Worst fears coming true: Quarter to Three Review

[Alex]

It's his opinion, that's all. He didn't like the game. Lots of people don't like Civ3 either, and there are lots of people who love it. I think that I'll personally like MoO3, judging from what I've read about it so far...

And guess what? I actually like Dungeon Siege.

[kalbear]

Fanboy: Someone that is so involved with the success of the game in question that they will resort to any means in order to defend the game in question. That usually includes ad hominem attacks, radical reinterpretation of facts given, asserting moral/ethical superiority, clique forming, actual outright lying, and making specious arguments based on lack of personal experience and information.

I'm on the IG boards as well, so it's not like I can talk much. But there's a big difference between critiquing a review based on contradictory information and saying that the reviewer was a liar because of inaccurate assuming and jumping to conclusions.

Better, Bernie?

[Bort]

I think it just goes to show why they have ESRB ratings...if it says "T" wait till 13. While reading the article and his moaning about confusing planetary calculations and uninvited technologies, I thought (and from his own description), that this guy would have needed a tutor for Cyber Empires. I've liked all the stuff I've read, from people involved with and without the project...even this moron let slip aspects of the game that I find just tantalizing. The technology names that he didn’t like or understand gave me much to cheer about. Advances in technology can be subtle and provide great benefit. Yeah yeah there are going to be little things and maybe even big things that are not going to live up to our dreams of outstanding strategy, but at least we get to play while their patching and expanding it up, and maybe even help them make it better…

[kalbear]

The guy's been reviewing games for a living of sorts for the last ten years.

He _might_ have some ability to play them. Maybe. But thanks, Bort - I didn't have an immediate example of a fanboy handy.

[Bernie Rubber]

Originally posted by kalbear
Fanboy: Someone that is so involved with the success of the game in question that they will resort to any means in order to defend the game in question. That usually includes ad hominem attacks, radical reinterpretation of facts given, asserting moral/ethical superiority, clique forming, actual outright lying, and making specious arguments based on lack of personal experience and information.

I'm on the IG boards as well, so it's not like I can talk much. But there's a big difference between critiquing a review based on contradictory information and saying that the reviewer was a liar because of inaccurate assuming and jumping to conclusions.

Better, Bernie?

Much. I much perfer discussions where terms can be laid out like that... It allows people to challenge assumptions with facts and evidence. It also gives me a paper trail for future use against you ;-)

[rhofman]

I'm having trouble fathoming the animosity between the polarized sides of the bad bad reviewer and the good bad reviewer camps.

There have been very few games that I've played over the years that I could not pick out a single thing that I didn't hate. His review ragged on every single aspect of the game. That suggests to me that he had some motive rather than professionalism at heart. I will concede that it is possible that he played with an open mind and found nothing redeeming. It is also possible that there are green men on Mars controling our every thought.

If anyone is going to refrain from buying the game based on this review that is their problem. As far as I know Johanfalcon is the only one here who has played the game enough to comment on how it plays. The rest of us can process bits of info gathered from all the various sources and make a decision on whether or not to buy it.

Kalbear, if you don't want to play it anymore based on the first bad review fine; but don't tell me that the review was done by an unbiased professional. The positive reviews were largely biased as well but finding no redeeming qualities in a game that is fawned over by everyone else sets off warning bells.

If you wish to label me as a "fanboy" feel free. I have nothing personal riding on this game. I will purchase and play it. If it sucks I will post as much in March. If it doesn't I'll post that to.

[darcy]

When reviews go bad, by Jeff Lackey

[kalbear]

Nah. I think I've been quite clear at various places that I would be buying this game, and what I'd do after I bought it. And rhofman - you're the antithesis of a fanboy in that respect - you analyzed the review, decided it wasn't for you, and moved on without bashing the reviewer or dismissing it as garbage and lies.

This review isn't swaying me to buy or not buy. It's doing a couple other things, though.

And I fully recognize that Tom Chick has a bias. he has a style of writing reviews that bashes or praises a game without much in between, and that's fine. He also very much likes the Sid Meier camp, and that's important to know as well. He does have some background and some agenda.

As did Jonah Falcon and Barry B. at IGN. Point being, I try and take the facts from the reviews that I can glean and interpret them based on what I know of the reviewers and what i know of my playstyle.

It's leading me to believe that this will not be a game accepted in mass appeal. In other words, most of the MoO2 fanbase will be turned off by it.

It will require a large amount of work by the fanbase in question - namely, folks like me - to make sure that the game can be played by people in the future and the learning wall isn't too foreboding.

Again, I view this review as a way to focus on the problems that the game has, so that we can combat those problems immediately. We know there are graphics issues, and that's not anything we can change. But we can change the textual descriptions of techs. We can provide a manual-like entity that tells you why certain techs are better than others, and how the whole formulae work. We can repeatedly tell people TO OBSOLETE THEIR TROOP SHIPS, and make sure to focus heavily on making and using development plans to make the AI do their bidding.

Ultimately, I want people to go into this game with a level head, able to recognize the problems and the successes with the game. Specifically, I want to see the problems so I can fix them for others down the road, because damnit, I want Moo to continue.

[rhofman]

I think that's great.

That is not the message that was coming across in the last 10 posts on this thread.

I think giving such negative reviews a blanket defence does not help people adjust there expectations to what the game actually delivers.

The message that needs to be sent out is that it is a hardcore strategy game. This is no superficial RTS like starcraft (used it for outerspace reference) with light weight "techtree" and a few stock races. Be prepared to spend as many hours as it takes to finish some games just to learn this one. The likely conclusion of spending the time will be 100s or even 1000s (cross your fingers) of rewarding SP and MP game play. It may not be an over night success because as you said it is not an easy game to learn. For those who do they will be the best salespeople for the game. (assuming it is, say 75%, as good as the postive reviews)

Off topic a little. I think the public is ready for this. B5 was summarily dismissed for it's 5 year arc. "People will not wait for 5 years for a payoff" they were told. Not long after DS9 switched to a long term war that dominated most of the remaining shows. Many people really want the engaging back story, the variation of races, the multiple strategies and a more complex victory condition than kill everything all the time.

That's it for me today. I've got ultimate in the morning.

[Infidel]

[SIZE=1]

There have been very few games that I've played over the years that I could not pick out a single thing that I didn't hate. His review ragged on every single aspect of the game. That suggests to me that he had some motive rather than professionalism at heart.

but don't tell me that the review was done by an unbiased professional. The positive reviews were largely biased as well but finding no redeeming qualities in a game that is fawned over by everyone else sets off warning bells.

From Rantz, via IGMoo:

"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."

I think it's rather interesting that Mr. bigtime 10-years experience game reviewer happens to publish this review on his _personal_ site, rather than with a professional publication...

Also intriguing is the lack of reviews on said site, until this particular one. (and the odd lack of a Civ3 review)

Given Rantz's comments, makes one wonder...

-infidel

[Demosthenes1234]

Originally posted by Strollen


Tom Chick has been reviewing and writing (at Computer Gaming World among other places) about strategy games for at least 10 and maybe 20 years.

...UMMM...hmm they had decent strategy games in 1983???????????? lol.

[kalbear]

Sure they did. Tons of 'em. That's actually what they made back then, because there was no 'real time' or anything like it. I remember fondly playing Midway and fortress europa sims.

Anyhoo - this review was one he was asked to do as a freelance for a game mag. They rejected the review, and he decided to print it. Didn't I say this already? I'm getting the various forums mixed up here.

Again, this guy has been reviewing games for a very long time. His site is his hobby, not his job. The review came about his being a freelancer, not because IG sent Qt3 a copy.

Considering that he gave EU good marks, I'd say that I'm half/half in leaning towards his giving this game good marks. The lack of info and feedback in the game did him in, and that's a shame, but it's a valid argument. Lack of a good manual is pretty sad - lack of in-game help is worse. Fortunately, these are things that can be fixed by the fanbase. Unfortunately, these are things that likely will have to be.

[Crostoneman]

Originally posted by Demosthenes1234


...UMMM...hmm they had decent strategy games in 1983???????????? lol.

Well, you needed some friends, and a board, some hundreds of pieces of plastic, some dices, and a sound mind that can kick the crud out of a unfortunate player out of the game. If you were refering to computer games, well, there were some good ones back then.

P.S. The only diplomacy back then was who was gonna pay for the pizza.

[Lemmy]

I actually liked the review. It was funny, and informative, and definitely independant .

[OmniDude]

Originally posted by kalbear
[...] Point being, I try and take the facts from the reviews that I can glean and interpret them based on what I know of the reviewers and what i know of my playstyle.

It's leading me to believe that this will not be a game accepted in mass appeal. In other words, most of the MoO2 fanbase will be turned off by it.

It will require a large amount of work by the fanbase in question - namely, folks like me - to make sure that the game can be played by people in the future and the learning wall isn't too foreboding.

Again, I view this review as a way to focus on the problems that the game has, so that we can combat those problems immediately. We know there are graphics issues, and that's not anything we can change. But we can change the textual descriptions of techs. We can provide a manual-like entity that tells you why certain techs are better than others, and how the whole formulae work. We can repeatedly tell people TO OBSOLETE THEIR TROOP SHIPS, and make sure to focus heavily on making and using development plans to make the AI do their bidding.

Ultimately, I want people to go into this game with a level head, able to recognize the problems and the successes with the game. Specifically, I want to see the problems so I can fix them for others down the road, because damnit, I want Moo to continue.

kalbear, that is easily the most thoughtful, levelheaded and to-the-point view that has been put in this entire thread. Thank you VERY much for that post. ( bordering on )

I've always relied on fan FAQ's regarding my favourite games. It's amazing what people like kalbear with enough dedication and time on their hands have accomplished when it comes to creative reverse engineering and collecting good tips from gamers all around.
To me - a casual gamer, who have WAY to little time - it seems the coming months will show what replay value the game has. If FAQ's emerge and gets updated (along with the game), I'll want to get to grips with this game, no matter the time frame, whether it's due to intellectual stubbornness or just longtime love of MOO/MOO2.

Otherwise I'll do a burial ceremony, be depressed for a month and then proceed to kidnap the CEO of IG and Jeff McBride and lock them up in a dungeon until they produce a contract ensuring the finishing and publication of Stars!: Supernova Genesis...