New review @ Games Domain 2.5/5

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Corentor
Now you may find Ghost recon a great game. It also probably means that you don't mind dying with one shot and sneaking around for most of the game. But does that mean your point of view is more legitimate than the other guy's. Should a quake player or a UT player rely on YOUR assessment of Ghost Recon? I think the answer is obvious.

So, you are saying reviews are not 'legitimate', and should be ignored? I'd agree with you on that.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Corentor
If you want to know the game features, visit the websites. If you want to know what people think of the game, go read reviews.

Reviews are not meant to be a broadcasting platform for a game's features, it is a broacasting platform to describe how a particular player felt about playing the game, what he liked and what he didn't like.

But I don't know what he thinks of the game because he failed to mention half of it.

How can you be certain his review is based on a good understanding of the gameplay and that all the stuff he left out was because there was nothing - good or bad - to say about it? We all know there are bad reviewers that literally won't have paid any attention to these parts because their favourite bit (the colony building or the controlling of the ships in battle, say) was done in a way they didn't like.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ray K
A simpler model with no viceroys/governors/etc is a proven concept.

Personally, I always used the governors in MOO2, only giving orders for ships and urgently needed buildings. The improvements they've made on the governors are a huge improvement in my eyes, managing every single planet youself is a complete nightmare. If that's what you want to do, though, you can give your own orders and the viceroys will never override them. That is what I've been told, atleast.

[Yodasplat]

@Corentor:

"Three words: increase your medication"

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

Should a quake player or a UT player rely on YOUR assessment of Ghost Recon?

I never said that. In fact it just so happens that I AM a UT and Quake player, thankyouverymuch. I might add Return To Castle Wolfenstein, Operation Flashpoint and Rainbow Six and more. The whole parade of FPS... all the classics.

Make a distinction between "main-stream" games and "specialty" games, if you please. UT (one of my favorites ) is main-stream. Ghost Recon is not main-stream by a long shot. Still a great game, if you like that style of gameplay... a game that I enjoyed just as much as UT ... not thanks to any reviewer I might add :P

Now you may find Ghost recon a great game. It also probably means that you don't mind dying with one shot and sneaking around for most of the game. But does that mean your point of view is more legitimate than the other guy's.

Show me where i claimed that I OWN the ultimate truth if you please

But while you may be spitting at the reviewer for his comments on the game you love, that reviewer probably saved several hundred people 50 bucks on a game they wouldn't have liked.

again, I don't really know where you are getting all this stuff from. Besides reviewers are a BAD way to judge a game. The community is the best way. If you are concerned about a game, then after the game comes out, WAIT before buying it, go in the community, read comments, research and then decide. Reviewers are human beings and make mistakes ... just like me
. They DEFINETLY do not hold the ultimate truth.

There is no ONE TRUTH about MOO3. Learn to live with it.

Yes SIR!

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Osweld


So, you are saying reviews are not 'legitimate', and should be ignored? I'd agree with you on that.

I am saying reviews are only as legitimate as the point of views shared between reader and writer.

If both were RTS players that enjoyed C&C series, and the reviewer disliked MOO3, the reader would probably agree with the review.

If the writer is an RTS player and the reader is a MOO diehard, then they would disagree.

What I am getting at is that people should stop pointlessly bashing reviews.

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Grumbold
But I don't know what he thinks of the game because he failed to mention half of it.

Irrelevant. His point is that the half that he did mention disagreed with him so much that he found it impossible to recommend.

And in the end, thats his job, to tell you whether or not he recommends the game, not running through every single feature.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Corentor
What I am getting at is that people should stop pointlessly bashing reviews.

Oh, so it's the reviewers that hold the "ONE TRUTH "?

Why do you think that people's opinions on a review are "not legitimate", when you have quite clearly said that a review is nothing but the opinion of one person.

If it is ok in your mind for a reviewer to review a game type that he does not like, why is it not ok for a reader to do the same in regards to the review?

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Yodasplat Show me where i claimed that I OWN the ultimate truth if you please

Originally posted by Yodasplat Same here. This is obviously a game that requires a lot of effort. I wouldn't take the word of game reviewers just because ... they are reviewers. Quite the opposite in fact.

Therefore implying that the reviewers' point of view was not legitimate.

Originally posted by Yodasplat again, I don't really know where you are getting all this stuff from. Besides reviewers are a BAD way to judge a game. The community is the best way. If you are concerned about a game, then after the game comes out, WAIT before buying it, go in the community, read comments, research and then decide. Reviewers are human beings and make mistakes ... just like me
. They DEFINETLY do not hold the ultimate truth.

What is the community responses to the game? They are essentially reviews. People will ***** and whine about things they don't like and people with flame those who ***** and whine about how they don't understand the game.

And just like with reviews, you are going to have to decide which crowd you belong with. Those that ***** and hate it or those that can't stop playing it (expect paradoxcially, they spend more time defending the game on forums than playing).

When MOO3 comes out there will invariably be the moaning and groaning about how much the game sucks. The funny thing is, the reasons why those people will ***** will be the same reasons that the reviewers like Tom Chick gave MOO3 a bad mark. At which point you should be hung for telling people to rely on Quick's preview and to ignore the bad reviews.

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Osweld


Oh, so it's the reviewers that hold the "ONE TRUTH "?

Why do you think that people's opinions on a review are "not legitimate", when you have quite clearly said that a review is nothing but the opinion of one person.

If it is ok in your mind for a reviewer to review a game type that he does not like, why is it not ok for a reader to do the same in regards to the review?

You obviously have trouble reading since I did not claim that the 'reviewers held the one truth'.

What I was refering to, is the ad hominum attacks ranging from Jonah Falcon's comments - which try to imply that the reviewers are too stupid to understand the game or didn't play it at all - to Rantz's post in another thread which directly attacked Tom Chick's works based on vague claim of "lack of objectivity".

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Corentor


You obviously have trouble reading since I did not claim that the 'reviewers held the one truth'.

That was a sarcastic remark, directed at the double standards you seem to hold for reviewers.

[Yodasplat]

Originally posted by Corentor

...

At which point you should be hung for telling people to rely on Quick's preview and to ignore the bad reviews.

LOL you got me there m8!

I admit: you bring up good points.

I might add that community members don't do their reviews professionally: they don't HAVE to "review" the game (unlike reviewers) and because of that IMO (IN MY OPINION) they are better at expressing their true like/dislike of the game than a guy that played the game only for a few hours and HAD to review the game cause that was his assignement. It might not be the case for all reviewers... and no, I don't dislike Tom Chick. In fact I like his reviews ... I just don't take them as the bible. That is all.

Show me where i claimed that I OWN the ultimate truth if you please

Same here. This is obviously a game that requires a lot of effort. I wouldn't take the word of game reviewers just because ... they are reviewers. Quite the opposite in fact.

Therefore implying that the reviewers' point of view was not legitimate.

I was asking where I claimed to OWN the ultimate truth. Again, I don't. I am just expressing my opinion. I can do that, right?

but: "implying that the reviewers' point of view was not legitimate. " Hell yeah! I'm IMPLYING it all right ! It's not legitimate. It's just another subjective opinion. I am not saying that reviewers are not smart, they are quite smart . But they are just expressing their opinion on the game. Totally subjective and not at all better or any less biased than the community's members feeling about the game IMO.

[Starlord]

Encouraging review ....... for me

The rating they gave the game is quite bad but most of the things they dislike are no real disadvantage for me.

Graphics: I do not mind if the graphics are outdated (I assume they will be better than the graphics of my all-time-favourite game "Master of Magic".).

Unability to micromanage: Although I would prefer to do all micromanaging in the early game myself this is no big point in my opinion. There is no AI in any complex strategy game that matches an experienced human (especially if the human is backed by a powerful network of fellows that write strategy guides, FAQs etc.) . Usually developers "solve" this problem by letting the AI cheat like mad. This makes the early and mid-game challenging and fun. But in the late game (If you get there.) when the player managed to establish himself it gets boring. So if you take away some advantage from the player you can reduce the cheating of the AI.
I like to tune all my planets in MOO2 in the beginning of a game to the extreme. But later it gets annoying to do it. So I end the game as soon as possible. Usually I build a fleet of Star Destroyers (Titan class) and destroy Antares. Often I would prefer to play longer and enjoy my power. But micromanagement takes away all my motivation.
But if the viceroys do the micro stuff I might continue until I am the sole survivor.

Spreadsheet approach: Actually I like dealing with numbers and calculations. One of my favourite games is still Capitalism. My favourite eye candy in this game is watching my yearly income grow and studying the balance sheets of my factories and department stores.

So after all I think I will like the game.


Starlord


PS:
BIG SPOILER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want to know what the ITHKUL are ?
I can tell you: They are puny creatures that will kneel before my throne and beg for mercy as soon as they realise that "Resistance is futile". (R)* (I hope I won´t get banned for giving you this information.)

*"Resistance is futile" (R) all rights reserved to the Borg Queen

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Corentor
Irrelevant. His point is that the half that he did mention disagreed with him so much that he found it impossible to recommend.

And in the end, thats his job, to tell you whether or not he recommends the game, not running through every single feature.

He leaves the impression that there is nothing else to be reviewed. That's bad. You defending a bad review or citing a personal definition doesn't make it a good one.

[vee4473]

a few here have said that the reviewers probably only spent a few hours on the game.

didn't the games domain guy say he spent 30 hours?

if after 30 hours the game still seems convoluted, then hmm...not good....after 100 hours, maybe the game makes more sense, but, really, should it take well over 30 hours for things to fall into place?

i understand that the longer you play any strategy game, the more you understand the nuances and all that, but most strategy games have quickly understood gameplay mechanics, and then you master the nuances.

these reviewers don't seem to be talking about the nuances of the game. they seem to be saying that after even 30 hours, you still don't really grasp the gameplay.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by vee4473
these reviewers don't seem to be talking about the nuances of the game. they seem to be saying that after even 30 hours, you still don't really grasp the gameplay.

That is true, and its a cause for a little caution. There are other reviewers who are confident that they have worked through their confusion and got a grip on it. To take Civ 3 as a popular example there are reviews which thought culture was great/awful/irrelevant and ground breaking. Everyone could find a review that supported their personal viewpoint. The only way you'll know if MOO3 exceeds your personal complexity rating is to try it.