Beyond the Sword Review by Solver

[sneaky]

Originally posted by WangKon
Wiglaf,

I agree. There is a lot of condescension in Solver's replies to some of his critics here--which I feel is unwarranted. One almost wonders, given the sheer arrogance and in-house mentality he displays here, whether he has transmogrified himself from a dedicated fan trying to represent the gaming community to an insider, to "one of them."

"Condescension"?

He did mention some of the things you complain about. Everybody knows he was part of BTS. Why are you guys whining about semantics? Should every review he ever writes start with a page long description of his life, the fact he may be biased, that he may also just have an own opinion and can't please everybody?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by player1
Lets put it this way.
Did any other review noticed those things?

Yes, gamespot explicitly states
* New espionage feature doesn't work all that well"

And you can't blame reviewer, even if beta tester, if he didn't played 150 games with all combinations of setting, rules, speeds, various scenarios or not, to notice any possible issue. "Shame on him"

Yes, I can. Solver implies an in-depth knowledge of each feature. Most posters here realize he worked on the game and assume he is giving them all information he has on the various aspects of the core game. Most visitors to this site who aren't regular posters might not even realize solver's bias.

So when he fails to mention the problems with espionage that even gamespot picks up, people might trust him and not gamespot. Hence the problem.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by sneaky


"Condescension"?

He did mention some of the things you complain about. Everybody knows he was part of BTS. Why are you guys whining about semantics? Should every review he ever writes start with a page long description of his life, the fact he may be biased, that he may also just have an own opinion and can't please everybody?

It's basic editorial sense...if I'm writing a review for a product I made (which again, is absurd in itself), I'd state exactly what I did to work on the product.

Everybody knows he was part of BTS.

Er, no. Most people who read his review aren't forum regulars.

[player1]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Yes, I can. Solver implies an in-depth knowledge of each feature. Most posters here realize he worked on the game and assume he is giving them all information he has on the various aspects of the core game.

So when he fails to mention the problems with espionage that even gamespot picks up, people might trust him and not gamespot. Hence the problem.

But there are no problems with espionage, on standard settings.
You are essentially blaming Solver for not playing 150 games with final ruleset, no notice that in specitic circumstnaces there are problems with some missions on slow speed.

[sneaky]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


It's basic editorial sense...if I'm writing a review for a product I made (which again, is absurd in itself), I'd state exactly what I did to work on the product.

This is just a personal review for a game, what did you expect? Page long advocate babble describing any possible instance of bias that may or may not occur? Get a grip it's just a review, like Solver has wrote every time a new product came. It's not an academic article or a piece out of the NY Times. You guys are really trying to push a silly argument here.

[SIZE=1] Er, no. Most people who read his review aren't forum regulars.

Let me change that, not everybody, but certainly everybody who actually read the article. It's in the second sentence of the review, for christ sake.

EDIT: And no espionage certainly is not broken on standard speed.

[Wiglaf]

Marathon is one of four standard speed settings.

Anyway, here's my concern

1) People who know solver worked on BTS (the minority of readers) assume solver is accurately assessing espionage, etc, when he isn't

2) People who don't know he worked on BTS assume the article isn't written by a game tester/designer, which means they can't read past the flaws in the review.

The second problem is easily fixed. As to the first, solver should probably amend his review to mention the problems that have since been discovered, but it's not as big a deal.

[Wiglaf]

This is just a personal review for a game, what did you expect? Page long advocate babble describing any possible instance of bias that may or may not occur? Get a grip it's just a review, like Solver has wrote every time a new product came. It's not an academic article or a piece out of the NY Times. You guys are really trying to push a silly argument here.

So you want to start seeing reviews by the people who made the movies, games, books, etc that you're buying? Good idea, not silly at all.

[Solver]

The GameSpot reviewers, in their writeups about strategy games, typically appear to be morons. While they do get some things right, their lack of understanding about most game features is absolutely apalling, as is the apparent low difficulty level they test at - this stuff being something that applies for vanilla and both expansions.

I do, though, take an issue with being called condescending, I am certainly not. I quite appreciate cricisim, although I prefer it when it comes from people who read the review first, whereas Wiglaf started his criticism even before reading it. It's nice to have the different opinions though

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It is true, a lot of big problems (eg final frontier scenario AI being useless, espionage on marathon and even epic, AIs spamming corporations in their own cities, etc) went unmentioned in this review. I was a little insulted when Solver said "I did mention them" when in fact these issues were given 2 or 3 vague throwaway words at most.

You were insulted.

Let me see, I write something and get a comment back saying that I failed to mention one specific point. I then check and draw the attention of the person to the section where I refer to that point. By doing so I insult my critic for being dismissive of their concerns.

Wiglaf, if you see things in this way then you deserve to be insulted a lot more - and properly too.

It’s all too easy to stand back and let someone else do the work and then turn round and be critical of their effort for not saying something that you think is important. And yet somehow you think that Solver owes you an explanation for writing in his own style and emphasising those areas that he thinks is important –and passing over briefly those that he does not.

I've read how Solver replied and it doesn't look condescending from where I'm standing

[Wiglaf]

Are there any good game review sites? Adrenaline vault and Wargamer are the two best, I think. If they still exist?

[Wiglaf]

Let me see, I write something and get a comment back saying that I failed to mention one specific point. I then check and draw the attention of the person to the section where I refer to that point. By doing so I insult my critic for being dismissive of their concerns.

More like, insult his intelligence, yes. If you've played the final frontier scenario, you'll realize Solver's description of its AI insults your intelligence as well.

[Shrapnel12]

If this is a flame, then I'm sorry, but Wiglaf is nothing more then a hater and a troller. I might give him even an ounce of credibility if:

A. He read the review before his whining.
B: His complaints were viable (he borders on downright falsehood).
C. Solver was actually paid to write the review (he doesn't owe us anything).
D. The majority of those in the forum didn't already decide to buy BTS before they read Solver's review.

Solver is a good sport for taking everything Wiglaf says in stride, but I would encourage everyone to simply ignore him from this point onward. His comments don't deserve any further attention.

[Shrapnel12]

If this is a flame, then I'm sorry, but Wiglaf is nothing more then a hater and a troller. I might give him even an ounce of credibility if:

A. He read the review before his whining.
B: His complaints were viable (he borders on downright falsehood).
C. Solver was actually paid to write the review (he doesn't owe us anything).
D. The majority of those in the forum didn't already decide to buy BTS before they read Solver's review.

Solver is a good sport for taking everything Wiglaf says in stride, but I would encourage everyone to simply ignore him from this point onward. He comments don't deserve any further attention.

[Alexander I]

IMHO, Solver's review was informative, thorough, and excellently written and the unabashed criticism he has received over it is undeserved.

Yeah, maybe you could say that as a tester I'm biased as well, but the testers are not the ones who make the game. Play testers play the game to try to work out the bugs. And you can see from the game credits that Firaxis has opened their play testing to a wide variety of civ fans in an effort to make BtS as good as possible.

No, BtS is not perfect yet, but it is a great expansion. Yes, there are a just a couple things that don't work perfectly yet, but having played the game a great deal already, said bugs have not detracted from my experience in any meaningful way. Such things can easily be fixed in patches anyway. IMHO these things have been blown out of proportion by nay-sayers.

That being said, despite its flaws BtS remains the biggest and best Civ expansion to date. And that's all I really have to say on the matter.

[=DrJambo=]

I guess my question to Blake is now lost in the ether...

Anyway, I though the review was fine. It explained what it needed to and is much better than the standard noob friendly rubbish you see written in 'Games' magazines.

My only grumble is not the review per sé, but the lack of subsequent official response over several (obviously unfavourable) questions/gameplay issues that have subsequently been put forward. Namely:

Corps maintenance and inflation.
AI and building privateers, or lack thereof.
AI and conducting naval blockades, or lack thereof.

Maybe that requires alexman to comment on however...