Gamespy Reviews BtS: 4.5/5 Stars!

[Alexander I]

One of what IMHO are the top three most popular game sites (along with Gamespot and IGN), Gamespy has reviewed Beyond the Sword, giving it 4.5 stars. Read it here: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/civilizatio.../808565p1.html

Opinions?

[Wiglaf]

Didn't firaxis contract with gamespy for Civ4's online features? Kind of undercuts their impartiality.

[Solver]

Wow. Reviews like this are almost the type that make me want to pull my hair out. It's not utterly horrible like some, but still

For espionage, of all the things to complain about, the reviewer chooses that espionage is less useful once you actually go to war. Well, duh. It's supposed to be a method of hurting rivals while at peace. Instead of complaining about mission balance, or missions sometimes playing very little role, or the AI destroying improvements, his complaint is that war hurts enemies more.

Same for corporations. You could complain about their expenses, for example. Instead, the reviewer's main complaint is that some corps are useless in some situations.

Each requires a different type of Great Person and a different set of resources and since each provides a different benefit, that makes them really hard to plan for. If a player can found Civilized Jewelers (which provides a huge boost to culture), that's great, but it doesn't help much in the middle of a protracted modern-day war. Standard Ethanol can be a life-saver for players without oil, but otherwise is just a resource drain.

Don't found Jewelers if conquering the world. Corporations were introduced precisely for such choices, but instead, the reviewer's one and only complaint against corporations is preicsely that aspect.

The AI only gets one sentence, and he mentions that Forts are more useful without naming a single new ability they have.

The ending is a fair warning that BtS is no good to those who find Civ4 too complex, but it also shows the reviewer's lack of love for such games, as he himself essentially admits. And I am sure (screenshots do show that) that he's playing on a low difficulty level, however, still employs some crappy strategies and tactics that do show that he's really a casual player at best. Things like that in so-called "professional reviews" disgust me.

[Wiglaf]

Well, it is aimed at the casual player who knows nothing about BTS and wants a quick read.

Don't found Jewelers if conquering the world. Corporations were introduced precisely for such choices, but instead, the reviewer's one and only complaint against corporations is preicsely that aspect.

You need to plan out corporations ahead of time (like you mention in your review) -- which involves beelining to techs and popping the appropriate great person and using him to found the corporate branch-- if you want to get the most out of corporations.

Casual players might find the need to plan an additional aspect of their game out like this to be overwhelming. Failure to develop a coherent corporation strategy fairly early on will result in useless corporations. I think this is what he was trying to say, and it's reasonable.

[Brael]

Reviews are shaped by the ability of the reviewer to play them. The thing is though, a casual player of a game generally provides a better review of a game than the hardcore/advanced/high playtime players because most players of any given game don't have a whole lot of playtime. The simpler aspects of a game are what most players will see, so it makes sense that thats what gets the review. To take an example here lets take a hypothetical review from Warlords (because not only do I not have BtS yet but because I'm more familiar with Warlords since I've been playing it for months).

Reviewer 1: Warlords adds several new features, most of which will enhance combat and allow for you to do new things like create hero type units by using great generals that are far stronger than regular units.

Reviewer 2: Warlords adds great generals which can be used to gain enough experience to meet the requirements for the Heroic Epic/West Point/Pentagon, used to add another .5 multiplier on hammers, or add +2 exp on units produced. Which great general you want to use is situational and will heavily depend on how you've specialized your cities, the traits of your civ, how many generals you've gotten so far, and what you've done with them.

One of those is far more friendly to a casual player and tells them pretty much what they want to know. The other gets more into strategies and only really makes sense to a current player with a bit of knowledge.

[Wiglaf]

Yeah. Still, it is too bad that there aren't any serious reviews (except for Solver's) out there for BTS. I can't think of any good game review site, actually.

[Solver]

Well, it is aimed at the casual player who knows nothing about BTS and wants a quick read.

Clearly, and I'm not suggesting that every review should have a size comparable to mine, that'd be horrible. Still, a little bit more specifics wouldn't hurt.

You need to plan out corporations ahead of time (like you mention in your review) -- which involves beelining to techs and popping the appropriate great person and using him to found the corporate branch-- if you want to get the most out of corporations.

Casual players might find the need to plan an additional aspect of their game out like this to be overwhelming. Failure to develop a coherent corporation strategy fairly early on will result in useless corporations. I think this is what he was trying to say, and it's reasonable.

Sure. But he sounded to me like he's forced to found corporations. Even if you do not develop a coherent strategy and just get GPs randomly, you're not forced to found a corp. Even casual players are well capable of evaluating if a corp would be good when they are in a position to found it.

It's good when casual players review games because that gives a good review to other casual players. But with games as complex as Civ4, you need a reviewer who understands a bit more about the game. I think that, generally, people should only review games of genres that they really like to play. If I wrote a review for any racing game, it'd be a very poor review because I don't particularly like racing games. Strategy game reviews should be written by guys who enjoy strategy games.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Yeah. Still, it is too bad that there aren't any serious reviews (except for Solver's) out there for BTS. I can't think of any good game review site, actually.

Personally, I like IGN best. I find that their reviews are usually good even for games that are objectively complex (like Civ4) or occupy a niche within their genre (like SWAT 4). I like how IGN reviewers almost always have in-game examples of something that they encountered when discussing a cool feature, instead of just saying "X is cool". I also find that they have a good eye for issues that aren't game-breaking but still annoying.

Who wants to visit Solver's Review Site?

[Wiglaf]

Take a look at their review of MOO3. My god how did that thing happen?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Solver
Who wants to visit Solver's Review Site?

I would. Call it "GameSolver" or "Solvereviews" or something fun. Or make a blog on Apolyton for "Solver's Game Reviews."

As it is right now, I'd rate the "Big 3" game sites like this:

1. IGN - generally very good overall
2. Gamespot - usually lots of coverage, but not always well done
3. Gamespy - less quantity and quality than the other two

[snoopy369]

To be fair, isn't gamespy sort of mini-ign? Aren't they owned by IGN, anyway?

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Solver
Who wants to visit Solver's Review Site?

Sounds like a threat you give to badly behaved kids - before you put them to bed.

"Go to sleep now - or you will have to visit Solver's Review Site "

[DanQ]

Originally posted by snoopy369
To be fair, isn't gamespy sort of mini-ign? Aren't they owned by IGN, anyway?

Yeah, the parent of IGN owns GameSpy too.