starcraft?!?!? we need more tbs reviewers

[Draginol]

Actually, I have a better example:

The Corporate Machine, which I wrote with 1 artist in about a month:

Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Stability: 9
Gameplay: 8
AI: 9
Value: 8
Total: 8.5

Since I wrote the AI in both, I can speak to the quality of both.

It's not that one review is "good" and the other is "bad". The problem si that two different people reviewed each title with their own internal scoring philosophies and no editorial control put them into perspective.

TCM's graphics are definitely not better than GalCiv's. And they almost got the same score on sound. TCM's "sound" consisted of playing mono WAV files at low quality. GalCiv's are high qualty MP3 stereo.

Basically it was a "luck of the draw" on reviewers. GalCiv happened to get someone who didn't like the game and TCM happened to get someone that did. And that would be fine if they didn't have a rating system.

But rating systems, by definition, create a ranking. One that should be consistent.

[MarkG]

you have a personal blog?

[Fried-Psitalon]

Brad/Draginol-

Don't forget there's another pool of reviewers out there, though, and it's actually the one that *I* read and considered before I bought GalCiv.

Forums like these and your own at Galciv.com. If you look around here you'll see all kinds of remarks about modifications to the game, because everyone thinks they can be a master programmer and game designer (myself included, hey, got an opening? hehe) but there's one thing about GalCiv that stands out rather sharply:

The remarks are almost all suggestions, and DARN few complaints. (Well, except for that mindless troll incident.) *THAT* is, in my opinion, the highest review you can get. MoO3 came out and you got lots of remarks, MOST of which were complaints, and darn few useful suggestions- you guys probably have 10 pages of useful (and no doubt useless too, hehe) suggestions.

If someone is genuinely seeking to learn about a game via review before buying it, they'll check the forums, too - and I'd say the forums rate GalCiv pretty darn high.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and figure out a way out of the box I'm stuck in between the Torians, Drengin, and Yor.... bloody Drengin made peace with the Torians after 1 turn of the war I bought them for.... I should have joined the War Party!

[Alex]

As Fried said, those reviews out there don't matter much to me when I have to decide on what game I'd like to buy. When you read various reviews (especially when you can find them all grouped in one place, like Game Rankings), you soon realize that most of them are shallow and do not explain to the reader the "spirit" of the game.

Other players's opinions, just like those expressed in these forums, are of a much higher value to me, because there is nothing like an AAR (After Action Report) to convene the real strenghts and weaknesses of a game.

[yin26]

Brad:

I think your core audience is savvy enough to read this type of review and say: "You know what, this guy is a twitch finger. Why is he even bothering to review a genre he doesn't like and can't understand?" Honestly, the far more deadly situation for an indie is to get NO reviews! Trust me, from where I sit, anybody who is capable of playing a strategy game for more than 10 minutes at a time loves your game and the support you are giving.

But saying that the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human seems a bit of a stretch IMO.

On this point, I'll just refer to my long-dropped thread (http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?id=37539&BID=GF&page=1) about finding clever ways to limit what the *human* can do with starbases so the playing field is leveled. I wouldn't even _want_ the computer to be programmed to do half the cheesy tactics a human can with starbases!

[yin26]

I submit this starbase beauty: http://www.applesnake.net/sball.jpg This is what a human can and HAS done! This is ICS all over again. So, to me, the starbase problem isn't one of the comp not playing them effectively but of the human spamming them like crazy!

Back to these idiotic reviews: Honestly, Brad, if you get caught up trying to justify GalCiv to fools, you'll not only lose, but you might get caught up in a whirlwind of bad feeling. Again, the HORDES love you! Forget the few peons looking for a corner in a round room!

[Eric S]

Yin, empty starbases aren't worth much Now, when all those SB look fully upgraded, I'll be impressed. Most people (other than me, at least) don't get that anal. My record was 36 fully upgraded starbases in one sector before I pulled off a tech win.

[yin26]

That's not the point. He could have easily begun to upgrade them all ... some of them *are* upgraded.

The point is that such spamming is even possible..

[Garth Vader]

A single review is just that one persons opinion. If for some reason they didn't like it they will give lower marks in categories that don't necessarly deserve it.

How many people actually listen to reviewers anymore anyway?

One of the big things, besides these forums, that brought me to GalCiv was the AAR's by one of the designers. They were very well done.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Draginol
Since we made the Starcraft add "StarCraft:Retribution" I can tell you a lot about Starcraft's AI for instance - it basically doesn't exist. It's all triggers and scripts.

I figured that as much. Right around the end of the second human scenario, where mobs of Zergs overran my base no matter what I did.

[MarkG]

/me says something about flatery and copying...

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I figured that as much. Right around the end of the second human scenario, where mobs of Zergs overran my base no matter what I did.

Bunker my friend, bunkers.

[Felch]

Those gay ***** at strategy informer wouldn't know a good TBS if it was ****ging them up the bum. You're game is pure gold Brad, and you've reason to be proud.

[Magpie7787]

We are not liked.