Worst fears coming true: Quarter to Three Review

[Rantz]

Just an FYI, Tom for some reason has had a bone to pick with MOO3 from the day it was announced. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after his last round of 'articles' prior to this, we (QS and IG) told him that if they wanted to do another article or review/preview on MOO3 that they would need to get someone who could be at least semi-objective in his reporting.

Tom loves Sid's work and anything that is not Sid, hence is bad. Or at least that would be the impression from the last three articles he wrote.

again, he's entitled to his opinion, but I REALLY would have been shocked if he had said even the *slightest* positive thing about the game.

[drsparnum]

I concede that his concerns are potentially valid. Some of those things (especially the lack of precise tech descriptions) may be trouble, but they are also probably some of the easiest things to fix. I don't mind it being complex out the yin-yang but someday I would like to understand how it all works so if I try real hard I can make the best descions.

However, I looked over his reviews/previews of other games I have played and he didn't seem to like a single one. He didn't even really like Warcraft 3 in his preview, which for me, was the game to dethrone MOO2 after so long. I couldn't find a Warcraft 3 review, and it seems like the preview in July was about the last update before this MOO review. Do people who like these MOO type games actually like Diablo better then Warcraft. IMO, Diablo is fun, but Warcraft is sublime.

I'm still going to buy it and see it for myself. The big mystery to me is why I haven't been able to buy it yet? Anyone catch a score in there - or is just text descptions.

[RolandtheMad]

Not to worry Rantz - everyone will probably still get the game, myself included! You`d just better come through with those patches!!!!

[vee4473]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rantz
Just an FYI, Tom for some reason has had a bone to pick with MOO3 from the day it was announced. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after his last round of 'articles' prior to this, we (QS and IG) told him that if they wanted to do another article or review/preview on MOO3 that they would need to get someone who could be at least semi-objective in his reporting.


wow,
is this a little bit of evidence that game companies actually DO pressure reviewers or mags into writing good reviews?

or hint in that direction.


interesting comments i would say...

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by rhofman
Forgive my ignorance but what is a "grognard"?

The word, as I understand it, has its origins in Napoleonic times and means, "grumbler." It referred to grizzled veterans of many campaigns, who still were there day after day, grumbling and griping, and still game to go when the bayonets were unscabbarded.

Nowadays, it means one who is a...grizzled old timer type of game player, often possessing (in their own minds at least) special expertise and experience.

Grognard to other people, means "insufferable, pedantic, grumpy and opinionated know-it-all." Depending upon your viewpoint, of course.

Now, where's my saber and curraisse?

[TheMaestro]

We'll all find out the 25th. Well, at least around the 25th and like Rhofman said, if after a week people playing it have doubts...then everyone will know.

[OmniDude]

Most of the comments here - including Rantz' - seem to revolve around the man and his history as a reviewer rather than his comments on the game. That's not a good sign....
Never mind the mind-noumbing depth of the game, that can be overcome and any possible erratic behaviour on the part of the vireroys can be fixed in future patches ( even though the "Is this game too much like going to work?"-test remains)
What really bothers me is his comments about the parts of the game that I loved most in MOO2: Research, ship design and tactical battle (I've never heard of anyone playing with the Tactical option turned off). Not very likely to change (too extensive work for patching) and not very appealing by the sound of it. I fear that QS have focused on enhancing exactly the parts of the game I did not care too much about.

Please, can we have some more input from those who have experience with the game?

I'm increasingly getting the feeling that QS embarked on an admirable task of making the space-TBS to end all space-TBS'es, got bogged down by their ambitions and ended up short of time and/or ressources and had to sort of tie the loose ends up in a big knot.....

I've preordered and I'm sticking with it, but can't help fearing I'll end up disappointed and cursing (again) at the misfortune of Stars! Supernova Genesis

[Corentor]

I really don't know what the fuss is all about. It really is quite stupid.

This is what reviewers are for. They are here to tell you whether or not they like the game and why. Tom Chick, like everyone else who had a review copy did that.

So it wasn't to his taste. Big deal.

Now you ask yourself, based on his comments, will I find the things he doesn't like annoying as well?

If not then its pure gold for you.

If so then don't buy the game.

You will never please everyone with your creation nor will everyone be happy and please with what YOU find appealing.

So if your going to cancel your pre-order, go ahead, if your going still buy the game like me, go ahead and do that too.

But bottom line is, that Tom Chick wrote a review. He didn't like it. If you think his complaints are garbage then fine, but don't stoop so low as to claim that MOO3 was "too complex for him" or some other nonsense.

He did everyone a service. He said that if you wanted MOO2, you won't like it. If you want Civ in space, you won't like it. But if that is not what you are looking for, he basically told you that it is everything that you could hope for.

He's just doing his job, so layoff about his relative intelligence level compared to the game or whether or not he had any bias writing the review. Everyone has a bias, your job is to find a reviewer who has a similar bias to you and then see what he has to say.

[PaulNAdhe]

However, i think Tom was having a really bad day. he couldn't find a single thing good to say about the game! but look at all the other reviews out there. most are very positive.

Whenever I hear anyone saying that all (most of) the reviews are positive, I'm reminded of the worst game I've ever played, and I played Outpost to the end, Black and White . That is the only game I've ever uninstalled before finishing it.

I'll buy MOO3, in fact I've had it on preorder for over a year. But, the absolute refusal to do a wide release preview and all the secrecy and defensiveness on the boards makes me think this game might not be one of those I go back to over and over forever.

[Master Marcus]

he's a reviewer like any other, all right. He didn't like it and has the right to inform the community that "civ in space" à la MoO3 is a mess, all right. But when a reviewer has a mediocre feeling about Warcraft III and Halo, two of the 4-5 most important landmarks games since 2001, where every other rev has at least a good opinion of, well then his credibility is questionable - especially with the numbered vacations taken between many "review sessions". I sense that one of his problematic involves around the difficulty he has about the actual innovations brought by the "clones"; too stucked to the glorious past of Civ I/MoO1/Diablo 1,II/ Alpha Centauri/ etc... It's obvious he didn't liked the MoO3 project from the start .

The best credibility comes when the player play the game and judge by himself. If a bad review like this makes me like MoO3 even more than anticipated when ( and if ) I don't find many ( not all )of his grudges ( well, a few like the lack of data and mediocre graphics are now mostly recognized ), well it's OK: this kind of review is welcome

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Master Marcus But when a reviewer has a mediocre feeling about Warcraft III and Halo, two of the 4-5 most important landmarks games since 2001, where every other rev has at least a good opinion of, well then his credibility is questionable[/B]

Why the hell is his credibility questionble? Is there just one "correct" way of thinking which leads to tells you which games to like and not to like?

The most you can say from that review or any other negative review is "I don't dislike the things he dislikes". And just because a lot of people like the game and he doesn't does not mean that he is any less credible than anyone else.

You people need to get a life.

[kalbear]

I think you don't know the meaning of 'credible'.

The guy that posted a review of MoO3 that contained Japanese dating and mexican wrestling - that person is not particularly credible.

A person who has reviewed for 10 years in various print magazines is quite credible, assuming he has not done something factually incorrect in those reviews. While I disagree with his conclusions on many of the games - Deux Ex despite flaws was a brilliantly absorbing piece of work, for instance - his credibility is not harmed by his not liking them.

Further, Penny Arcade have said how much SP Halo sucked ass. Are they less credible now? I think it blows chunks too, and I don't understand the fuss. Am I less credible?

No. You may now disagree with my opinions based on things you haven't experienced, because our shared experience leads you to believe you'll disagree with me, but this doesn't make me less credible.

Still, very interesting comment by Rantz. Layers upon layers of wackiness going on.

[JonahFalcon]

Tom Chick hated and thoroughly bashed DEUS EX. I don't pay attention to his reviews.

[rhofman]

Grognard to other people, means "insufferable, pedantic, grumpy and opinionated know-it-all."

Thanks gunner.

[viciouscycle]

Every game will invariably have good, bad, and neutral reviews. This is the first review I've seen that said MOO3 wasn't any good. Does one bad review cancel out ten good reviews? Would one good review cancel out ten bad ones?

It was interesting to me to note that the last time QTT reviewed a game was clear back in June 2002. And they never even reviewed Civ3, one of the biggerst TBS titles to ever be published. What, they just didn't feel like reviewing Civ3?