official PC Gamer review » Forum Post by charon2112

Quoting GI_Joe,

Perhaps, but I know I got the LE and right out of the box it worked. There was no crashing to desktop every 5 minutes, and it certainly wasn't unplayable. Whether it was fun in its present state is another matter.

I think statements like yours are why there is so much animosity on these forums. Just because the game didn't crash for you every 5 minutes doesn't mean that it's that way for everyone. Unplayable is a matter of opinion. But someone experiencing crashes or core game systems that don't work right or don't work at all could very much consider the game unplayable. That does not make them wrong, a liar or a hater. It just means that they had problems with the game and you didn't.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting woca,

reply 16

I was wondering this the other day - do game reviews thing 70 is average, or 50? or do they think it's something else?

I usually went with a 70 was average, and recently i've gotten in many arguments with friends who say 50 is. If they were going on a 50 average, I overrated a lot of girls on the hotness scale probably.

When I was in school a 59 or below was an F, a 60 to 69 was a D, a 70 to 79 was a C, an 80 to 89 was a B and 90 to 100 was an A. I've always thought that a rating system based on 0 to 100 was pretty much the same. Of course 50 in a 0 to 50 system is an excellent score. Depends on the rating method. Girls in my day were always rated 0 to 10 with the exception that some get an 11. Always depended on how hot she was and if she'd put out if you know what I mean.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting tevans6220,

reply 27

Quoting woca, reply 16I was wondering this the other day - do game reviews thing 70 is average, or 50? or do they think it's something else?

I usually went with a 70 was average, and recently i've gotten in many arguments with friends who say 50 is. If they were going on a 50 average, I overrated a lot of girls on the hotness scale probably.

When I was in school a 59 or below was an F, a 60 to 69 was a D, a 70 to 79 was a C, an 80 to 89 was a B and 90 to 100 was an A. I've always thought that a rating system based on 0 to 100 was pretty much the same. Of course 50 in a 0 to 50 system is an excellent score. Depends on the rating method. Girls in my day were always rated 0 to 10 with the exception that some get an 11. Always depended on how hot she was and if she'd put out if you know what I mean.

yea, girls were 1-10, but i still put 7 as average on a 10 point scale, others put 5. really might of messed things up

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Ahroo,

reply 20

Quoting Hawawaa,
reply 15
Well in my book 60s are average games, 70s are good games, 80s are excellent games, and 90+ is damn near perfect. But I don't care cause I know for a fact that we got tons of free updates rolling out to us so who cares.

61-75% is Fair

"A decent effort that, but for a little more polish, coulda been a contender."

76-89% is Good

"Enjoyable, well-made and entertaining--just falling short of true greatness."

And so on.. according to PCgamer. I don't know what the UK PCgamer scale is.

Then by thier own scale 70 is fair - it still needs polish and depth - in a month or two it may well make it into the next bracket (and may be already there for you if you haven't had any technical faults). It probably won't be until the expansion that we get a real test as to whether it is an all time classic. The saving grace is that in this niche (fantasy TBS RPG crossover) there is really little competion (Fall from Heaven being a notable exception)

Successfully updated karma reason!

The saving grace is that in this niche (fantasy TBS RPG crossover) there is really little competion

Dominions 3 still beat E:WoM hands down.

Successfully updated karma reason!

joasoze

Join Date 02/2006

+39

I think the review is fair. He lets us know the problems, but also the potential. I like the game, but as he said the AI is a total pushover and lots of stuff isnt balanced at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting tevans6220,

reply 25

Quoting Ahroo, reply 8
2-3 years is just insulting. They waited about a couple of months before they finally reviewed Mount&Blade Warband. Another game that was in the same boat as this one. They also did the same thing to another game, I think it was GTA4? Where they reviewed it but didn't give it a final score till they threw in the multiplayer and finished the game. And rerwrote the review and scored it the next month. I don't see why they can't do the same here. I just don't see the point in writing a review that'll be terribly outdated by the end of the month.

I think I can answer the question why they don't wait. It's because reviews are supposed to be a service for the consumer. Not for the publisher or developer. It is the responsibility of the publisher or developer to actually put out a good, finished and polished product if they want a good review. Why shouldn't reviewers review the same copy sold on retail shelves? It would be a huge disservice for reviewers to wait on patches. In this case it really wouldn't have made any difference. Bad is bad.

Love how everyone conviently misses how they waited to review other games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DKL,

reply 30

The saving grace is that in this niche (fantasy TBS RPG crossover) there is really little competion

Dominions 3 still beat E:WoM hands down.

I love Doms3, it is definitely one of the best and most complex fantasy TBS games, but I wouldn't compare it to EWoM. EWoM should be compared to AoW/AoW-SM/MoM for example.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Ahroo,

reply 32

Quoting tevans6220,
reply 25

Quoting Ahroo, reply 8
2-3 years is just insulting. They waited about a couple of months before they finally reviewed Mount&Blade Warband. Another game that was in the same boat as this one. They also did the same thing to another game, I think it was GTA4? Where they reviewed it but didn't give it a final score till they threw in the multiplayer and finished the game. And rerwrote the review and scored it the next month. I don't see why they can't do the same here. I just don't see the point in writing a review that'll be terribly outdated by the end of the month.

I think I can answer the question why they don't wait. It's because reviews are supposed to be a service for the consumer. Not for the publisher or developer. It is the responsibility of the publisher or developer to actually put out a good, finished and polished product if they want a good review. Why shouldn't reviewers review the same copy sold on retail shelves? It would be a huge disservice for reviewers to wait on patches. In this case it really wouldn't have made any difference. Bad is bad.

Love how everyone conviently misses how they waited to review other games.

I didn't miss it. Ever stop to think it might have been a matter of scheduling? So many games, so many reviewers. I'm not familiar with GTA4 but maybe they waited on a final score because the multiplayer component was not a patch but a free add on. With regard to Mount & Blade Warband, I think that's an indie developer which is basically a 1 or 2 man operation. Probably gave them the benefit of the doubt and a little leeway review wise. With GalCiv2 a major hit along wiith Sins, Stardock can no longer be considered a indie developer. In other words they are held to the same standard as the big boys. Maybe even a higher standard due to their Gamer's Bill of Rights. I think reviewers have been very fair with the exception of the Neoseeker review. Anyone thinking this game deserves a 9/10 right now is either on drugs or a complete idiot. Or maybe both.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Ahroo,

reply 32

Love how everyone conviently misses how they waited to review other games.

Brad himself encouraged reviewers to review CURRENT game and do not wait till big patch. So they did what SD CEO said, whats the problem?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Ahroo,

reply 32

Love how everyone conviently misses how they waited to review other games.

Well you've mentioned a whole two (out of the thousands of games they review) other instances when they waited longer to review a game, and in one of those cases there was already a review out for the console version. So we can assume that the other 99% of the games they review are done immediately, making this very consistent. Meanwhile your conveniently missing how Brad told them to review it now and not to wait. Are you saying that they should have told him no?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The game was released early because naughty people released torrentz which forced StarDock to release it early to the customers who actually paid. Otherwise, the guy thinks a lot of what I think -

1. Good game.

2. Balance it.

3. Add more stuff.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting hairrorist,

reply 7

Quoting Ahroo, reply 1Who is tom francis and why should I care about his opinion? Where's Dan Stapleton or Desslock?

The game has been released far, far too early

And so was your review.

Tom Francis is probably the best known game reviewer in the business. PC Gamer also waited nearly a week to print, more time and leniency than most games get. Think before posting.

The issues raised by the reviews are consistent across the whole spectrum of reviews--almost uniform. The designer of the game himself has stated that the reviews are correct and more than fair.

I completely agree with you Harrorist,

And to give more weight to your point, Frogboy, the man himself, stated that he did not want reviewers to wait for 1.1. He said, they should review the game as of 1.05.

So Ahroo, I think that you should take hairrorist's suggestion and think before posting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting hairrorist,

reply 14

I'd suggest simply ignoring Ahroo. He is clearly either mentally challenged

These sorts of comments are completely unnecessary.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

What I'm most pissed off about how we all predicted this and they still released the game early.
Even closing my, in Brad's own word "Obnoxious", thread asking why they're rushing the game so.

"[Stardock] has taken a critical hit to their [Reputation] and suffers [90] damage."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well from what I am hearing, the game's stability has greatly improved with version 1.07. It's sad, but had Stardock released the game just 1 or 2 weeks later, the reviews would have been much better - I'm thinking an average of .5 to 1 percent more. The difference between a 6.5 and a 7 or 7.5 makes a huge psychological difference in the mind of prospective customers.

What really got the negativity going was probably PC Gamer's original "warning" which probably wouldn't have happened if they had first seen the game at 1.07. But then again, who's to say that the dev team would have wised up and fixed the game had we not seen it first in it's Gold form.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I guarantee that a few of the bigger gaming companies have influenced the exaggerated negative hype especially with reviews. Basically if Stardock wasn't known for producing top-quality games and was more like most other gaming companies that regularly put out inferior products then the review wouldn't be so negative? The game is no worse than most other games upon release. And unlike other games and companies we have had nothing but a earnest attempts(6patches in two weeks)by Stardock to improve the game so to please most everybody. Conspiracy more than likely along with instant gratification, shortsighted/what have you done for me lately mentality, has contributed too the negative feedback. For a perspective follow link to Wikipedia about MoM it will sound alot like this game tons of bugs and poor AI but with patching it suddenly became the be all of fantasy 4x gaming so will this with patience and less whining.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You know, I'm liking Elemental more and more each day. The game reminds me of how games were released 10 - 15 years ago. They were usually very buggy, had a high learning curve and were generally very unpolished. I think the current expectation of quality for game releases has increased dramatically since then.

Most games today are released by huge publishers who put an endless amounts of time into polish and tutorials rather than good, deep gameplay. The bar has been set so high now, that anything which would have been considered normal for 1995, is automatically discounted as trash.

I mean just take a look at some of the greatest games of all time: MoM, XCom, Daggerfall, Goldbox games. Every single one of those were EXTREMELY buggy and an utter nightmare to figure out how to play if you weren't a computer geek already. Yet we hold those games to a very high standard of great game design.

I think when you've removed the 2010-colored glasses and take a look at the game from a core perspective, it's far more appealing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Great review, and sad to see the rabid fanboi echo chamber already chomping for Tom Francis's (a well known and well respected reviewer) throat.

Maybe the game wasn't released "early," but it was certainly released in an "unacceptable" state. Let's ignore, you know, rational argument about that fact, or the almost 50% disappointment rating, or the well-written reviews spelling out exactly why this game isn't where it should be, or the general state of the forums, and move instead to Bradley's confessions that, you know, the game is half-baked. And further, that it wouldn't be fully baked even in February due to their development process (ie, lack of impartial testers and feature-creep).

There is no fanboi argument left at this point. Your lord god frogboy has decreed on high that his game sucks (in softer tones) in its current incarnation. He has decreed on high that he wants reviewers to review 1.05.

You are not allowed to rip your clothes and gnash your teeth at reviewers calling a rube a rube when the dude you idolize is calling it a rube too.

You are not allowed to rage about reviewers not reviewing the latest patch when your lord god from on high has decreed that 1.05 is his desired review version.

If anything, we all should be overjoyed that PC Gamer was nice enough to hand it a 70 (the review undoubtedly read as a 50-range). 70's the bare minimum for anyone to even consider a purchase thanks to the American 70-90 educational system.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting enigma691,

reply 42

I guarantee that a few of the bigger gaming companies have influenced the exaggerated negative hype especially with reviews.

So you seriously think is all part of some shadowy conspiracy against Stardock? How do you explain the fact that the average user review is just as low as the average critic review, or the fact that stardock itself has apologized for releasing the game in the state that it's in?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I remember Brad a couple months before release questioned whether or not the game would be ready. Then in like a week he said we will make our release date.

Honestly, imo - I think he wanted the game to be done so he could take his sabatical and code some ai or mod. He wanted out of the office. Notice how he took a vaca right at release when the game is in the shape it is in? I and others said the game was not ready and he got on these forums and made us sound like trolls. He didn't want to hear about the game in an unfinished state.

I wonder if the devs now can actually get the real work done now that he is gone?

Ultimately it is his leadership that got them in this mess. I would question working for anyone like that after seeing how this went down - the pcgamer warning and the forum flaming that he participated in. He new he was releasing an unfinished, and untested game - reason he become vigilant to squash anyone that said so.

But I am sure there is more to know than meets the eye here. So its all speculation. But just look at the facts...

Brad ignored beta tester red flags saying game was unfinished

Tactical battles were never released to beta testers

Game never tested with all gameplay elements in place (Memory leak would of been squashed)

Game released anyways

Poor reviews

Buggy unbalanced game that is still in a final beta stage

Brad wrote a basic apology letter

Brad on vacation

Devs now have to fix the mess in short order

This game needed another 3 months for polish and another 3 months to add content.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting niteshade6,

reply 45

Quoting enigma691,
reply 42
I guarantee that a few of the bigger gaming companies have influenced the exaggerated negative hype especially with reviews.

So you seriously think is all part of some shadowy conspiracy against Stardock? How do you explain the fact that the average user review is just as low as the average critic review, or the fact that stardock itself has apologized for releasing the game in the state that it's in?

If you don't think those kind of things happen in corporate, industry, then my friend I have some ocean front property in Arizonia for sale. And for the reviews and avg. being the same can't say I have seen that in fact it seems from Gamespot where they gave it a 4.0 user reviews had it around 6.7 hardly the same avg. but hate it if ya want it's your party and ya can do what ya want too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I can agree to the text and the verdict. The text means critizising what is amiss, the verdict 70/100 means giving it a chance, which it deserves.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting enigma691,

reply 47

If you don't think those kind of things happen in corporate, industry, then my friend I have some ocean front property in Arizonia for sale. And for the reviews and avg. being the same can't say I have seen that in fact it seems from Gamespot where they gave it a 4.0 user reviews had it around 6.7 hardly the same avg. but hate it if ya want it's your party and ya can do what ya want too.

Well no I do not in fact think that there are any shadowy conspiracies going on to take down Stardock. I tend not to believe in things that there is absolutely no evidence for. The fact that you disagree with some reviews, and the fact that you you think conspiracies sometimes happen in "corporate industry" do not in fact count as evidence that some evil plot is going.

And the 6.7 average user review is about the same as the average critic review. You'll note that it's lower then the PC gamer review. Yes there are individual critic reviews such as gamespot that are both higher and lower then the average critic review. That's the way averages work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Ahroo,

reply 1

You'd think he would reaize how long it takes for a game that went gold to be printed, packaged, shipped, and sold.

Why did I have to wait until the 25th for the "day zero patch" when actual release was supposed to be the 24th?

Successfully updated karma reason!