"reviewer cant win game, thinks game is bad" virus hits avault

MarkG · April 7, 2003, 15:51

http://www.adrenalinevault.com/revie...=galciv&page=3

Quote:

Where Galactic Civilizations falters, however, is in terms of pace and balance. Social improvements can take far too long to build and are not commensurate with their abilities: a medical center might take 25 turns to construct on a basic planet, while a valuable trade good might take 40 or 50, and will benefit the entire civilization. Most differences between improvements are not that dramatic, however, and players do adapt to the relatively slower pace of the product.

hmmm someone had a moral problem

a basic planet would not normally need a medical center. there are other cheaper improvements to boost morale...

Quote:

More problematic is the utter lack of balance when it comes to random events. While they are certainly exciting and give longevity to the game through their unpredictable nature, many players are certain to take exception to all of their efforts being for naught when the Drengin are given a powerful Ranger dreadnaught, half the worlds of the Torians becoming paradises virtually overnight, or any number of other cataclysmic events that change the shape of the game.

though luck

Quote:

here are also many aspects that seem like a step backwards when compared to competing offerings. While multiple colony ships must be used to colonize separate planets located within a star system, once a single colony is present, other factions are unable to settle any unoccupied planets that remain. This seems to be a concession to how the rules concerning influence are applied.

not really. it's just a rule. you see, game rules are what you have to work your strategies around to win

Quote:

On the other hand, invasions that are carried out force the incoming transports to simultaneously do battle against the inhabitants of all the planets within the system. While there are advanced invasion techniques available, which increase the advantage that the force enjoys, such as tidal disruption or robotic soldiers, these cost a substantial amount of money and run the risk of destroying social improvements or even damaging the rating of the planets. However, if the invasion is unsuccessful, none of that damage occurs, although the defending populace is still in shambles. This is easily exploitable by players who can lowball their force by just enough to lose their initial attack, following up with a conventional force that will emerge victorious, skirting the penalty of collateral damage.

that's not a problem description, that's a strategy tip! thanks

still, i think you're going to loose to many troops to save some improvements....

btw

Quote:

It should be noted that Stardock also has plans for a “Metaverse” of sorts

dude, the metaverse is up and running

unic · April 7, 2003, 15:59

And from the start, that review was even worse than it is now. The 'Intelligence & Difficulty' part originally got 2 / 5, with the reviewer almost straight out accusing the AI of cheating, but has since been rewritten after a heated thread with both reviewer, editor, and Brad Wardell taking part on the Avault forums.

/unic

MarkG · April 7, 2003, 16:10

i always thought that when you write a review and dont know why something is not going as it should be(and especially if you suspect something as ugly (in tbs games) as ai cheating), you should send a note to the developer instead of going ahead and writing whatever you imagine is going on.....

Quote:

players are forced to seek alien races out and come within range of their systems in addition to researching universal translators before they can conduct such activities, and even then, without a great deal of influence, diplomatic ability, and military might, there is no guarantee that such actions will be successful

yeah, well, you have to GET OUT THERE and win your opponents with all means availaible. what a strange thought.....

MarkG · April 7, 2003, 16:14

lol, brad on usenet

Quote:

Avault originally gave GalCiv the lowest score on AI that they have ever given a strategy game in their history. Seriously. Wargasm? Higher. Army Men? Higher. Superpower? Higher.

In fact, I could not find a strategy game review that had an AI score that even tied GalCiv's as the lowest score ever. In other words, according to Avault's original review, GalCiv has the worst computer AI in the history of
strategy games.

unic · April 7, 2003, 17:00

Thread on Avault's forums: http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ult...c;f=3;t=001071

Thread on GalCiv's forums: http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?id=33709&BID=GF&page=1

/unic

vmxa1 · April 7, 2003, 19:46

I agree that the review was poorly thought out and I enjoyed seeing the "counter points".
The one thing that I sort of agree with the review on is that there are too many random events, but they seem to have toned it down. Unlike the reviewer, I am not concerned with them hurting me, I just never liked them in games. I dislike not being able to plan for things.
I liked the way Moo2 handle it, you could turn them off, if you wish to do it. That let me play a few times and see them and then turn them off and forget about it.
Man if they did not like the AI in GalCiv, I wonder what they thought of Ascendancy's?

Nirvana_CN · April 7, 2003, 20:59

I saw that review, and at points wondered if he has any clue at all about 4X games. I understand that he is a temp reviewer or somesuch..shame the quality of the rewiew was so poor, and was it just me, or did his "updates" following the protest sound very bitter and schoolboyish?

campfreddie · April 8, 2003, 05:20

Well, the reviewer wouldn't admit to being wrong on the AV forums.

His correction still contains errors. The probe used in the Yor trades was a freebie from a scouted anomaly, not an example of the AI building useless stuff.

He seems to resent having to put up his grade since he believes that 3.5/5 or 70% to be a good grade. Unfortunately, it's written for AVault, not his own private review site. It must be comparable to other reviews on that site. Giving AI a worse score than MOO3 is therefore unacceptable.

I looked at some of the other reviews. HOMM4 gets 4.5 for AI. IMO that game had the worst AI ever. The enemy would constantly throw his heroes into suicidal attacks versus wandering behemoths, etc. and would cheat like hell, always knowing where your heroes are.

Lemmy · April 8, 2003, 05:24

Hm, 3.5 for Intelligence & Difficulty...and the reviewer doesn't even seem to understand the AI, what does that say about the reviewer's intelligence.

Harry Seldon · April 8, 2003, 08:57

It's a shame avault was so off base. I usually take their reviews into account before buying games because they come closer to matching my opinions than others. I guess no one's perfect.

yin26 · April 8, 2003, 09:09

As a result of this review, I have sworn off AV. If they can't put anybody better on strategy games than a guy who can't figure out basic game functions AND thereby concludes the AI is bad certainly doesn't deserve my time.

Alex · April 8, 2003, 09:17

I usually like Avault's reviews, but I have to agree with those who are saying that the reviewer apparently didn't understand the game or, worse, didn't like to have his ass handed to him on a silver plate. If anything, that review motivated me to buy GalCiv as soon as I can.

Grumbold · April 8, 2003, 09:38

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
As a result of this review, I have sworn off AV. If they can't put anybody better on strategy games than a guy who can't figure out basic game functions AND thereby concludes the AI is bad certainly doesn't deserve my time.

It seems to be a modern trend. Simple games with AI that just barely manages to perform adequately by cheating is acredited a good score because it matches the reviewers expectations of the challenge they should receive. Any game where the reviewer fails to instantly recognise how cetain events occur is labelled as having incredibly bad AI, cheats, bugs or a combination of all three. MoO3 received some lackluster scores but the reasons given for those scores were often down to the reviewer not comprehending facets of the game, not its true limitations.

yin26 · April 8, 2003, 10:09

Alexnm: Excellent! I'm sure Brad would love the read that...

Grumbold: In the case of strategy games, it's especially worrying to me that you'd put a reviewer on the job with no interest or ability at sitting down to understand the game's mechanics. This isn't a genre of click-fest, visceral pleasure. It's a mental exercise ... so choose reviewers with mental facilities that go beyond: "Cool, dude! An explosion! Hu hu!"

PDifolco · April 8, 2003, 10:52

Yup, I had the feeling when reading the review, before even seeing the rating, that the guy didn't like much the game, or any strategy games whatsoever.
It was confirmed by the ratings, where he sought poor arguments to lower rating whenever possible, and then by reading its "bio" on avault ... Not ONE classic strategy game cited, only action/sim stuff !
Bad reviewer choice from avault...

LDiCesare · April 8, 2003, 12:03

Great review indeed. Look for "star base" in the whole text... Mmmm... Star base? What's that? A constructor ship is really useless, isn't it?

MarkG · April 8, 2003, 13:49

it was amazing that they guy didnt like(and kept mentioning) that his review was reviewed at 1/10....

Boris Godunov · April 8, 2003, 14:06

I still cannot fathom how he initially gave GalCiv's AI--which he acknowledged was too challenging for him--a 2.5, when MOO3--which is braindead--got a 3 in its AI. By what absurd standard is he measuring AI? Even if it DID cheat (which it clearly doesn't), so what? How would that be different than most other games? Certainly no different than Civ3, which got a 4.5 from AV for its AI!

His lame excuse in the forums was that he didn't write those other reviews, so was just using his own standard. Well, as Brad accurately pointed out, this would completely eliminate the value of a rating measurment for AV entirely.

The bottom line was that the reviewer didn't like the game all that much--which is totally fine--but tried to lend his opinion more weight by citing something totally bogus as the reason. He should have just swallowed his pride and told the truth: he didn't like it because it was too hard for him.

PriestOfDiscord · April 8, 2003, 17:05

There is something to be said for a developer who is so confident in his fantastic product that he is willing to go and defend it wherever it is being bashed. He did it over at the MOO forums, and now he went over to AVault. That's what I call agressive advertising.

This just proves again that I will always trust the reviews I hear from gaming forums like this before the crap they spew on 'gaming' review sites.

Tuberski · April 8, 2003, 21:28

I didn't see one mention of the biggest reason I haven't gotten GalCiv: Space Sharks.

ACK!

Boris Godunov · April 8, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
I didn't see one mention of the biggest reason I haven't gotten GalCiv: Space Sharks.

ACK!

I've yet to have a problem with them in any game I have played, and most players don't seem to think they're a big problem.

vmxa1 · April 8, 2003, 23:54

Big problem no, they can be annoying though.

Fried-Psitalon · April 9, 2003, 06:31

I'm thinking/hoping that was a joke on Tuberski's part.....?

Harry Seldon · April 9, 2003, 08:10

Depends on when the sharks get lose. The zoo was my first UP issue in a game and they ripped everyone on the board to shreds.

pg · April 9, 2003, 14:13

game reviews are horrible lately, not just this one in particular either. i rarely even bother to read them anymore. the only way to get a good sense of a game is to goto the forums right after it's released.

vmxa1 · April 9, 2003, 17:23

I am not so sure about the board either. I mean how large of a percentage of the public will be posting on any game board? What you get are the angry ones and the fanboys for the most part.
I guess it is better than nothing, but I would think a demo is your best bet. Even my best friend and I do not agree on everything. Heck I do not even agree with myself all the time.

MarkG · April 9, 2003, 17:43

a comparison of our galciv and moo3 forums would give you an idea of the public perception of the two games.

galciv of course has the advantage of NOT being massively marketed or having a "big" title. this means that so far most of the people who got it are the classic ("hardcode") strategy players who are much much more likely to like it

still, i think we had so far 1 (one) complain thread and that tells something...

Tuberski · April 9, 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
I'm thinking/hoping that was a joke on Tuberski's part.....?

Yes and no. Space Sharks just seem a like a silly name for a space monster.

I can't stand games with a lot of silly names and such.

It's a simple prejudice, I admit, but I can't seem to get past it.

Plus, I don't think my wife will go for me getting another space game a month after MOO 3.

ACK!

vmxa1 · April 10, 2003, 01:02

Probably Bad saw to many rerunof of SNL with the Land Shark.

PDifolco · April 10, 2003, 03:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

Yes and no. Space Sharks just seem a like a silly name for a space monster.

I can't stand games with a lot of silly names and such.

It's a simple prejudice, I admit, but I can't seem to get past it.

Plus, I don't think my wife will go for me getting another space game a month after MOO 3.

ACK!

Well, edit the data and call them Borgs, Great Old Ones or whatever

!
To appease your wife you can either put GC CD and manual in the MOO3 box

, or return Moo3 to your shop