[quote who="Glazunov1" reply="78" id="3342256"] Quoting mastroego, reply 76 MoM and Alpha Centauri. The undisputed masterpieces of the genre. Flaws and all. Choose, grasshopper, between them. For only one will guide you forward.[/quote] It's a tie. Also, different reasons for greatness. :)
MoM and Alpha Centauri. The undisputed masterpieces of the genre. Flaws and all.
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="20" id="3340995"] Can't say that I am overly impressed. FE:LH is more of a spiritual successor to MoM than this kickstarter for Worlds of Magic has attempted to show itself to be... It is a little interesting however that there just 'happened' to be some competition show up for spiritual succession of MoM once SD decided to pursue the evolvement of FE instead of progression of MoM. [/quote] As I
Not on par with the previous ones, but worth the ticket just for the dwarves-centered intro. The dwarven halls are just spectacular and majestic.
Last hours. I've pledged, not going to repent. :) Sure, we don't know what the results will be in this specific case, but this kind of game needs to be resurrected .
[quote] In Legendary Heroes players have a new Fame attribute [/quote] I must've whined about this for 3 years straight. I finally feel vindicated :) I must say, the new Heroes look great. I'm disappointed though about the lack of flying units and everything else we were all expecting to get from the expansion. Anyway, I'd be willing to buy at full price the next one if it FINALLY contained flying units, boats,
[quote who="Valentine82" reply="15" id="3279702"]The one thing that may redeem this game is modders with access to such a powerful site as Nexus to support their efforts.[/quote] I agree. I'm not as "vetriolic" as you are towards the game, but, faults or not, the nexus is a big thing. It can make a HUGE difference.
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="43" id="3276117"]The reviewer score is really the only thing that matters.[/quote] False and disproved by facts (i.e.: the Dragon Age II debacle, where potential buyers trusted their fellow players' advice and stayed clear of it). Not that it matters much in this case since the scores are not so different, but still. Player reviews are the only ones many of us care about.
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="31" id="3273978"] Yup, buggy games get great scores all the time. Look at X-com. Flickery wall blueprints, crashes, misplaced camera information in alien ships, SHIVS messing up over and over (not getting repaired, not showing up in battle and so on). [/quote] That tells you something. Nowadays - barring extreme and infuriating cases - users can "tolerate" bugs, since it can usually be assumed that they will be fixed. FE's "less th
[quote who="Emperor_Nero" reply="78" id="3273312"]I disagree, you are one of those rose tinted nostalgia people. If we just took MoM and gave it a graphic update people would bemoan the horrid game design, because it just won't stand up to today's game.[/quote] Sorry, sir, you're wrong: you have it the other way around. It's "today's game" that doesn't stand up to MoM. MoM had diverse races, flying units, naval units, alchemy, item crafting, heroes tied
One of the things I argued over FE's evolution was that, if we accepted the devs' word that there were technical problems in adding more races and models, then FE should have at least compensated by surpassing MoM in other areas, specifically: magic. Which, unfortunately, didn't happen (I think actually FE went in the opposite direction, with a somewhat anemic and overly random kind of magic, more based on spreadsheet-logic than fantastical effects). The game
[quote who="seanw3" reply="12" id="3269307"]If I had a dime for every time mastroego shelved a game... There are ways to avoid save disintegration. You can learn them and make it through the game with some effort. I agree that the memory leaks and save problems need to be addressed, but I didn't stop playing MoM or AoW due to crashes. Hardcore gamers don't let little things like this stop them. Not saying you have to be hardcore or that this is a good thin
Save integrity is a HUGE issue for me. Can't really play a game if I can't trust its saving system. And things like the AI insta-building stuff, as described in the other thread, are not just annoyances. I wasn't even aware that save integrity could exist as an issue, before FE... and that is an area where even mods cannot help, unfortunately. Game "officially" shelved, until better times.
[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="13" id="3268412"] IMO the amount of these "bugs" left in the final release is disturbing. It suggests that the game does not treat the AI and the human player the same way - many games internally use the client-server architecture and the server does not care if it receives move orders from human controlled GUI or some algorithm. That approach has the benefit of rooting out similar problems - the AI cannot suddenly do something that violates the rules, bec
[quote who="feelotraveller" reply="22" id="3268216"] I don't think that it is a rushing thing at all since the AI can pop multiple buildings in a city in a single turn. Basically every building in the queue. [/quote] Wow [e digicons]8|[/e] I'm starting to understand why people felt cheated by the AI. I save/load a lot when gaming, this and all the corrupt saves reports are major deal breakers for me. Hope they get fixed.
At the end of the day, all I can say is that users' reviews spared me some mighty disappointments, while critics' reviews would have had me jump straight into them. Please continue. [e digicons]v_v[/e]
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="77" id="3258660"] Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative. As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3. There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.[/quote] I would vote Diablo III exactly ZERO , like the chance that I'm going to pay for the "privilege" of "renting" single player gaming hours from their servers, or for an
[quote who="Tuidjy" reply="7" id="3264001"] True, because of many bugs that give low difficculty AIs bonuses that they should not get. [/quote] Yeah, and the criticism is entirely deserved here honestly, since the issue has been reported several times during the beta, but they just plain dismissed it and released anyway. It took your own "professional", comprehensive investigative work for the reports to be taken seriously. Could have been handled a lot better by the devs: after all,
Most of his points had been made by the community during the beta. So I don't think people are waiting for the "reviewers to make up their minds for them". I think legitimate issues are being identified and discussed. Once again I say, the developers should trust fan feedback a bit more. It's nothing like WoM's case, but even for FE a few valid complaints have been too hastily dismissed. Still, I think the expansion will have the chance of finally "getting there".
[quote who="Tuidjy" reply="8" id="3263177"] Honestly, I am still worried that Fallen Enchantress will not take off. The reviews are damning it with faint praise. I do not see enthusiastic reviews. Plenty of positive ones, but no enthusiastic ones. [/quote] The reception so far is similar to the results of the Beta Polls (" Fair " or " Good " were the most voted). Frankly, the game never attained an "awesome" status for the majority of beta players.
Italy has its problems, but once again news coverage creates misleading perceptions. Yes, our country has a staggering debt, but it also has great national riches which could, in theory, cover it. Also. its citizens have personal savings - huge savings if you consider the pro-capite average of the rest of the world. Many nations (even "strong" ones) are in far worse shape than ours, we you take all the numbers into account. It's not money that w
[quote] For all that Fallen Enchantress ticks off a long list of boxes that I’ve wanted in a 4X for years, it does so with little soul. ... None of the races capture my imagination like Master of Magic’s insectoid klackons or cruel draconians. ... ...But as much as I feel like I should be head-over-heels in love with it, my 50-plus hours with the game leave me satisfied rather than ecstatic. Maybe some enterprising modder will use the included tools
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="18" id="3259042"]mastroego, you're right that I think of scientists as scientists... why else would they, and not some political flunky be hired? Weren't they paid to give scientifically based advice? If not, why were scientists hired?[/quote] You know, I think you're pin-pointing the original anomaly here: instead of accepting chairs at the "Committee for Big Risks" they probably should have acted as advisors for an actual de
Again, there's a big misunderstanding here. You think of them as "scientists", while in this case you should regard them as "public officers". That was their role, what they were paid for. It's not about "failing to predict", rather about giving "misleading advice", which amounts to not living up to their specific task. Which of course still doesn't constitute manslaughter anyway (and the merit itself would be debatable on its own to boot). I'm
To be frank, I only trust players' reviews. True, some are excessive, but when the number of voters is high enough excesses average out (also, even exaggerated votes tell something). I find that players' score on Metacritic usually reflect the overall perceived value of the game. I avoided DA II thanx to those (82 Critics' score, 42 users' score... need I say more?) I do agree with some of the criticism, having been vocal about the same things myself (ex: magic