Tasunke, that's the point that I'm getting at - you have outdated scores thrown in with current scores and the goalposts are constantly shifting with the tech and rising expectations.

We also don't have the same volume of strategy games being made compared to FPS etc so there are less games to compare against too - which makes these scores (particularly for niche genres) really subjective and ambiguous - the random scores that have been thrown out by us on this thread help to illustrate this and we represent just a fraction of the wider gaming market.

I could say that I think FE will get 8.5 out of 10 when it is released but there's nothing useful a dev can take from that apart from that I'm optimistic about the game's prospects. The gamer journos will be writing the reviews and our feedback would be more useful if it highlights what works well and what needs improvement.

Regarding the 'Ci4itis' I'll have to agree and disagree.  Note I use the BtS expansion, not the original Civ4, and also Civ4 not 1-3.  Also, I linked a few posts ago to the CivFanatics Succession GoTM forum where people can see some of the best players team playing some very well-designed scenarios, and follow along with their strategies/tactics.  It really showcases how well done Civ4 BtS is, for anyone unfamiliar with the game, and with how deep/complicated/well-balanced/etc a TBS game can be.

Off topic: Funny, I've been playing Shogun Total War (1) the last couple of weeks in preference to FE Beta 2.  I think it is good outright and not just for its time.  I rank it on a par with Shogun 2 as an all round game.  Sure they are different and S2's campaign is much better.  But the overall strategic balance is there in the original (probably more so) and I find that the battle maps (all that marching around) and tactical combat are way better in the first version.  It also has very catchy immersion, quite funny and very polished - beautiful sound effects, appropriate music, lovely death poems, etc.

On topic: I am wary of placing too much importance on metacritic scores.  Generally they are written by someone who plays the game for all of half a day.  As such they are much more sensitive to bright baubles than deep strategic play.  The latter emerges only over many hours.  Sure, if a game I am thinking about buying gets very low scores I will have to re-evaluate, but i might still buy it, and on the other hand extremely high scores will get me to look at a game that I have previously written off, but I still may reject it.  If your game was aimed at a market with the mentality of screaming ten year olds metacritic scores might be a lot more relevant.  (If I've got it wrong and it is aimed at this market... well, maybe it just isn't the game for me after all...)

People give it to you.  Hover over the separator between posts and you'll see a thumbs up icon.  Click on it to give karma.

The WOM rating I gave was what I would have given it.  53 in my opinion is too high. Nothing trollish about it.

I think that's because they are perceived as an artistic product. And rating art is purely subjective.

With the recent ME3 endings uproar, I read from several different sites (reviewer sites included), that changing the endings of that game would compromise its artistic integrity. Quoting Dr. Ray Muzyka, co-founder of BioWare: "I believe passionately that games are an art form", and I tend to agree.

So, how do you apply a set of standards to a work of art?. Even more technical aspects of a game, like the quality of the graphics(?) seem to be overlooked, when you see a game like Minecraft (that, IMO, looks like crap), receive a Metacritic score of 93.

They qualify my definition of art form. Interactive art is the best kind. There was this exhibit in Seattle that changed shape and color based on who was looking at it and what they looked like. Still one of my favorite pieces. But even the qualification of art is extremely subjective. For instance, my friend when to go see the same piece at my behest and was extremely irate. He claimed it was just a shitty mirror. I guess he didn't like what he saw.

For standards to be standards, you need to have precise definitions, limits or rules that are widely accepted so they become the minimun acceptable benchmark. For example: From a reviewer's POV, they seem to agree that bugs are undesirable. But do they agree on how bugs and their severity impact a game as a whole and to what degree they detract from it to reach a final score?

So, unless they can reach consensus on exactly what they'll be taking into consideration and where they put the thresholds, those standards become personal standards. And personal standards are preferences that messured and expressed by each individual reviewer then become opinions. Informed, qualified, educated, etc...but still opinions.

OTOH, having an empire build or a "good" tactical combat are features that not every good TBS game need to have. Furthermore, you can have many of those features in a TBS, but if they don't integrate well with each other and the whole, they become obstacles that diminish the quality of the game.

I have this, Fortress America, and 2 boxes of Axis & Allies. All original. Moving with me for 25 years, haha.    

Cool! Thanks for sharing, I'll check it out!

First, E:WoM wasn't that bad (after the total unplayability because of crashing every 5 minutes was dealt with). A modded version of 1.4 is actually a pretty good game - better, IMO, at this point, than FE. But EWOM was horribly flawed at release and was clearly trying to be an epic game. And clearly failing. But, big but, I would still rather play MoM than WoM (or FE). But MoM is generally regarded as 'best of kind (Fantasy TBS), ever', including by me. To even get close to that standard means that FE is a great game. Afterall, it means that in 2032, we'll be berating software companies for failing to meet that standard.

FE appears to be moving in the generally correct direction and promises much. Once it delivers much, I'll be very happy to trumpet its virtues over the internet and elsewhere. But I do worry about whether even FE can defeat the 4000 lb anchor they've attached to this franchise: can a dull, lifeless, bland, post apocalyptic world ever be home to a truly interesting and addictive game? Or will it get boring most of the way through the first game? Here's hoping I'm berating some poor game designer in 2032 for failing to meet the standard set by FE (if only because it means I'm still alive after nearly 8 decades in this world). 

Well there is artwork in a PC game but to me that does not make the sum of all a PC games part as art.  Art very subjective some people would call fecus in a colorful bottle modern art....others would call it crap in a bottle. Picasso's (sp?) art looks like a 5 year old created it  but to others it looks fantastic (I lean toward his works looking like a 5 year old created it.) But for me a PC game is more a science than an art. And personally I never want games to be more Artsy fartsy.

Warlock and FE aren't really competitors. The beta is going great, but there is no point in comparing them until this game is finished.