with each visit a further issue then occurred... Feels like de ja vu.. or have I said that already somewhere else.

Reaper



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 1:57:07 AM)

My understanding is that SimHQ chose the person who had the most against the developers to review the game. Basically some decade old drama; long before my time.

The freedom of the press is freedom from government intervention. The press is allowed to do whatever they want otherwise.





thewood1 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:02:45 AM)

I think this was a credibility issue for SimHQ. Several people, not related to Matrix sent emails explaining that Herman not had a decades-long feud with the developers and even had a somewhat competitive product in his PlayersDB version of Harpoon.

If some kind of disclosure had been put up, I am not sure anyone would have had as much of a problem. In the end it made both Herman and SimHq look a little foolish, no matter how fair the review was.

btw, freedom of the press only relates to government infringement. Companies and other organizations have a lot of leeway in what they put up with.



adek670 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:11:39 AM)

yeah I know-- just exercising some license - more of an objection to it been pulled than a campaign against government censorship!!!

just frustrated that my new car is back in the garage.




tombo -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:32:50 AM)

I read the "Review" before it was pulled. Once i filtered out the talk stuff ,I thought he had some reasonable points. Some points are what i thought as i followed thru the AARs. I think the points made by the Review should be summarized again and addressed by the Devs.

We all want this product to succeed and be its best.

just my 2C.



JRyan -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:32:58 AM)

Guys...having HH do the review is like asking Obama to do a review of the House plan for Obummer Care....that was the LAST person that would provide a non agenda driven review. Sure the Sim has some issues and they are being addressed.

In a way, HH KILLED Harpoon........

Did it have some concerns? Yes sure and so do we and the Devs are addressing them as they can.

Here is just one example of bias....HH complained about the Formation Editor and how it was not as good as such and such. Well he failed to mention that the capability is there just not implemented in the same way as Harpoon. This was done to give what the developers thought was more flexible. Ol HH failed to even mention this..

I about puked when I read it.....for those of you who don't know, please follow Erik's links and read what happened...I was there and I left for 4 years.....

IBTL...



adek670 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:36:03 AM)

yeah,

read that in the link

sounds like a loaded review for sure .. but I still think I would like to read it



ExMachina -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:36:20 AM)

I'm all for personal opinions, but that SimHQ review was more of a personal vindetta--I only recently learned of how the reviewer had not only personal issues with some of hte Command team, but also how he had a competing interest in the market.

I have to give credit too: the Command devs have handled Herman's review better that Herman handled it



JRyan -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:38:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExMachina
I have to give credit too: the Command devs have handled Herman's review better that Herman handled it


It's called being classy.......



Empty014 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 4:06:17 AM)

I personally thought the review was fair and factual, regardless of whatever history is there. At the end of the day the released game is a very bug ridden product, you only have to look at the page after page of problems in this forum. Why should we be expected to accept such a product, I ask you, would you buy a new car with no glass in the windows or the brakes not fitted. I have not been able to finish a scenario or tutorial without it crashing or freezing.



mikmykWS -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 4:16:05 AM)

Hi Mick

What issues are you experiencing? Please post details and we'll gladly follow up.

Thanks!

Mike



ExMachina -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 4:16:42 AM)

quote:

At the end of the day the released game is a very bug ridden product, you only have to look at the page after page of problems in this forum.


Honestly, this is one of the most bug-free PC games I've ever purchased--for a v1.00 it's remarkably stable.




strykerpsg -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 5:04:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mickt014

I personally thought the review was fair and factual, regardless of whatever history is there. At the end of the day the released game is a very bug ridden product, you only have to look at the page after page of problems in this forum. Why should we be expected to accept such a product, I ask you, would you buy a new car with no glass in the windows or the brakes not fitted. I have not been able to finish a scenario or tutorial without it crashing or freezing.


[sm=crazy.gif] I'm not certain you're playing the same version as everyone else. I've had an occasional glitch but nothing of show stopper proportions.



MaB1708 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 9:14:08 AM)

The "page after page of problems in this forum" are often not problems but wishes for enhancements etc. Has nothing to do with the product, which, as ExMachina and others stated for good reason, is in good shape for a 1.0 - with the devs committed and present, what more can we expect?
The tons of posts IMHO result mainly from the fact that people playing these kind of sims are very detail-driven, a sim representation that is "somehow" resembling real-life is not enough, we want more and we ideally would like to have anything as accurate as real life. No one will give sth like this to us but we judge a sim on the level of granularity and how close it comes to what we - individually - consider "the real thing".
COMMAND is wonderfull and very close, and all reasonable requests me and the other anancastic personalities around would like to see I believe we will see.
A success story has started with the first release and we are part of it - great. There are issues - yes. But please please lets keep the tone here civil and don't get affected by the poison spilling of others with their personal agenda (which I am not judging, I just want it to stay out of here).
All the best,
M



Hertston -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 11:47:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

sounds like a loaded review for sure .. but I still think I would like to read it


So would I, for entertainment value, but they were right to pull it. Command will get little mainstream attention so reviews at places like Sim HQ are very important - commercially important - to WarFare Sims and Slitherene/Matrix. I'm all in favour of 'freedom of speech', but it just isn't acceptable to hand something that needs to independent and unbiased over to someone who is not only neither, but seems to have a vendetta against the developers that Vito Corleone would be proud of.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the feud giving one side a free ticket to financially damage the other, with not insignificant collateral damage to the hobby itself - is unacceptable.



thewood1 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 12:19:02 PM)

I'll point out again that Herman's PlayersDB is in some ways a competitive product. Would you ask a chevy dealer for a review of a Toyota and publish it. SimHQ has gotten itself into a tough spot just because they did no due diligence. Now it can be perceived that they pulled the review for commercial reasons. I don't think anyone with half a brain and knows even a little of the story thinks that. But it does give the fringe element a rallying point.



mjk428 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 1:36:57 PM)

It concerns me that SimHQ could be pressured by a game publisher into pulling a review. Their credibility as an independent actor just went out the window. Even if the reviewer had an axe to grind once the review was published they should have backed up their reviewer.

I read the review and I thought the reviewer was at least trying to be fair. Now that it's been pulled it will appear that it was much worse than it really was. Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher. The press should be skeptical.

All in all the review pointed out many areas where CMANO needs improvement. Nowhere did I see any serious misrepresentations of the game. I hope the devs kept a copy of the review because it made some good recommendations.



thewood1 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 1:51:52 PM)

It has nothing to do with the review itself, but the credibility of the reviewer. A reader should have been made aware that the author has developed his own H3 database that he pushes as an alternative to both H3 and Command.

I am not sure matrix even advertises on SimHQ. In fact, SimHQ has gone without updates for months at a time. Even its ads are months out of date.



ExMachina -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 1:59:39 PM)

quote:

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher


But either way, I'd want to be made of aware of those biases, and especially of any conflicts of interest. Since the writer is essentially a direct competitor to Command, that conflict of interest needed to be clearly divulged in the article.



mattpenfold -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 1:59:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It concerns me that SimHQ could be pressured by a game publisher into pulling a review. Their credibility as an independent actor just went out the window. Even if the reviewer had an axe to grind once the review was published they should have backed up their reviewer.

I read the review and I thought the reviewer was at least trying to be fair. Now that it's been pulled it will appear that it was much worse than it really was. Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher. The press should be skeptical.

All in all the review pointed out many areas where CMANO needs improvement. Nowhere did I see any serious misrepresentations of the game. I hope the devs kept a copy of the review because it made some good recommendations.



So you don't think posting a review by a person who is known to have a personal animus with the people behind Command, and failing to declare that damaged their credibility in the first place ?



Primarchx -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:11:03 PM)

It is the duty of a critic to present an opinion untainted by personal motivations. SimHQ allowed someone with a known conflict with Warfaresims to write a review of the game. It's the ethics of the reviewing organization I'm concerned about, not the review itself.



thewood1 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:17:50 PM)

Exactly...Herman is Herman...SimHQ should have known better.



mjk428 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:23:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

quote:

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher


But either way, I'd want to be made of aware of those biases, and especially of any conflicts of interest. Since the writer is essentially a direct competitor to Command, that conflict of interest needed to be clearly divulged in the article.



Well I read what Erik had to say about the reviewer and checked out his links before reading the review itself. Was surprised to find a fair and accurate review after all the hoopla. If this Herman fellow was trying to damage his alleged competition he didn't do a very good job considering he offered valid suggestions on where CMANO could be improved.

I agree that SimHQ was obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest. I agree that they should vet their reviewers before accepting and publishing their reviews. What I disagree with is publishing the review and then pulling it completely. If there were conflicts they could have been noted along with the review. Full disclosure. If there were factual errors they could have been corrected. Happens all the time.

In the end SimHQ may have been shown to be incompetent because of this. By pulling the review they have proven themselves to be not only incompetent but also weak.



thewood1 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 2:32:52 PM)

Herman basically admits here he is competing against Command. He tries to hide it by saying that certain features were needed, but in the end, Command and H3 (modified) are in the same class and any procurement organization would at least have both on the long list.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/GdaKOxG9hoQ

Not sure how the formatting will work out...apologies in advance.

And I tend to agree that the mistake SimHQ made was up front in not even doing the most simple google search on the author's name. Taking it down was not the most elegant solution.



Rob322 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 3:56:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher. The press should be skeptical.


Personally, I wouldn't want to read a review from either type of person listed above but rather from a neutral party who's prepared to give an honest assessment of the product. People with chips on their shoulder will have as hard a time doing this as fanboys. I also expect any reviewer to announce any biases or conflicts, pro or con, in their piece. To do any less is simply not professional, it's Yelp.



mjk428 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 4:19:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob322


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher. The press should be skeptical.


Personally, I wouldn't want to read a review from either type of person listed above but rather from a neutral party who's prepared to give an honest assessment of the product. People with chips on their shoulder will have as hard a time doing this as fanboys. I also expect any reviewer to announce any biases or conflicts, pro or con, in their piece. To do any less is simply not professional, it's Yelp.


I didn't say it was optimal. Just preferred over fawning reviews in love with the creators or reviewers that have been paid off. Neutral should be the target of course.

Still all reviewers are biased to some degree. In the end it's only one person's opinion not cold hard facts. And I doubt every negative move review by Roger Ebert was really a hidden attempt to drive people to see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.



HercMighty -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 5:48:18 PM)

I am with everyone else here...regardless of the history that should not have been the basis for taking down the review...it was wrong, plain and simple...and any marketing group would have advised much better tactics of dealing with it...

Just very un-proffesional, especially considering that there are legitimate issues that are being quoted as being worked on...you know I don't like most of the things Putin says but do you really think his op-ed piece would have been pulled just because America or our Government didn't like it...just saying...



kaburke61 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 5:58:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HercMighty

I am with everyone else here...regardless of the history that should not have been the basis for taking down the review...it was wrong, plain and simple...and any marketing group would have advised much better tactics of dealing with it...

Just very un-proffesional, especially considering that there are legitimate issues that are being quoted as being worked on...you know I don't like most of the things Putin says but do you really think his op-ed piece would have been pulled just because America or our Government didn't like it...just saying...


NOT everyone else. Some. I have no problem with a possibly biased review being pulled. I haven't heard anything about being forced to remove the review. Just saying.....



$trummer -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 6:02:30 PM)

I was the first to draw this review to the devs' attention here and received a very informative response from Erik, who then locked the thread, fearing that it would bring flamers and trolls. The fact that this thread hasn't reignited the blood feud between the reviewer and the devs gives grounds for hope that what was quite obviously a very ugly business is now buried in the past.

As for the review, it was severe but not malicious. It was obviously written by a very knowledgeable, if somewhat obsessive, individual. Most of its complaints about the game were of a rather specialized, granular nature, making the piece less than helpful to anyone but those already very commited to, and knoedgeable about, this genre of gaming. I thought it was, to borrow a phrase, fair but not balanced.

Regarding the ethics of SimHQ's conduct in the matter. I think they must have been taken by surprise to learn of the history between this writer and the developer and shocked by the strength of feelings involved, at least from the devs, who believe, with some justification that Mr. Hum is a threat to their livelihood. As a 15-year member of SimHQ and occasional reviewer, it saddens me to see their ethics questioned here, as I think they meant no harm in either publishing the review or subsequently pulling it. Command has many admirers at SimHQ, myself included.



thewood1 -> RE: SIM HQ Review (10/1/2013 6:09:01 PM)

That is why you shouldn't take an Joe Blow off the street as a reviewer or author. Otherwise you are just a blog site. I have SimHQ above the simple bloggers for that very reason. Just a simple google of the author's name would have easily and quickly shown that there was significant risk and a potential for conflict of interest.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.467773